Any NEW CLASSES? Where are the BEASTLORDS?!? [Archive]

Kampfkoloss

09-17-2007, 05:48 PM

Hi.Don´t missunderstand me, i like all the new races every few months, it brings a bit fresh wind to norrath, but hey why no new playable classes? i tried every class(exept of Paladin, hehe sorry), and im tired of playing another mage/priest/fighter/scout with just another race with a few new abilities and different stats. What about new classes? In EQ1 there came some, like the Beastlords, Beserks.Espescially the Beastlords could be VERY interesting, with so many races...think of what pets Frogloks(Frogs?<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ) and Faes(Bees?<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ) would get...Or little Dragonpets for Sarnaks... <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />So much potential...I´m really missing my Troll Beastlord from EQ1 <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />But hey i would be happy about every new class-playing at least something really new, not same class just with different race...

Deadrus

09-17-2007, 06:22 PM

EQ2 has more Classes then EQ1 has. They want the classes balanced before they add any new ones. The odds are theyll never be perfeclty balanced therefore no new classes and therefore no beastlord. And even IF we got a beastlord it wouldn't be close to how it was in eq1. it would be nerfed to death. Sooo then everyone who wanted a beastlord so very badly will complain that its not good and then stop playing them. Yay so much for a new class.... anyway. there it is. p.s. ALL THIS IS REAL

Enever

09-17-2007, 06:45 PM

What the above poster said. It's a very hard thing to brign a new class in the game, it would knock the balance off of the other classes.We have 24 classes.... that is enough for me, heh.

Xalmat

09-17-2007, 06:49 PM

Short answer, no new classes anytime soon.Long answer, <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=347001�" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Lyndro sums it up perfectly.</a>

Leatherneck

09-17-2007, 06:54 PM

If you're really missing a beastlord, play a shaman (either defiler or mystic) and take heavy melee abilities. That's probably the closest you're going to get for a good long time.

Virulence

09-17-2007, 07:03 PM

what exactly did BLs bring to the table in EQ1?? They seemed to be completely extraneous. Are people clamoring for BLs solely due to nostalgia or is there a gameplay element here?

Cusashorn

09-17-2007, 07:17 PM

<cite>Virulence wrote:</cite><blockquote>what exactly did BLs bring to the table in EQ1?? They seemed to be completely extraneous. Are people clamoring for BLs solely due to nostalgia or is there a gameplay element here?</blockquote>People want them back because they were rediculously broken in EQlive. (Broken is another way of saying extremely overpowered). Not even nerfing thier abilities were enough to reduce them.People just want to play as a fighter class who relies more on his pet for damage than on his own abilities. They want an overpowered class that isn't balanced like everyone else.

DataOutlaw

09-17-2007, 07:28 PM

You can beat the dead pony but don't beat the dead horse...dead horse, dead horse...

Kampfkoloss

09-17-2007, 10:01 PM

Man, all what i wante to say is that i would like a new class, not an overpowered one-pls read what i write and don´t think what i might have written. EQ2 is a few years old, after so long time i just think its time for something new.Again i say i played all classes exept of Paladin, and i really wanna play somethhing new. Why shall i play a sarnak with the classes I allready played? And i liked the Beastlords in EQ1 because of their pets, i liked my small crocodile, it looked nice a big troll and his small croc-was quite a nice soloplayerclass and had some groupbuffs ok, but it was something NEW-the beserk was just a bit different to the warrior but not really new, the Beastlord had real new things-like tanking and than regen and leting ur pet tank-ever tried to tank with a necro or elementalist?

ke'la

09-18-2007, 06:30 AM

Please read the following:<cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums:I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle...Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them.</blockquote>To Sum that up, when a certain guy with red skin and horns starts Wintering in Florida because its to cold where he lives then we will see a new class.

Lightstrider

09-18-2007, 07:01 AM

OH...MY...GOD.Some things never end. I'm starting to think there should be a thread ranking most common topics started again and again. This could be number one.

steelbadger

09-18-2007, 08:50 AM

We have 24 classes. WoW has 9 (?) classes. EQ1 has 16 (?) classes. Vanguard has 15 classes. Age of Conan has 23 (?) classes. I don't know of another game with so many class choices. And Beastlords? Lets just not go there.

BarrowBott

09-18-2007, 11:05 AM

liveja

09-18-2007, 11:25 AM

<cite>Wy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Man, all what i wante to say is that i would like a new class</blockquote>Yea, but it's not as easy as simply adding a new class. The Archetype system as it stands now is "balanced", class-numbers-wise. Each of the four archetypes has 3 classes & 6 sub-classes within it.So, where exactly are you going to put *any* new class? A brand-new archetype, maybe? But is it then going to be in that brand-new archetype by itself, or are you going to add 5 other sub-classes, & two other classes, to that archetype so that it's the same, structurally, as all the other archetypes?Beyond that, as others have said, this question has already been answered by the devs. So, don't take it personally when I taunt you & pelt you with rotten tomatoes. I'm only doing what the devs themselves said we should do, if the subject of new classes ever arose again./taunt/pelt<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Nerull

09-18-2007, 03:12 PM

A day or two after release of the Fay expansion two guides held one of their sit down and tell a story type events. While far to long ago to actually have a log to paste from the gist of the story and short conversations allowed after were this;The history and training of Beastlords was not actually lost with Luclin. There is at least one still alive who possesses this knowledge.Now this provokes a cheer from my guild and we all got psyched up for RoK to bring them back but apparently that is not to be. Maybe next years expansion.

