Please consider changing ability acquisition.

[RedFeather]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><font color="#006600" face="Garamond" size="4"><font color="#99ccff">I've started a topic titled "suggestion with the best of intentions" that more accurately addresses what I've felt could be improved.</font><font color="#99ccff"> </font> <font color="#99ccff"><i>Thank-you for all your feedback! You all are a great community to be a part of!</i></font><span><font color="#99ccff"><i>:smileyvery-happy:</i></font> </span></font>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <span class="date_text">07-07-2005</span><span class="time_text"></span> The idea of mysteriously gaining an ability, when I ding in the middle of a zone, is not as imaginative and engaging a system as I would have hoped an MMO would have by now. Everquest 2 has gorgeous graphics, as well as a very well thought-out crafting system. It is extremely important to consider that spell/ability acquisition through basic leveling is an out-dated, restrictive concept, which also needs to be revamped. I've noticed that every 10 levels I have the ability to choose from a number of spells and abilities (many of which are variants of abilities I've already gained).  I would feel it to be far more an engaging/exciting system if every level, my character has gained, I could go to a number of trainers thoughout Qeynos/Freeport (even TS, Nek or Everfrost!), at which point this NPC trainer would offer my character a choice of two quests. One quest, for example, would reward me with the "Direct Damage" version of Heretic's Demise, the other would reward me with the "Damge Over Time" variant. I could only choose one quest! These do not in anyway need to be complex quests, although it would be nice to have some which do not involve "kill x of x". It would allow a player to feel a sense of personal accomplishment in the tailoring of how their character grows in it's abilities. I've discussed this with many players in-game on the Neriak, Lucan and Antonius servers. They have all been very interested in such an idea, yet suggested that I posted it in order to bring it to the developer's attention. If it is not at all possible to implement such a concept, please give a response as to why not, as a number of players I've talked to would be more than willing to sit down and try to work out every kink such a change would inevitably create. Thank-you very much for reading over this, more than likely, poorly structured post. <span>:smileysurprised:</span> <div></div><p>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <span class=date_text>07-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:32 PM</span>

[RedFeather]

A distinction could also be made as to what variant of the spell/ability you have gotten through it's name. ei: Receiving a "Powerful Direct Damage" version of a spell from NPC Wilven would give your character "Wilven's Searing Blaze".     Receiving a "Weakened Damage Over Time / Mitigation Debuff" variant from NPC Valhal would train your character in the use of "Valhal's Crippling Blaze". I'm sure some incredibly imaginative ideas from others could help flesh out this rough concept. <div></div>

[Xaviou]

no.<div></div>

[Midomiko]

While it may seem appealing to some people to have to quest for every skill they ever earn in their class, it just is not very casual-friendly and would likely be ignored as a possible change to how the system goes currently.  If you were a player who had only an hour here or there every couple days, would you honestly want to be forced to deal with a time-consuming quest *every* time you leveled just to be able to advance your character?  I also know there are players out there who play the game without having any desire whatsoever to do any of the quests ingame (outside of writs and the odd heritage) because it bored the living hell out of them, forcing them to do something they do not like would make them more likely to not even bother doing the quests, then eventually quitting completely due to not being able to advance their character.  Gameplay should be fun for everyone, and forcing people to do something they do not wish to do just to simply level/gain skills is taking away that fun.

[GreenDemon]

<P>Take it a setp further, each lvl instead of getting your app 1 version, require people to go buy thier new abilites off the broker or city merch,  I'm sure my sales would soar as an alchy <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>-----------------------------------<BR>Deca 50 Rat Zerker of Grobb</P>

[Vostik]

<DIV>Although having to complete (even the simplist of) quests just to gain abilities would be burdensome at the rate of one to two a level, I do like the OP's concept. As much as I love the EQ games, I've always been disappointed in the "every character ends up the same" aspect inherent to a strictly level based system (A wizard is a wizard, guardian is a guardian, etc... only race and equiment shows a minimal realistic difference between). Granted you gain certain choices with the traits/training... but they are rather sparse and harldy "character defining". Adding some diversity to the skills that can be recieved would be a neat step in the right direction for any game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To give an example... When you think of a "Wizard" you do tend to think of the various ones from sources of lore... but something I liked about these characters was the defining traits that they had. One could be an ice wizard... the other a fire wizard. It would be neat to have similar choices in abilities but things that would set you apart. For example being able to choose between a heat, electrical, or cold varient of a particular level's direct damage spell. Not only would you be a little more specialized in a particular area (or your choosing) but you would also be able to tailor your character more to your concept. (I've always been fond of throwing lighting myself... <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Never did care much for fireballs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The various fighter abilities in the different trees that require a two handed vs. one handed weapon are another example that I would like to use. If I want my character to be a swordsman using light blades (or two handed heavy blades for that matter) it seems somewhat illogical that I would even devote my time to learning a skill that requires a weapon I have zero interest in. Instead alternatives could be offered that might be specific to one or two handed weapons. (Notice I said weapons and not swords. That way they could be irregardless of weapon class such as crushing vs slashing)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Quite honestly though, as much as I would love to see a change like this (I'm very partial to open ended character development games or skill point based games) it's unlikely to be something we would see in EQ2 as it would be a fairly fundamental balance and play shift... not to mention you would have to allow people to respec entire characters, etc... The problem wouldn't be developing it. It would be balancing it out.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Vostik on <span class=date_text>07-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:02 PM</span>

[RedFeather]

<DIV><STRONG>Perhaps as you perform writs for a particular faction and gain prestige you could be given access to the choice of variants to spells you have already gained, similar to the choice already given every 10 levels? Or perhaps the variant choices already given every 10 levels could be expanded to allow this choice every 5?</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently my character's abilities are only growing as I level up. My character is just a cookie-cutter mold based on their class/subclass. Once I journeyed past level 20, I've felt like I've no longer been given an adequate amount of options in how my character advances. I just level up over and over getting a new spell each level. The only decisions I seem to be making is what equipment I wear, and very rarely does that equipment change how I play my character.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>I just want a little more freedom in how my character grows past the class/subclass choices.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks for the feedback, I welcome more! :smileyhappy:</DIV><p>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <span class=date_text>07-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:08 PM</span>

[RedFeather]

<P>I would also like to point out that World of Warcraft uses a different system for characters to acquire new spells or abilities.</P> <P>It's set up that if a character wants to learn a new ability, they must first meet a lvl requirement, then head to a trainer in order to learn the ability.<BR>Abilities are also learned through alocating points into each classes "skill tree". Each class has 3 unique skill trees, where when points received from gaining levels are put into each tree the result is either augmenting an already learned ability or learning a entirely new one.<BR>A priest focusing entirely on their "holy" skill tree, heals far more effectively and has some different abilities, than a priest who puts points into both their "holy" and "shadow" skill trees.</P> <P>This allows a player to continue to tailor there character's abilities to their liking regardless of how high in level they are. There is always an avenue of character customization to explore at any level.</P> <P>I know of a many players from World of Warcraft who choose to grind rather than complete quests. They still enjoy how spells/abilities are acquired in WoW, despite their aversion to simply grinding through levels.</P><p>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <span class=date_text>07-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:43 PM</span>

[Armill]

<P>I would like that distinction thing fire and ice wizards stuff like that...like a wizard who could do a quest to focus his abilities on the poweres of fire and thus when using fire spells he would be that more potent with them and when using a spell of the opposite element he would do less damage. Than you could have like a wizard who chooses to go down the straight and narrow path and choose neither and thus not be as good a focused wizard in either field but is more capable of using both types...</P> <P>I would also like to see that with my assassin and stuff, like sword mastery...maybe I want to focus on mastering the usage of two weapons or maybe i want to master the usage of just one sword...and become like a duelist of sorts...things like that are neat in my opinion.</P>

[RedFeather]

<DIV>Perhaps something can be implemented in the upcoming expansion which would allow another "class direction choice" to be made to all characters at level 50?</DIV> <DIV>As posted above it could be something as simple as allowing a wizard subclass to concentrate on a particular element's effectiveness over another.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>This would allow a choice of further character customization, even so late in the game. :smileysurprised:</DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <span class=date_text>07-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:10 PM</span>

[EtoilePirate]

<span><blockquote><hr>Vostik wrote:<div></div> <div>As much as I love the EQ games, I've always been disappointed in the "every character ends up the same" aspect inherent to a strictly level based system (A wizard is a wizard, guardian is a guardian, etc... only race and equiment shows a minimal realistic difference between). Granted you gain certain choices with the traits/training... but they are rather sparse and harldy "character defining". Adding some diversity to the skills that can be recieved would be a neat step in the right direction for any game.</div> <div> </div> <hr></blockquote> I agree.  I hate how the only differentiation between me and every other assassin on the server *might* be a 10x skill choice or racial trait we picked differently.  The thing I miss most in EQ2 from just about every other game I've played ever is the ability to choose skills.  Even a simple binary either/or choice twice as often as we get them would help with differentiation.  As it stands, there seems (in most classes) to be a Right, Useful set of skills to pick when presented with choices, and a Stupid set.  And even then there aren't many choices.</span><div></div>

[CanisLupos]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> RedFeather1975 wrote:<BR> <I>I have also posted this in the Test Server forum, as I am not entirely sure which forum this type of topic should be posted. If there is a more appropriate forum, please let me know. Thanks!</I><BR><BR>The idea of mysteriously gaining an ability, when I ding in the middle of a zone, is not as imaginative and engaging a system as I would have hoped an MMO would have by now.<BR><BR>Everquest 2 has gorgeous graphics, as well as a very well thought-out crafting system. It is extremely important to consider that spell/ability acquisition through basic leveling is an out-dated, restrictive concept, which also needs to be revamped.<BR><BR>I've noticed that every 10 levels I have the ability to choose from a number of spells and abilities (many of which are variants of abilities I've already gained).  I would feel it to be far more an engaging/exciting system if every level, my character has gained, I could go to a number of trainers thoughout Qeynos/Freeport (even TS, Nek or Everfrost!), at which point this NPC trainer would offer my character a choice of two quests. One quest, for example, would reward me with the "Direct Damage" version of Heretic's Demise, the other would reward me with the "Damge Over Time" variant. I could only choose one quest! These do not in anyway need to be complex quests, although it would be nice to have some which do not involve "kill x of x".<BR><BR>It would allow a player to feel a sense of personal accomplishment in the tailoring of how their character grows in it's abilities. I've discussed this with many players in-game on the Neriak, Lucan and Antonius servers. They have all been very interested in such an idea, yet suggested that I posted it in order to bring it to the developer's attention.<BR><BR>If it is not at all possible to implement such a concept, please give a response as to why not, as a number of players I've talked to would be more than willing to sit down and try to work out every kink such a change would inevitably create.<BR><BR>Thank-you very much for reading over this, more than likely, poorly structured post. <SPAN>:smileysurprised:</SPAN><BR> <P>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <SPAN class=date_text>07-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:34 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with the entire post.  Good thread, and well written.<BR>