ke'la

09-18-2007, 03:17 PM

<cite>Nerull wrote:</cite> <blockquote>Maybe next years expansion.</blockquote><looks at Lyndro quote again><cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums:I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle...Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them.</blockquote>Um, Nope

JasonArgile

09-18-2007, 06:02 PM

<cite>Nerull wrote:</cite><blockquote>A day or two after release of the Fay expansion two guides held one of their sit down and tell a story type events. While far to long ago to actually have a log to paste from the gist of the story and short conversations allowed after were this;The history and training of Beastlords was not actually lost with Luclin. There is at least one still alive who possesses this knowledge.Now this provokes a cheer from my guild and we all got psyched up for RoK to bring them back but apparently that is not to be. Maybe next years expansion.</blockquote>First.... THANK YOU!!!!! even if your lieing ... or they lied to you... i dont care... Hope keeps me going... i miss my beastlord so much.. In EQ1 i played every class... and got bored with the basic nature of them... every thing was about stats and plat... they had no reall sense of self... and some times i just wanted to play by my self... and the necro was ok for that... but i just couldnt get attached to it... sure it was asskicking... truely the most powerfull class in the game... and still was when i left... people on these forums talk about beastlords beeing overpowered ... but at no time were they ever able to do the dmg or have the group utility a necro could. and in pvp forget it... 1 min fight if the necro takes his time... rooted and dead... most of the time... what i ... and many others really want in a beastlord is personality!!! ... a mage pet is a thing a construct a spell you crafted... a necro pet is the same... a beastlords warden though... you start out ... no pet at all... you have to Earn your puppy...was barb beastlord... and you get this little Puppy ... small tail waggin follwing you around... some times running off for no reason at all and you would have to chase it down... and this was your WARDER... Your Equal in all things... your warder did DPS .. you did Dps side by side your warder tanked you tanked side by side... there were so many rollplay ideas that came in to a warder it was a Blast.. sitting in the bone feild out side cabilis playing Fetch the bones.... and more than any thing els... a warder was friend from day one it grew with you... you didnt chose between DPS pet TANK pet Scout pet depending on your groups needs you had same warder every time... just just tossed up diffrent kinds of Buffs and armored him and your self up... i had had a dream ... in eq1... of makeing a halfling beastlord!!!!!...... really i dont care if the beastlords come out and they are the weakest class inthe game... and never get groups nerf the hell out of it if it will bring them back ... as long as i can solo white mobs and do the same solo quests as any one els.. you will get nuthing but cheering from me. i just want my puppy back.

LordPazuzu

09-18-2007, 06:48 PM

Bah, screw balance. I think they should just add the class already. The Beastlord class is probably the most commonly requested item on the forums. BL threads pop up as soon as the previous one falls off the first page.

Dendro

09-18-2007, 07:19 PM

They are never going to add beastlords to eq2. Accept that fact. If you can't bear to go another day without having a furball following you around, just create a mystic, spec AA fully for melee/pet (AGI and Weapon Mastery). There are other ways (defiler of course, druid or ranger with charm animal AA) but melee mystic is the closest you'll be able to get.

JasonArgile

09-18-2007, 07:44 PM

<cite>Dendro wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are never going to add beastlords to eq2. Accept that fact. If you can't bear to go another day without having a furball following you around, just create a mystic, spec AA fully for melee/pet (AGI and Weapon Mastery). There are other ways (defiler of course, druid or ranger with charm animal AA) but melee mystic is the closest you'll be able to get.</blockquote>None of that is even Close to what the beast lord provided. did you not read what i wrote at all....its not about having just another spell cast DoT with a visual representation. i dont want to Charm a pet. i want a Warder to Raise from a small puppy to a full grown adult... as for giveing up.... NEVER@!!@!@... ive left eq2 several times for several months... first to go back to eq1... the grafix and lack of imersion killed me after experiencing eq2... also... i had been away awhile and wasnt willing to cough up the 150$ needed to catch up on all the expantions and that made game play dificult. then pvp came out on eq2 and i was back in it... and again playing every class ... none really feeling like they fit well for long.... then i got wind that WoW had its hunter class... omg dwarven beastlords... beastlords with GUNS!!!... that was cool pick any of hundreds of thousands of posible pets... each with there own quirks... and even better... they lved on there own exp bar... you had to feed them and train them... it was utopia... but still.. Guns? i liked it at first then it got on my nerves not beeing able to get in to the thick of it... like playing necro or conjy again... pet attack..stand back and kill... after lv 30 thats what it became... then... the people... dont get me wrong there are lots of good people and bad people in both eq2 and wow but i was constanly bombarded with 12 year olds and people who act like theyre still 12.. leet speak and Noob pwonage i just couldnt handle them... eq2 just has a more grown up crowd .... so here i am... Hopeing... praying... Begging... dev's... even a post that said... hey Due to popular demand and your insesant whineing we Are considering bringing back the beastlords... enough to keep Hope from Dieing... other wise im gunna keep lving up a toon.. hitting cap... getting stuck in the raiders rut... deleting it going to another server and trying other games in the hope that they may fill the little puppy sized hole in my heart.