[RedFeather]

<P>Everquest 2 is my first MMO, and I'm not entirely familiar with the concept of AA's, but I get the understanding that you earn points which you can allocate into various abilities. From reading a very interesting topic concerning AA's, I've seen that their introduction brings the apprehension of unbalancing gameplay.</P> <P>But what if how AA's change your character was altered?</P> <P>I would be very excited if it were at all possible to implement such a system into Everquest 2 which, <EM><STRONG>rather than trying to strengthen one's character, it would be used to simply add a bit of uniqueness/flavour to each character</STRONG></EM>. :smileyhappy:</P> <P>I really do feel, if done properly, this would give many players something to think about, and look forward to experiencing, while leveling up their character. :smileysurprised:</P>

[Moorgard]

<P>Character diversity is frequently talked about in MMOs, and understandably so. We who play these games spend a lot of time developing our characters, and we want them to occupy a unique place in the game's universe. For some that might mean having a unique physical appearance, an uncommon race/class combination, rare equipment, possessing unique abilities, or several of the above.</P> <P>The problem is, diversity is constantly competing with the notion of balance. There are several MMO principles at work here which are inherently incompatible with one another.</P> <UL> <LI>Principle #1: Players want to be unique as long as being unique can't be perceived as being less ideal at an important role than someone who made a different choice. Thus, uniqueness cannot be allowed to exist without quantifiable parity.</LI> <LI>Principle #2: If one choice is perceived by the community at large as being better than another, those who made a different selection will want a way to undo their choice and pick a different option.</LI> <LI>Principle #3: If two choices are identical in effectiveness, many will complain that the choice isn't significant anyway and that developers are lazy for having made it this way. This is a common criticism of the archetype system, despite the fact that the flip side of the coin is argued even more vehemently (that ClassA is not enough like ClassB).</LI> <LI>Principle #4: Whenever you introduce decision points, a significant number of players will ask for or silently research information on what is considered the best choice to make. Hence threads asking things such as "What is the best class to play?" or "What gear is best for me?" or "What spells should I spend my cash to upgrade?"</LI></UL> <P>Ultimately, it comes down to this: While many players express a desire to make choices and be unique, what most of them really mean is they want to always make the right decision, and if by some chance they should make the wrong one, you darn well better give them a way to undo that decision.</P> <P>EQ2 already provides you a number of ways to make a unique character. Lets look at some of them and see how they interact with the principles above.</P> <UL> <LI>Racial choice. In EQ2, any race can play any class, either inherently or by betraying their home city. Race choice allows you to pick what you want your character to look like. However, races also have distinct stats. Principle #1 therefore causes some players to choose what they statistically see as the ideal race/class combo regardless of appearance. Principle #2 causes some who made what is seen as a less-ideal combination to complain about it. Principle #3 causes those who see stats as meaningless to complain that the choice doesn't matter and races aren't distinct enough. Principle #4 causes posts like "What is the best class for a dark elf to be?" and "What is the best race to pick for a guardian?"</LI> <LI>Class choice. Our class tree ends up in 24 unique adventuring subclasses and 9 unique tradeskill subclasses. Those who want all classes to be equal in all key roles (or at least equally desirable) are fans of Principle #1. If someone comes to believe that another class is better at a given role they care about, then Principle #2 inspires angry posts about imbalance and asking for a way to change to another subclass. If all classes are perceived to be interchangeable, some will say the game is too cookie-cutter a la Principle #3. Fans of Principle #4 tend to pick out a role they prefer (such as tanking) and then try to figure out which class is seen as the best at that role.</LI> <LI>Equipment choice. Players like a diverse selection of equipment to be available with as many unique appearances as possible. However, Principle #1 causes many players to choose to wear whatever gear has the best stats regardless of appearance. Principle #2 causes those who invest time in obtaining non-ideal loot to complain that the gear isn't worth their effort. Principle #3 causes complaints that loot isn't diverse enough in effectiveness. Principle #4 inspires posts like "What is the best BP for a monk to wear?" and "What dual-wield weapon is best for holding aggro?"</LI> <LI>Ability choices. Every two levels, players get to pick from a list of traits, traditions, enemy mastery, and training spells. The desire to make the ideal choices causes the development of templates or skill trees thanks to Principle #1. Those who want the option to respec after every selection are adhering to Principle #2. Some say most of the choices are meaningless, illustrating Principle #3. People who post wanting opinions on the best templates to follow are demonstrating Principle #4 at work.</LI></UL> <P>No matter how much effort developers put into offering diversity, there are competing factors inherent in the makeup of most gamers that make true diversity undesirable. Why? Because the ultimate truth is this: Diversity is often defined by adversity.</P> <P>What do I mean? Diversity comes when someone gets the short end of the stick and overcomes it anyway. Nobody would choose to have our legs severed, but the story of the double amputee at the local high school who becomes a state wrestling champion inspires all of us. Nobody wants to lose an arm, yet a one-armed master swordsman (such as Benedict in Zelazny's Amber books) is cool and heroic. So then, let's add to our list:</P> <UL> <LI>Principle #5: Though few would intentionally put themselves at a gameplay disadvantage, those who do so and succeed often become legends.</LI></UL> <P>Now all of this babbling isn't to say that it's pointless to try and add choices to MMOs, because it isn't. But at the same time, it would be naive to claim that min/maxers don't represent a significant portion of the player base, because like it or not, there's a min/maxer inside all of us to one degree or another.</P> <P>The key for developers, then, is to offer enough flexibility to allow unique choices to be made while understanding that there will never be enough choices to please those who want true diversity and too many for those who want a simple path to being the best. As ever, we will continue to do our best to balance these competing desires and make a game that's fun to play without needing to analyze it as much as I just did. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[btennison]

<P>Well, certainly can't say you didn't cover all the bases! :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>My only problem with the system has been the timing of when I have to make a decision. Seems like most of them are made after I ding a level; the choice screen comes up; I get jumped by a new group of mobs and have to make a quick choice before I die, LOL!</P> <P>Well, that's a lot like my RL too! :smileyvery-happy:</P>

[SaintJere]

respectfully, that is a surprisingly cynical reply.   i dont think that players have any complaints about thier powers selected thus far (with noted but minor exceptions).  i think the concern is that there are too few available choices for a player to select from. the other concern i see is that the majority of decisions a player makes will have little or no impact on them whatsoever. racial mastery nukes are all currently bugged and do trivial damage.  where as the racial mastery rage buffs are too strong in my opinion, allowing tanks to become invulnerable with little effort.  however once a character hits thier 30's and especially thier 40's it is very unlikely they even use the rages for most things anymore. racial choices are by and large also fairly trivial.  a wizard with a mana pool of about 3k is only getting 90 more mana from the 3% bonus off of a racial bonus to power.  the vast majority of players would not want to take a short term buff that gave them some advantage out of combat such as slightly increased hp regen.  so all players pick stats, and so they should.  once they have thier stats they pick 3 percent to power or health, and in some rare cases they pick a tradeskill one.  the problem is that the powers for the different races are near identical in most cases and thus serve little to diversify characters.  the barbarian power for less crushing damage is a noteable exception to this, as is the similar froglok power. on the subject of best powers too take, the in combat power regen over the HP regen and power and hp pool size buffs is the best thing to take in all cases.  the only possible exception is for seriously high end tanks who actually need that extra 100 hp they could get instead of the bonus power regen.  but even if thier finger slips and they take something useless like the hp regen it wont actually make any difference. the  training spell upgrades are helpful and well done.  there is indeed a reason to take different ones dependant on the role you envision for your character.  /bow to the devs on that one. in conclusion, take and two level 40 plus tanks of same class and compare them.  the only thing that matters at all among thier character choices is which training spells they took, nothing else they choose will make any appreciable difference.  since all the training choices tend to be good, the only deciding factor on which one is better is thier gear.  there is too little opportunity for variety among characters of the same class.  with the coming combat changes i suspect that this will be addresses to a certain degree. i know for a fact that balancing a game like an MMO is a difficult prospect, and in my opinion game balance is number one, number two, number all priority.  but assuming balanced choices were possible, then EQ2 could definately do with more variety between members of the same classes. thank-you for your well though out reply to this subject moorgard.  now if only you would nerf bony grasp and ring of cold!!! yt tyrant <div></div>

[Cloudeq2]

<P>Allow me to sum up for Moorgard......</P> <P>"No"</P> <P><img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Jokes aside, balancing player diversity versus balance without resorting simply to cosmetic changes is a tough ask. If you accomplish this, getting your player base to unanimously accept it is impossible!</P>

[Deadjest]

<DIV>The presnt 24 class's are not diverse enough in themselves which is what brings alot of the desire for more class branching.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Make the roles stronger for each class so that they can be  desired and vital to any group or raid.</DIV>

[sliderhouserules]

This game was designed and marketed with the archetype system at its core. I appreciate your post Moorgard as it seems to be re-emphasizing your commitment to this system, despite the fact that a portion of your customer base is asking for something else. It is follow-through on "promises" like this that will keep me paying my monthly subscription fee. <div></div>

[troodon311]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <P>Principle #4: Whenever you introduce decision points, a significant number of players will ask for or silently research information on what is considered the best choice to make. Hence threads asking things such as... "What spells should I spend my cash to upgrade?"</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Moorgard, I agree with your entire post except for this part.  We need to do this sort of research because, frankly, a whole lot of spell upgrades in this game are literally worthless.  I'm not wasting a rare on some crap upgrade, it doesn't matter how "unique" it may make me to have an Adept 3 version of Pact of Cheetah with the same cast time, same reuse time, same duration, same run speed increase, and a larger power cost.</DIV><p>Message Edited by troodon311 on <span class=date_text>07-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:36 PM</span>

[Zuuljin]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote: <P>...<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow!  Awsome writeup Moor.  I think if anything this shows that they do in fact "get it" and are definantly thinking of ways to make the game better.  </P> <P><BR></P>

[Pastorio]

I find 2 maxims to be a core problem with MMO communities: The empty can rattles the most. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. <div></div>

[bathory610]

in eq1 i played a erudite sk to 60, and i felt reallly unique, sure i really wasnt optimal at anything lol but ill always remember this character because i was actually different than everyone else, camped for sword of pain at lvl 12 sigh i know, but i spent 25 hrs in that hole with nowhere to go but to jus sit and wait, this also made me very different and gave me a slight edge...... i lvled a berserker to 50 and nowhere down the line did i feel at all different or unique, everyone had the same armor and the same few items it was really kind of boring, in the old days u where known for ur skills at maintaining aggro or pulling etc., not to say u still cant suck at ur class in this game, there really isnt any room to shine for the most part. hell i was playing my friends lvl 50 warlock as well as him after 10min, all he said was "here push this sequence of buttons over and over again, and if u get bored here this button makes people into frogs", lol i even think he had a macro for late 40s group play, all he ahd to do was steer. i belive mg's heart in the right place and they are definetly moving in the right direction and the game in its current state will most likely be a very different one a year from now, but i just hope they dont think that racial traits, of which only like two offered at each tier is remotely useful further stifling the original intent, are enough to really achieve any sense of diversity.