Zabjade

09-18-2007, 08:35 PM

Please! If they were going to balance the classes a Monk would have more uncontested avoidance then a plate tank and avoidance would mean something even verses Epics, also the Strength line would be useful.I doubt Balance is the true issue. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

ke'la

09-19-2007, 12:50 AM

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please! If they were going to balance the classes a Monk would have more uncontested avoidance then a plate tank and avoidance would mean something even verses Epics, also the Strength line would be useful.I doubt Balance is the true issue. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Accually the issue is that they ARE NOT balanced and until they can figure out HOW to balance them without turning Monks in to Gods or Plate tanks into [Removed for Content] then you WILL NOT SEE a new class. And this is just ONE of the balance issues they need to workout. The horse is dead(has been sence launch), and has rotted into compost and your still beating it. I think its time to move on.The MAIN issue however keeping ANY new class out of the game is like an above poster said they can't add just ONE class they have to add atleast two and more likly six or it will accually break the system they set-up on day one. This is not like other games where they can just add a new class, its also got to have an Archtype and Sub-Class as well as an Opposed class otherwise it won't work.

Zabjade

09-19-2007, 02:05 AM

<cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please! If they were going to balance the classes a Monk would have more uncontested avoidance then a plate tank and avoidance would mean something even verses Epics, also the Strength line would be useful.I doubt Balance is the true issue. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src=" width="15" height="15" />" width="15" height="15"></blockquote>Accually the issue is that they ARE NOT balanced and until they can figure out HOW to balance them without turning Monks in to Gods or Plate tanks into [Removed for Content] then you WILL NOT SEE a new class. And this is just ONE of the balance issues they need to workout. The horse is dead(has been sence launch), and has rotted into compost and your still beating it. I think its time to move on.The MAIN issue however keeping ANY new class out of the game is like an above poster said they can't add just ONE class they have to add atleast two and more likly six or it will accually break the system they set-up on day one. This is not like other games where they can just add a new class, its also got to have an Archtype and Sub-Class as well as an Opposed class otherwise it won't work.</blockquote>I know that but I see absolutly no dev response to even consider balancing things is my point. Might as well slip the Beastlord in as the Neutral Brawler. This falls under "Might as well can't dance" in my book <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

daeaorn

09-19-2007, 08:21 AM

Beastlords are not coming back people so stop asking for them and we are not getting any new classes until the current ones are balanced.

JohnDoe058

09-19-2007, 08:42 AM

Wow, no one has ever posted anything on this topic before! I'm so glad that someone gave some attention to this sorely neglected subject!!!!

hellskitten

09-19-2007, 09:05 AM

<cite>Algazeed@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>We have 24 classes. WoW has 9 (?) classes. EQ1 has 16 (?) classes. Vanguard has 15 classes. Age of Conan has 23 (?) classes.I don't know of another game with so many class choices.And Beastlords? Lets just not go there.</blockquote>24 classes? Changing name of few spells/CAs doesnt doesnt make the classes different. Boil it down to the mechanics and we dont really have that many classes. Thank the cries for balance for that. Balnce=equality=everyone is the same.... why dont we just have one class that does everything.Either way.... no reason to bash the guy for expresing his feelings. Not like he just said "duh.. beastlord would pwn!" He gave emotional reasons for his want. Wether or not he gets it is upto the devs (who are probably pretty busy atm,) leave it at that.I hope ya get your little warder! Its refreshing to see someone that wants to play with feelings not a incessive need to "pwn" all.

vochore

09-19-2007, 10:43 AM

we will never give up on our attempts to bring beastlords back to this game....i wish i could find the thread but back wene eq2 was still in development beastlords were still in the game...it was going to be a monk that at a specific level could chose to go to a pet class i believe.so as always...bring back the beastlords......nuff said..ps...any 1 remember the bug in eq1 that for a day made all the beastlord pets 15 feet tall...i think i might still have screen shots of that.

Lightstrider

09-19-2007, 12:55 PM

Part of me hopes they bring back beastlords but make them the wimpiest, most useless class in the game. Ah, what sweet irony that would be.

liveja

09-19-2007, 01:31 PM

<cite>vochore wrote:</cite><blockquote>we will never give up on our attempts to bring beastlords back to this game</blockquote>Then the developers will never give up taunting you & pelting you with rotten tomatoes./taunt/pelt

ke'la

09-19-2007, 02:04 PM

<cite>hellskitten wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Algazeed@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>We have 24 classes. WoW has 9 (?) classes. EQ1 has 16 (?) classes. Vanguard has 15 classes. Age of Conan has 23 (?) classes.I don't know of another game with so many class choices.And Beastlords? Lets just not go there.</blockquote>24 classes? Changing name of few spells/CAs doesnt doesnt make the classes different. Boil it down to the mechanics and we dont really have that many classes. Thank the cries for balance for that. Balnce=equality=everyone is the same.... why dont we just have one class that does everything.Either way.... no reason to bash the guy for expresing his feelings. Not like he just said "duh.. beastlord would pwn!" He gave emotional reasons for his want. Wether or not he gets it is upto the devs (who are probably pretty busy atm,) leave it at that.I hope ya get your little warder! Its refreshing to see someone that wants to play with feelings not a incessive need to "pwn" all.</blockquote>First off part of the quoted dev responce above is about making classes feel more unque while maintaining some balance. Secondly, mind listing the classes you think are just clones of other classes?I can only really think of a couple that maybe close to being clones and I am willing to bet if you asked people with lvl 70s of both they will tell you that while simalar the playstyle of the two classes are differant.