[RedFeather]

I'm pleased that several people took the time to read this topic, as you're responses have helped me to understand a little more about what I feel is really missing here.  I realize that my suggestion at more choices in character abilities was a gut reaction to trying to fill a void in the game which fit the confines of the game mechanics. My true wish is something of a much broader scale. Upon self-evalulation, I've started to understand that it is the absence of role-play defining choices past level 20 that has put me into this rut. I felt excited in knowing that there was a branch in the path ahead of me, a sense of the unknown in my character's development. It helped fuel my desire of character exploration. My disappointment in the current character development system would be best compared to a RL scenario of chosing a career at the age of 20 and knowing that past that age, your life is set to automatic. It is scripted, and there is little room for your input as to your role in the world, from that point on. I'd say the only reason I'm playing Everquest 2, is to appeal to my instinctive need for exploration, with the emphasis of exploration on both environment and character. The latter, I feel, Everquest 2's current system does away with after the subclass choice. Granted there is new content to explore, and there are always new quests being added, but the overall formula is coming across as something quite restrictive, rather than the truly life-long role-playing experience, I was hoping for.<span>:smileysad:</span> What if that shadowknight of yours, took a break from adventuring and decided to become a bounty hunter? Or your scout decided at some point in his life to dabble in the smuggling of stolen goods from one city to the next? It would be a character defining path that would alter  their world and how they are played. And it would be all up to you as to what path he/she would choose, and how long they would follow it.<span>:smileysurprised:</span> I really need more time to think about all this. I wouldn't have gotten this far in understanding what I felt was really missing, without all your valuable feedback. Thank-you again everyone, your feedback is always welcome! And thank you very much Moorgard, for taking the time to write such a detailed response! <div></div>

[Violator]

Must suck to be a dev. As the saying goes: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." <div></div>

[fornarina]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div> <p>Character diversity is frequently talked about in MMOs, and understandably so. </p>(CUT!)<hr></blockquote> Moorgard, I agree with your exceptional analysis. But as strange as it could sound, it is simply not nice to see millions oif weapons with the same Damage Rating based simply on tier. That IS "cookie-cutting" at its worse. I think most of the players would feel ok with weapons with slightly different Damage Rating. At level 25 I am pestered by 22.4 (or it is .6?) weapons, while I'd love to see 21.3, or 23.2 or 22.9 As I said, slight differences, but please don't make me feel that it is exactly the same thing for my char to use a Halberd, a Zweihander or a Harpoon! Just gimme the "impression" that I got slight differences but gimme! What's the point of a decimal number if weapons damage jumps from tier to tier and the damage ratings are all so similar? Anyway I am not complaining. But just keep in mind that most of us don't demand differences in numbers but in LOOKS! I can live with the idea of a group of 6 with similar equipment (if not identical), but please give me more and more ways to LOOK different. While I agree that too much colours could kill the setting atmosphere, I am sure you could add looks and tints in a reasonable way and keep in mind that coloured and odd-looking armours are present in a respectable saga like Martin's Cheonicle of Fire and Ice, definitely one of the most harsh-looking fantasy setting I read recently, and the bit of colour in there doesn't affect the atmosphere at all (on the contrary, it adds A LOT). --</span><div></div>

[Andric_D]

Well there is another aspect to this in that the classes and levels are (allegedly)designed to go up to  over 100. We are still - even at level 50 - near enough 'n00bs' as far as the final levels will be - if they diversified all classes totally now they wouldn't have much to add later on which woudl also cause massive complaints in future expansions. <div></div>

[Deadjest]

<DIV>Mooreguard is correct to a degree about further expanding the diveristy of class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But its incorrect concerning the class's we now have.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EQ2 has a grand system that is highly underused.   If it was used properly I highly doubt you would see nearly as many posts asking for more if the present class's were better designed for a role vs group and raiding.   You would just have the trickle of the standard nay sayers no matter what you do and everyone else would be playing the game and not feeling a  need to come to the boards.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tanking vs DPS is a very tiny arena to play in and leaves little reason to have as many class's as we now do have.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fix the class's we do have at our present lvl or as they go up and you will pretty much watch a drop in posts except where it concerns buggs.</DIV>

[Kaldor]