Jekar

09-19-2007, 02:10 PM

I for one would love to see the Beastlod class in EQ2. If they did I am sure I could get my wife to play then. I miss the Beastlord alot. I loved having a pet and sending it into a fight then going in after it to help fight the mob. They need to have the Beastlod class here and I will tell you this.....as long as this thread goes on I will sign it./SIGN

Vanilla1

09-19-2007, 04:47 PM

HiI think one way that a Beastlord could be implemented is by basing it on a conjorer. However make it melee rather than spells. A Conjorer has a tank pet and does some nice damge with spells. A Beaslord could be based and balanced around this. Infact swap the pet graphics, and add in some CA's instead of spells , with similar damage values, and i would think all would be good. You could put them in leather and maybe reduce their damage a bit to compensate.Anyway I know a melee Mystic could be an option, but the pet is so weak, that most tend not even bother to summon.I certainly dont believe that basing a Beastlord on the summoning classses would make them overpowered. They were in EQ1 , but than again in EQ 1 Clerics could not solo a green mob, so its all relative to a degree. Alot of other classes have recieved upgrades since EQ1 and rightfully so. Ghostwolf

Finora

09-19-2007, 05:12 PM

<cite>JasonArgile wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dendro wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are never going to add beastlords to eq2. Accept that fact. If you can't bear to go another day without having a furball following you around, just create a mystic, spec AA fully for melee/pet (AGI and Weapon Mastery). There are other ways (defiler of course, druid or ranger with charm animal AA) but melee mystic is the closest you'll be able to get.</blockquote>None of that is even Close to what the beast lord provided. did you not read what i wrote at all....its not about having just another spell cast DoT with a visual representation. i dont want to Charm a pet. i want a Warder to Raise from a small puppy to a full grown adult... </blockquote>Heh, I actually somewhat disagree with you. A shaman's pet isn't just another spell. It's the same pet, you can get it with your first aa point and it levels as you level. It's very much like a beastlord, particularly with a melee mystic. The main differences are that mystics can really heal and their pets can't really tank (unlike old eq1 beastlords).And as pointed out, Lyndro (a dev) has already made a statement about beastlords coming back. So I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for it. I'm also convinced that if they ever do come back it'll be in the form of an achievement line for an existing class, not as a whole new class. 24 classes is plenty enough. They can't even keep up with changes they make to the classes they already have (mystics have stuff that was broken in update 37 that still hasn't been addressed or even acknowledged by anyone who can fix the problem =p ).

JasonArgile

09-19-2007, 05:33 PM

<cite>Vanilla1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>HiI think one way that a Beastlord could be implemented is by basing it on a conjorer. However make it melee rather than spells. A Conjorer has a tank pet and does some nice damge with spells. A Beaslord could be based and balanced around this. Infact swap the pet graphics, and add in some CA's instead of spells , with similar damage values, and i would think all would be good. You could put them in leather and maybe reduce their damage a bit to compensate.Anyway I know a melee Mystic could be an option, but the pet is so weak, that most tend not even bother to summon.I certainly dont believe that basing a Beastlord on the summoning classses would make them overpowered. They were in EQ1 , but than again in EQ 1 Clerics could not solo a green mob, so its all relative to a degree. Alot of other classes have recieved upgrades since EQ1 and rightfully so. Ghostwolf</blockquote>all of This is totaly acceptable in my book... the Make them the make them the weakest class in the game posts are fine with me...i dont care... they were Never as powerfull as people think... fromthe very begginging there was constant necro vs beastlord vs Mage... and at no time ever was the beastlord beating out the necro... we traded places from time to time beating out mages... the only thing Overpowered about a beastlord was the fact that it could Solo better than most other class's .... then again so could necro's and mage's ... but necro's and mage's were Loved in groups where as most people didnt know what to do with a beastlord.

JasonArgile

09-19-2007, 05:38 PM

<cite>Finora@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>JasonArgile wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dendro wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are never going to add beastlords to eq2. Accept that fact. If you can't bear to go another day without having a furball following you around, just create a mystic, spec AA fully for melee/pet (AGI and Weapon Mastery). There are other ways (defiler of course, druid or ranger with charm animal AA) but melee mystic is the closest you'll be able to get.</blockquote>None of that is even Close to what the beast lord provided. did you not read what i wrote at all....its not about having just another spell cast DoT with a visual representation. i dont want to Charm a pet. i want a Warder to Raise from a small puppy to a full grown adult... </blockquote>Heh, I actually somewhat disagree with you. A shaman's pet isn't just another spell. It's the same pet, you can get it with your first aa point and it levels as you level. It's very much like a beastlord, particularly with a melee mystic. The main differences are that mystics can really heal and their pets can't really tank (unlike old eq1 beastlords).And as pointed out, Lyndro (a dev) has already made a statement about beastlords coming back. So I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for it. I'm also convinced that if they ever do come back it'll be in the form of an achievement line for an existing class, not as a whole new class. 24 classes is plenty enough. They can't even keep up with changes they make to the classes they already have (mystics have stuff that was broken in update 37 that still hasn't been addressed or even acknowledged by anyone who can fix the problem =p ).</blockquote>I really like the AA choice idea.. it think it's something the devs would really do If for example you start mysic and was able to say Go to a Beastlord trainer, with the Learned AA points, hideing in a cave some where... and train... bingo bamo melee mystic with a pet that has muliple Stances... tank and dps... decrease there use in a group as a healer... and make the pet NOT A GHOSTDOG but something Race specific... or even a choice of diffrent skins for all races...i would Love it Even Better make the AA line give a title that said Beastlord... like the AA lines that give archer and what not.....

vochore

09-19-2007, 05:52 PM

<cite><hr /> JasonArgile wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vanilla1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>HiI think one way that a Beastlord could be implemented is by basing it on a conjorer. However make it melee rather than spells. A Conjorer has a tank pet and does some nice damge with spells. A Beaslord could be based and balanced around this. Infact swap the pet graphics, and add in some CA's instead of spells , with similar damage values, and i would think all would be good. You could put them in leather and maybe reduce their damage a bit to compensate.Anyway I know a melee Mystic could be an option, but the pet is so weak, that most tend not even bother to summon.I certainly dont believe that basing a Beastlord on the summoning classses would make them overpowered. They were in EQ1 , but than again in EQ 1 Clerics could not solo a green mob, so its all relative to a degree. Alot of other classes have recieved upgrades since EQ1 and rightfully so. Ghostwolf</blockquote>all of This is totaly acceptable in my book... the Make them the make them the weakest class in the game posts are fine with me...i dont care... they were Never as powerfull as people think... fromthe very begginging there was constant necro vs beastlord vs Mage... and at no time ever was the beastlord beating out the necro... we traded places from time to time beating out mages... the only thing Overpowered about a beastlord was the fact that it could Solo better than most other class's .... then again so could necro's and mage's ... but necro's and mage's were Loved in groups where as most people didnt know what to do with a beastlordim thinking by that last line you have there you never did any high end raiding in eq1"and im not taking a shot at you"i played a beast lord from day 1 of luclin and in high end raids beastlords were very much needed mainly for there buffs and mana regen spells....ever trya xegony raid without atleast 3 beastlords feeding the healers mana.</blockquote>

Neiloch

09-19-2007, 06:08 PM

Anyone see something familiar in this screen shot?<img src="http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4619/56269408wc8uj5.jpg" alt="" border="0" />

Wildmage

09-19-2007, 08:52 PM

<cite>Neiloch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Anyone see something familiar in this screen shot?<img src="http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4619/56269408wc8uj5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></blockquote>yeah it looks just like the guards in Qeynos and Freeport who patrol with wolves/undead dogs. Your jumping to a conclusion.

09-19-2007, 10:52 PM

The best way I see them implementing anything like the "Beast Lord" class is to have it be a sub-class specialization or specialist class... Kinda the way the class AA skills now work... but with even more detail. Beastlords are really a melee specialized Shaman, nothing more, nothing less. So when the next set of AAs are released, they could look at adding a shaman line that lowered your healer stats by around 50%, but increased your melee combat abilities and let you duel wield and pretend to be monks... bam... Beastlords.

Vlahkmaak

09-19-2007, 11:44 PM

I think my EQ1 Troll Beastlord's alligator warder chewed the [Removed for Content] off some of the devs eq1 ranger toons few times to many so I accept full responsibility for the beastlord not being allowed to enter the Norath of EQ2 and the responsibility for rangers (and other predator scouts) now being fully balanced against other classes. My bad: sry devs.Bring back the BEASTLORD!!!.

Solaran_X

09-20-2007, 12:50 PM

<cite>Wildmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Anyone see something familiar in this screen shot?<img src="http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4619/56269408wc8uj5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></blockquote>yeah it looks just like the guards in Qeynos and Freeport who patrol with wolves/undead dogs. Your jumping to a conclusion.</blockquote>Well...that is a scaled wolf, which the Iksar Beastlords used as pets.Personally, I hope they never bring back the Beastlord. Part-Mage/Necro, Part-Monk, Part-Shaman, Part-Enchanter...it was a ridiculously overpowered class.

JasonArgile

09-20-2007, 01:02 PM

<cite>Neiloch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Anyone see something familiar in this screen shot?<img src="http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4619/56269408wc8uj5.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="200" /></blockquote>even if it is just mob patroling ... it gives me hope.... and the scaled wolf Looks AWSOME!!!!!!

rumblepants

09-20-2007, 02:33 PM

I think all of this can be solved if you simply give us Shamans different spiritual companions based on race and fixing your Weapon Mastery bug. Ha!

Neiloch

09-20-2007, 04:43 PM

Well in the screenshot that NPC is also carrying a sword and axe which aren't really monk weapons, but they are in a duel wield configuration. though the armor looks very leather like. Beastlord as a scout type class perhaps?BTW this is where i got the pic, larger one avail there: <a href="http://eq2vault.ign.com/screenshots/full_res.php?ss=2117" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://eq2vault.ign.com/screenshots...res.php?ss=2117</a><a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2vault.ign.com/screenshots/full_res.php?ss=2117" target="_blank"></a>People seem to forget that they don't have to be exactly like the EQ1 beastlords. Not like if they brought them in they would have to be just as overpowered or have every skill available to them that the EQ1 ones had. Frankly the berserker's in EQ2 don't remind me of EQ1 berserker's at all. There are a couple of other classes that are also quite a bit different from their EQ1 counterparts. I wouldn't mind seeing beastlords a scout type class, just with a little shaman stank rubbed on for buffs and a pet. Pet shouldn't be able to tank at all though.