<DIV>I agree with Moorgard on his analysis. It seems to be a no win situation for the devs but I'm not sure that this is a must.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the race choices: There should be a real difference between the races. Maybe we see a lot of ogre / troll warriors then but it is "logical" to me that a troll have more hp than a ratonga and a ratonga is much more agile than a troll.<BR>The racial abilities should are a nice idea but could be implemented in a diffrerent way. Why let the players choose them if it's a racial abiliy? Just let the ability grow over the levels. A race is more agile, so let the char get another x agi every level instead of let the player choose agi+5 from list. Forget those short duration buffs, they are nearly useless with reuse timers from 10 to 30 min.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On equipment : Why not implement a weapon and armor "frame" with basic stats and sockets like in other games like Sacred? The frames could be very equal in damage until you upgrade them with runes or something to make them to your special item? The tradeskiller classes could be some kind of source for basic frames and runes, quests and loot could be other. That would also a way to give your char the chance to be equipped for the eye. Just let the "frame" decide the look and maybe a special effect for rare runes (the EQ1 epic effect come to my mind).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[up]

While I agree that your principles are correct, I think they're not complete.  They all rest on the assumption that some choices are better than others.  In fact, some choices are not always better than others, just different.  For example, when I became a level 40 ranger, I had a list of choices of various combat upgrade skills or the ability to move at full speed while stealthed.  I took the last one because it feels so good to move fast while stealthed.  But I'm sure a lot of other people chose one of the combat upgrades, because the ability I chose is less useful in groups. Certainly, if I have a list of choices available to me, I'm going to make a well-informed choice and try my best to pick the best option.  I'd be dumb not to.  But I'd love to see more choices in the game where one choice is not clearly better than another.  I could focus on skills to make myself a good group member or on skills to make myself a better soloer.  You could choose between stealth or might- and we do that, when we choose classes. In a way, crafting is kind of like this.  There's a lot of argument about which type of craftsperson is the best, but really, every type has a role.  If there are not enough jewelers, more will be created, because they're needed, at least to make skill upgrades.  Adventuring is similar in some respects, but it is different, too.  Everyone has some attack capability and some damage capability, and only the amount of it changes.  Healers are a little different in that they can heal, but really, that's in many respects similar to better armor.  If you get hit and get healed, it's not that much different from not getting hit.   Mages do more damage and have less defense, but the difference is a matter of degree. It would be interesting if adventurers got to choose skills which not everyone could do.  Forests where anyone except rangers and wardens get lost, demons which only priests and crusaders can profitably fight, a Vale of Illusions where entering without an enchanter is akin to suicide.  Right now everyone can do everything, just or less well. As far as principle #5 goes, it seems to me from my informal survey that the 'difficult' and 'very difficult' options are very popular in the game.  Maybe I'm wrong- SOE can measure this better than I.  But as some people will venture into the hardest instance they can stand, just for the challenge, I'd think that many people would make a choice for a deliberately harder adventuring path if they could get some credit for it.   If you had a suffix title for people who deliberately chose a more difficult path,  'Moorgard the Iron Man', or something similar, you could gain admiration or disdain from people because of what you'd chose and what you'd accomplished.  Not everyone would choose it, and some would choose it and quit in disgust, but it would make people different. I think there are a lot of ways to add diversity to the game.  Characters can be balanced, like they are now, or they can be different and as impossible to compare as apples and oranges, or they can be deliberately weaker but get fame for it.  The only method which really doesn't work is one where they're all similar but some are better than others. <div></div>

[Feaw]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote: <UL> <LI>Principle #3: If two choices are identical in effectiveness, many will complain that the choice isn't significant anyway and that developers are lazy for having made it this way. This is a common criticism of the archetype system, despite the fact that the flip side of the coin is argued even more vehemently (that ClassA is not enough like ClassB).</LI></UL><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I really have to ask my self what kind of person would only want a choice if it makes them better than others.   Biggest monkey in the pack mentality?  Then again Ive played with people who run a parser in almost every battle they do and constantly hold up to the group who is doing the <EM>best </EM>dps.  Im not sure I understand why the consept of allowing effectivness to be crippled by comparison to other choices is even a consideration.  Sure some people ask for it but, is it a nice thing to do?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Deadjest]

<P>Hmmm rare for me to say this but, Well done Upon.   </P> <P>You have brought somthing new and needed to the table.   </P> <P>This game should always stive to be ahead of the pack not run with it.</P>

[RedFeather]

Maybe I have an attentetion defecit disorder?<span>:smileysad:</span> Anyhoo, I've realized it's not my place (or job) to try and change EQ2 to appeal to a larger audience. SOE knows what they want, and it sounds like a lot of customers are happy! I'm guessing this is the point in the game's life where, those who aren't into how things work in this game, trickle away. The population may feel less than comfortable at times, but I feel I have the luxury of sitting back and watching how everything in the MMO genre pans out. Happy gaming all! Take care. <span>:smileyhappy:</span> <div></div>

[Auron_ff10]

<DIV>If u want a system like this wait til vanguard comes out in the near future, its got a similar skill aqquisition system to the one suggested, but its far more variant...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>u gain base skills that u NEED at lvl up</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>any extras are learnt through quests or through having the skill used on u by an enemy</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It works for any player since casuals dont have to get the skills since theyre not integeral to their role, they simply add utility and maybe a slight advantage or more options in a situation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I cant see SOE implementing a system like this though since theyd have to rethink the skill system AGAIN and i dont want that and im sure as hell they dont.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nice idea but its too late to do anything about it now.</DIV>

[syscam]

Hello all, Great topic. this hits very close to home. I have been an avid EQ'er for 5 + years. I just love the community and respect the diversity of opinions posted. My thoughts are, In addition to a lack  "class" defining quests or subdivisions. There are no additional Armor quests after the level 20 AQ's. In my opinion these "armor quests" promote group activities in specific zones. IE: Some players may never enter Fallen Gate otherwise. However it would be nice if  these armor peices were more "class" tailored. {why would a scout class want their gloves to increase their wisdom?}. I would love to see more "Defining" quests. These quests do not have to change the functunality of the character, they only have to create the illusion of individuality. Like the "Ice Wizard" vs the "Fire Wizard" or perhaps a monk that specialises in punch vs kick style fighting. {the damage output is compareable yet the appearance is altered}. I would like to see additional Armor quests for characters in the upper 30-40 range. This will encourage players to group together in zones that contain drops for these quests, but you must offer drops/quests that appeal to "individuallity", allow choices in style, color, and tailor them to class, not just armor type. {FYI druids do not use the same stats as monks.} just a few of my thoughts. Thank you. Happy Hunting , syscam

[RedFeather]

Syscam, about armour quests for higher levels, that would be a great idea!Nothing that would be considered mandatory in gaining any kind of edge, just something to consider doing for fun, to see what each piece would look like. Maybe imbue a piece with a "joke/flavour spell", /shrug.I was also wondering, has anyone encountered quests with multiple paths? I don't remember doing a single one! It would be nice to have certain quests with multiple paths. They could offer varying levels of difficulty, faction changes, or different rewards for each paths outcome. They could also be repeatable with significant timers on them, just in case there are people who'd complain that they made the wrong choice.<p>Message Edited by RedFeather1975 on <span class=date_text>07-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:51 PM</span>

[Zork Phobos]

<DIV>Principle #6: Those who feel that the choices they have made have been retroactively altered by changes to key portions of the game, and who then also in equitable fashion would like a chance to retroactively make minor changes to themselves. Principle #6 inspires people not to want /respec at every 10 levels, but when some of the basic fundamentals change for the game we would like the /respec option to keep our choices our own. Like Corwin from the amber chronicles not content to have his decisions made for him by his know it all family, now or in the past.</DIV>

[Mathe]

<P>There are 4 roles in the game: Fighter, Scout, Mage, and Priest. Your choice of what class and subclass you take helps create a character that is suited to your style of play.</P> <P>It is absurd to argue that they should make the system more customizable so you can be unique, because with the number of people playing the game, the odds of being unique, no matter how horrible or good or unique you try to make your character, there will be at least several dozen people if not several hundred with the exact same character.</P> <P>As for having extra customization to define your playstyle, it doesn't work as well. All Fighters are meant to do respectable DPS and tank, your class and subclass merely allows different ways of doing so. Warriors rely mainly on mitigation, Crusaders have spells backing them up, and Brawlers rely on avoidance. Your choice of class and subclass help you create a character that plays as your playstyle prefers.</P> <P>I don't agree with having 2 seperate versions of every skill, that will just create a lot of game unbalance and add nothing to the game. It won't even work in a lot of cases, like heals, because your class and subclass determine what kind of heals you get, so it would be redundant to put that option in unless you want to eliminate class uniqueness (like letting Clerics use Heal over times).</P> <P>What you propose is redundant, your class and subclass determine the playstyle you are going for, having the skills also do that would water down the classes, end up with just different cookie cutters, and cause a whole lot of confusion because you will have no idea what to expect from people if say a Guardian focuses solely on offense and ignores defense through skill choices.</P> <P>Not making classes too unique is important in MMOs, you need to at least have some idea of what to expect when you invite a random person to your group. Look at SWG which allows a lot of choice with characters and cookie cutters aren't very prevalent. What you get is a game where all battles basically involve no strategy and just having a group of people all open fire at the same time (there is room for more strategy than that in the game, but it really is not neccessary). Combat is just horribly uninteresting in SWG (in my opinion, I'm not going to argue with people who like it, just in my opinion with my own taste), every fight is just "shoot, shoot, shoot," there is no need to tank since everything dies so fast, healing is secondary and not neccessary in many cases, and basically every class just nukes it until it is dead with whatever their choice in combat skills are.</P> <P>As for buying skills or doing quests for them, I really don't think they should in this game. For one thing, quests for every skill rather than just giving you it is tedious and unfair for new people since the old players got theirs for free. Buying skills from merchants (not upgrade just to use them) is rather unfair, some classes can get by with a lot less skills than others, which hurts classes that need a large variety of abilities a lot more than other classes. It also leads to a lot of people who don't even have the basic skills they need to do their job. I've seen White Mages when I used to play FFXI that only have Cure I to pretty high levels, but you couldn't tell that in any way unless they told you that. A lot of people aren't able to afford skills or just simply won't bother to get them in those systems. At least getting the basic app I skill is good, besides aren't some of the higher level scrolls quest items and you buy others so it isn't like those aren't implemented in some form.</P>

[DarkLegacy2005]

<DIV>EDIT: Changed my mind</DIV><p>Message Edited by DarkLegacy2005 on <span class=date_text>07-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:35 AM</span>