Solaran_X

09-20-2007, 06:22 PM

<cite>Neiloch wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well in the screenshot that NPC is also carrying a sword and axe which aren't really monk weapons, but they are in a duel wield configuration. though the armor looks very leather like. Beastlord as a scout type class perhaps?BTW this is where i got the pic, larger one avail there: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2vault.ign.com/screenshots/full_res.php?ss=2117" target="_blank">http://eq2vault.ign.com/screenshots...res.php?ss=2117</a><a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2vault.ign.com/screenshots/full_res.php?ss=2117" target="_blank"></a>People seem to forget that they don't have to be exactly like the EQ1 beastlords. Not like if they brought them in they would have to be just as overpowered or have every skill available to them that the EQ1 ones had. Frankly the berserker's in EQ2 don't remind me of EQ1 berserker's at all. There are a couple of other classes that are also quite a bit different from their EQ1 counterparts. I wouldn't mind seeing beastlords a scout type class, just with a little shaman stank rubbed on for buffs and a pet. Pet shouldn't be able to tank at all though.</blockquote>True. But if the EQ2 version of Beastlords weren't as strong as people remembered the EQLive versions, we'd see thousands of "OMG!!!1!one! U nerfed BSTs!!!1!one!" threads, whining about how weak and watered down they are compared to their EQLive versions, and how they have less utility or less DPS, etc., etc.Similar to how people who played Necromancers in EQLive felt when playing an EQ2 Necromancer. A ghost of their former selves.

Tamo

09-20-2007, 11:19 PM

I'm gonna try to answer both questions with out causing paranoia or hurting feelings 1. No 2. DeadI hope that helps

Cocytus

09-21-2007, 02:18 AM

Beastlords were an idiotic concept. And we reeeeeeally don't need new classes, anyway. Seriously.

Zabjade

09-21-2007, 02:37 AM

<cite>Cocytus wrote:</cite><blockquote>Beastlords were an idiotic concept. And we reeeeeeally don't need new classes, anyway. Seriously.</blockquote>A rather sweaping statement, however from a lore perspective they can't have all died it is just, well throws off the suspension of reality for me I never liked sweeping situations like this. Wether it be a Races is inherantly good bad or neutral and never will anyone buck the system. This is why I think they should bring back the Beastlords. It doesn't have to be a big begining either.The class CAN be balanced before implimenting, as for the rest of the classes they will never be totaly ballanced as far as I can tell from they way the Developers handle monks's avoidance issues. Not to mention the poor Torabours.

Besual

09-21-2007, 03:43 AM

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cocytus wrote:</cite><blockquote>Beastlords were an idiotic concept. And we reeeeeeally don't need new classes, anyway. Seriously.</blockquote>A rather sweaping statement, however from a lore perspective they can't have all died it is just, well throws off the suspension of reality for me I never liked sweeping situations like this. Wether it be a Races is inherantly good bad or neutral and never will anyone buck the system. This is why I think they should bring back the Beastlords. It doesn't have to be a big begining either.The class CAN be balanced before implimenting, as for the rest of the classes they will never be totaly ballanced as far as I can tell from they way the Developers handle monks's avoidance issues. Not to mention the poor Torabours.</blockquote>May be there is one BL left. But he is a little bit...strange:You say: Hail, last beastlord.Last beastlord say: Mooo.You think: ???You say: Hail, last beastlord. Last beastlord say: I said "Mooo". You think: ??? You say: Hail, last beastlord. Last beastlord say: Look, I'm just a cow. Ok?

swerve126

09-21-2007, 05:41 AM

Awesome, bring back the Beastlord!!!

Killerbee3000

09-21-2007, 06:29 AM

I dont think we need new classes... fix the ones we have allready first pls thx....

Solaran_X

09-21-2007, 07:18 AM

Here is what happened to the Beastlords. You see...they were so convinced of their own unbeatable superiority that when Kerafyrm, the dreaded Sleeper, awoke they all rushed up to Luclin to challenge him to a duel. Now...being the unholy offspring of Naggy and Vox, Kerafyrm whooped all the Beastlords righteously with one slash of his claw.Then he blew up Luclin...just to make sure.The end. They're extinct.

Cocytus

09-21-2007, 07:45 AM

As I said....Beastlords were an idiotic class concept. I'm gonna stand by that. Monk shaman ftl.I'm really hoping the dev that said it at Fanfaire was sincere, although there were technically two that answered, and both meant the same thing.Dev 1: "No."Dev 2: "We'll put in more classes when the first 24 are happy."

Xanrn

09-21-2007, 07:59 AM

The Sleepers is NOT the child of Naggy and Vox.25 Classes when raids are limited to 24 spots is stupider than launching with 24 classes and 24 raid spots.Let me quess whos spot they would take, Brawlers.

JohnDoe058

09-21-2007, 08:53 AM

<cite>vochore wrote:</cite><blockquote>so as always...bring back the beastlords......nuff said..</blockquote>Bring BACK the beastlords? THEY WERE NEVER IN THIS GAME.EQ1 <> EQ2. Nuff said.

Kalem

09-21-2007, 11:09 AM

Many loved the beastlord in EQ1 because it was one of the few classes that made soloing possible without having to run around with uber cleric and enchanter buffs. There were other classes who soloed better....the necro and druid come to mind. But the beastlord gave the melee oriented characters a good chance at soloing.Were they over powered? Heck no. There were lots of draw backs to them, one being that they were a jack of all trades, and another class could fill their role in a group with more efficiency.Can they make a Beastlord fit in this game? I do think so. They could squeeze them into the brawler archtype. But it won't happen anytime soon. Dispite a few developers vocaly stating that they wouldn't be adding any new classes to the game, the time will come, in a few years, when the game has aged some more, and the market gets further saturated with more MMORPG games, that the future EQ2 development team will most likely consider new ways of rataining players or bringing back old ones.For those that think the Beastlord would be overpowered, remember...in EQ they were thought of as being uber only because they could solo well...that's something EVERY class can do in this game. Weaker than a monk/bruiser (less dps alone), but on par when the pet is added. Combat arts instead of spells, with the exception of the pet healing. It's not too crazy. Since we have the anoying archtype system, they can be made as tanks...with really low dps until you factor in the warders dps. The beastlord should be allowed to have the warders hate transfered to themselves so they can hold agro, and have the option to keep the hate on the warder when not tanking.The classes will NEVER be balanced period. No one group of people will every be satisfied with changes made to their class. Balance has as much to do with perception than it does with numbers. Bringing in a new class (new to those that never played EQ, and still new to those who did, since an EQ2 beastlord would no doubt be different. In EQ2 we don't inherit our parent classes spells), will breath some fresh air into the game when it needs it most...2 to 3 years from now. For those that may think the game won't be around that long...just take a look at EQ1, still going strong.

liveja

09-21-2007, 11:24 AM

<cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can they make a Beastlord fit in this game? I do think so. They could squeeze them into the brawler archtype. </blockquote>There is no such thing as a "brawler archetype". Brawlers are one class of the FIGHTER archetype.But, let's ignore that for the moment. Let's say that Beastlords were added as one (class? sub-class? Which would it be????) element of the FIGHTER archetype.First, you have to decide if Beastlords are going to be a CLASS, or a SUB-CLASS. If the former, then you need to design two SUB-CLASSES; if the latter, you need to design an opposing class, so that they fit within the rest of the class structure.Then -- since the FIGHTER archetype will now be unbalanced by the addition of Beastlords, you need to also design more classes for the rest of the archetypes, so that they'll be balanced with the FIGHTER archetype. & that means adding even MORE balance issues in, when the devs are already bombarded with balance issues.It's simply nowhere near as easy as just adding them in, because it's not just ONE class to add. That concept worked fine in EQ1, which doesn't have an "archetype" system. It would not work at all in EQ2./taunt/pelt

Kalem

09-21-2007, 11:44 AM

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can they make a Beastlord fit in this game? I do think so. They could squeeze them into the brawler archtype. </blockquote>There is no such thing as a "brawler archetype". Brawlers are one class of the FIGHTER archetype.But, let's ignore that for the moment. Let's say that Beastlords were added as one (class? sub-class? Which would it be????) element of the FIGHTER archetype.First, you have to decide if Beastlords are going to be a CLASS, or a SUB-CLASS. If the former, then you need to design two SUB-CLASSES; if the latter, you need to design an opposing class, so that they fit within the rest of the class structure.Then -- since the FIGHTER archetype will now be unbalanced by the addition of Beastlords, you need to also design more classes for the rest of the archetypes, so that they'll be balanced with the FIGHTER archetype. & that means adding even MORE balance issues in, when the devs are already bombarded with balance issues.It's simply nowhere near as easy as just adding them in, because it's not just ONE class to add. That concept worked fine in EQ1, which doesn't have an "archetype" system. It would not work at all in EQ2./taunt/pelt</blockquote>Why would you need to design two sub classes? They've already done away with needing to start out as a fighter, then progress to brawler, then finaly to monk/bruiser. That's been gone for quite some time. We still refer to monks and bruisers as brawlers, because that's what they were when the game launched, and they share an AA tree by that name. Adding another class that possibly shares that AA tree isn't too far fetched. A beastlord would start out as just that...a beastlord. Not as a fighter. Why would you need two subclasses? To balance out good and evil? It would be a neutral class. That's new to this game yes, but the changes they made...what a year or so ago...which did away with the starter classes, would allow for this to happen.Why would you have to add additional classes to the rest of the archtypes? How the heck does this unbalance them? Because you'd have more fighter types to choose from? Um, so what? Heck, some archtypes started off with two choices...the summoners...that was it. Some had 4, some 2. Was that unfare? No, it wasn't.I don't think the game is ready for it today, but it will be in a few years, as I mentioned in my post.People need to stop looking at the classes system in this game as something that can never change. We already had one big change done to it, by removing the rediculous starter classes. Adding classes isn't impossible.

liveja

09-21-2007, 11:58 AM

<cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why would you need to design two sub classes? </blockquote>I believe I answered that question already.

Neiloch

09-21-2007, 12:05 PM

You wouldnt need to design two sub-classes, thats stupid. Not even in character creation do have the sub classes showing anymore. anyone who started playing EQ2 recently would have no idea what you are talking about when you say sub-class. its done with, gone, stop referring to it. Meaning you don't need even amounts of classes. Go look at character creation right now, thats the class structure. Oh we better make more ranger types since their falling behind with your logic.I really don't care if they add them or not but your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Maybe it did when EQ2 first launched.