[Ydiss]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote:<BR> <UL> <LI>Principle #1: Players want to be unique as long as being unique can't be perceived as being less ideal at an important role than someone who made a different choice. Thus, uniqueness cannot be allowed to exist without quantifiable parity.</LI> <LI>Principle #2: If one choice is perceived by the community at large as being better than another, those who made a different selection will want a way to undo their choice and pick a different option.</LI> <LI>Principle #3: If two choices are identical in effectiveness, many will complain that the choice isn't significant anyway and that developers are lazy for having made it this way. This is a common criticism of the archetype system, despite the fact that the flip side of the coin is argued even more vehemently (that ClassA is not enough like ClassB).</LI> <LI>Principle #4: Whenever you introduce decision points, a significant number of players will ask for or silently research information on what is considered the best choice to make. Hence threads asking things such as "What is the best class to play?" or "What gear is best for me?" or "What spells should I spend my cash to upgrade?"</LI></UL><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Until I saw you'd added your own, I was about to say you'd forgoten Principal #5: Players who fall under all of the above and yet refuse to allow these to inhibit their enjoyment of the game anyway.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I love being as unique as possible in any game but I do not enjoy being perceived as weaker because of this. However, playing a dark elf warrior in EQ1, being widely viewed as one of the weaker choices at the end-game (and, of course, one of the rarer ones) did not prevent me from playing the game for far too long. I still did well in my role but I knew full-well that if I had chosen a troll I would have been much more effective. I still enjoyed the game, though.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I also prefer any decision I make to be the most beneficial to me, or at least one that sits well within the role I wish to play. I recently chose my Dirge level 20 training song and, in my estimation, made a very bad choice. The song's "bonus" is extremely weak and I wished that I had chosen another of my four choices. However, I am not likely to let that get me down because I really do enjoy playing my character so much that one silly ability isn't going to ruin it for me. I will gratefully accept my up-coming chance to recpec my traits and duly choose another ability, with the hope that it will be more to my liking. Without that safety net I would still not lose any sleep. I intend to be the best damned Froglok dirge there is on my server, nonetheless.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for Principal #3, well I've always been a strong supporter of the architype system simply because I endured the falacy of playing a "heroic" warrior in EQ1 that couldn't even defeat a solitary creature that was over 3 levels lower than me. I also had to endure the fact that I had to subscribe to the lunacy and, by the time I had reached level 50, fully believed that warriors should be that way and all they were there for was to hit the taunt hotkey for all eternity. The architype system brought balance and enabled me to be a hero and do heroic things, without making me be more or less heroic than any other sub-class except for my own actions and my own ability. I am fully aware of the flip-side to this and that, largely, most traits and abilities are arbitrary in their nature and really don't offer much in the way of gross diversity; truly, my froglok dirge will be much the same as any other class in over-all ability. But, yeh. I'll take that over druids quad kiting next to a warrior LFG all day.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And, finally, whilst I do strive for unique choices I also seek information to ensure that the choices I make are good ones. What I won't do, however, is force myself to make such decisions just because people tell me I should. For example, the vast majority of comments that I see would tell me that scouts should dual wield and they cannot tank. All the more reason for me to buy a decent shield and one-handed weapon so I can tank for my group when there's no fighter handy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The original poster and those that have agreed with and added their own thoughts have touched on ideals that have been brought up here since before beta. Skill trees, having to visit a trainer to gain spells and abilities, having wizards of fire and wizards of ice and so on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Skill trees are as much cookie cutter as choosing a guardian to tank instead of a bruiser. No matter how diverse the decision, how balanced it remains, there will be people who will tell you that a guardian is better than a bruiser. Just as much as someone will tell you a healer who chooses to focus on a skill branch that improves healing abilities is more potent than one who chooses to focus on the skills that improve their offensive abilities.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having to visit a trainer to gain abilities each time you level? Well, hardly an original idea from the off, it makes virtually zero difference to gaining the ability as you level. Besides the need to gate and double click on an NPC. Having to complete a task to gain that ability? Is there not enough quests already in EQ2? The idea has merit but the need for it really isn't there. Yes, everyone gets the same abilities if they choose the same sub-class. By making them do the same tasks prior to each ability (especially if said task is as simple as speaking to an NPC in town) how does this provide more depth to the player-base and how does it enable enhanced individuality?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the idea that sub-classes branching off ito further <EM>sub</EM>-sub-classes would introduce more diversity, such as a wizard who chooses a fire line of spells over one who chooses ice, is a non-starter. The very fact that the 24 individual careers we already have to choose from, each with the additional variant of race, is not enough for some people would mean that to multiply that by a factor of two would simply mean those people would want even more choices. Having a wizard choose between fire and ice would be no different from having a wizard choose another class. There would still be thousands of fire wizards and there would be thousands of ice wizards. None of each type would be any different to any other of the same type. In fact, the only way to really reach ultimate diversity without having someone complain that it isn't diverse <EM>enough</EM> would be to have thousands of class choices. And then people would complain that there's too many and that they're too similar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'd be the first to say that the visuals in this game are not unique enough. Not for my liking. Despite the additional graphics introduced to armour in previous live updates, there still isn't enough class distinction between what we all wear. By and large, one must inspect another player to know what class they play, unless you see them actually perform their abilities in which case most astute players could spot the fury from the rogue.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But, from someone who has played all three healer classes and is now enjoying his dirge, I can tell you there is more than enough diversity in this game if you just let yourself enjoy your role in the way that <EM>you </EM>want to. Never have I let my enjoyment of a game be governed by things like skill trees or the way spells upgrade. The bit where you actually play the game is important to me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And, Moorgard. You're right that there are some players who go out of their way to be unique and get past that to become legendary. There's probably a lot more players out there who just choose to be unique and enjoy the game because of that fact. As you might agree, there's far more to developing your character than choosing your race and class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And no amount of diverse hard-coded decision making is going to change that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>