Tamo

09-21-2007, 12:22 PM

Why do people like beastlords so much anyway?Never really understood it... /shrugTo answer about sub-classes..Technically, the arguement that beastlords would need to be a part of a subclass or THE subclass is still legitimate considering that every class in game atm has a Sub-Class AA tree. Not to mention the shard abilities that still exist.. like pathfinding, rescue, intecede, etc. They would have to be included in some form of Archetype of Sub-Class system in order for them to work. They have a hard enough time balancing 24 classes to begin w/ adding 1 would throw it completely off kilter and 2 would only partially lessen the burden that they have currently.

Ama

09-21-2007, 12:22 PM

<cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please read the following:<cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums:I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle...Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them.</blockquote>To Sum that up, when a certain guy with red skin and horns starts Wintering in Florida because its to cold where he lives then we will see a new class.</blockquote>Hey stop talking about my friend Dave. Dave has to vacation here once and a while since it's the only place that suits him. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />*serious* All I have to say really is why the *bleep* are people so hung on beastlords? If you want to solo stuff make an Illusionist. It takes 2-3 minutes to solo some mobs, but it can be done. I completely soloed the Sewn Evil Eye bag quest at level 42 with little to no problems. Right now there are many many ways to solo mobs in this game if that's what everyone is hung up on. My assassin can go in and decapitate then quickly stun a mob followed up by a masked attack then killing blade doing roughly 15-20k damage. I have to say personally I would like to see the Alchemist taken out of the TS route and have them replaced with "Apothecary". The Alchemist would be a neutral class that basically tosses bottels of poison on enemys, enhances the group or hands out mana vials. I loved these guys in EQOA cause they were funny to play and you could always use a "Potion Flinger".

Finora

09-21-2007, 12:27 PM

<cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote>For those that think the Beastlord would be overpowered, remember...in EQ they were thought of as being uber only because they could solo well...that's something EVERY class can do in this game. </blockquote>Actually you are incorrect. They were considered overpowered because 1) they had a pet that was on par with a mage pet. 2) they had mana regen buffs (similar to enchanters though less powerful.) 3) their dps (with pet) was as good as any other DPS class around 4) they could slow & debuff like a shaman (though to a lesser degree). With various buffs as well. If I remembered much more I could probably go on but I haven't played EQ1 in ages now. Add to that the fact that when they were added they basically took over other classes roles in the game, got epics that were directly ripped (and improved upon) from another class, AND could solo with ease. You can see why so many people are completely against beastlords being added to EQ2 as a seperate class.There really isn't a place for Beastlords in EQ2 as a class choice. Not because of archetypes or anything like that, there just is no niche left for them to fill. With 24 classes there is no hole they could be put in to fill that would not either at the best step on the toes of another class or at the worst make another class (or 2 or 3) completely obesolete. Unless at some point sweeping changes are made to EQ2's classes as they exist today (and I'm not talking balance tuning), the addition of beastlords as anything other than an aa line for an existing class will bring great harm to the state of the game.

Neiloch

09-21-2007, 12:39 PM

I doubt any new classes will get added either, at least not any time soon. Might be neat if for kunark like later on in a update or something they added a small AA line called "beastlord" that you could go down and get a pet and pet buffs, but keep the AA cap at 100.

Kalem

09-21-2007, 12:50 PM

<cite>Finora@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote>For those that think the Beastlord would be overpowered, remember...in EQ they were thought of as being uber only because they could solo well...that's something EVERY class can do in this game. </blockquote>Actually you are incorrect. They were considered overpowered because 1) they had a pet that was on par with a mage pet. 2) they had mana regen buffs (similar to enchanters though less powerful.) 3) their dps (with pet) was as good as any other DPS class around 4) they could slow & debuff like a shaman (though to a lesser degree). With various buffs as well. If I remembered much more I could probably go on but I haven't played EQ1 in ages now. Add to that the fact that when they were added they basically took over other classes roles in the game, got epics that were directly ripped (and improved upon) from another class, AND could solo with ease. You can see why so many people are completely against beastlords being added to EQ2 as a seperate class.There really isn't a place for Beastlords in EQ2 as a class choice. Not because of archetypes or anything like that, there just is no niche left for them to fill. With 24 classes there is no hole they could be put in to fill that would not either at the best step on the toes of another class or at the worst make another class (or 2 or 3) completely obesolete. Unless at some point sweeping changes are made to EQ2's classes as they exist today (and I'm not talking balance tuning), the addition of beastlords as anything other than an aa line for an existing class will bring great harm to the state of the game.</blockquote>But that's just it...they had mana regen, but not as powerful as a chanter, they had dps, but it was on par with what the dps classes were putting out...less than a rogue of course, they could slow like a shaman, but not by as much. Which is why I made the comment that they were a jack of all trades, and master of none. While yes, their pets were able to tank like a mages pet, they couldn't nuke as powerful as a mage.All in all, they had enough given to them to allow them to solo, in a game where very few other classes could. However, in EQ2 every single class CAN solo (that statement goes to the person who mentioned if you want to solo role an illusionist.As for finding a role for them, it would be more of the same. They don't need a niche. Like a bruiser or a monk, they would be an avoidance tank. More of the same...just giving people variety.For those asking why are people hung up on Beastlords, it simply boils down to that many of us played them in EQ1, and really enjoyed them, and miss their presence here in EQ2. Imagine if you played your current favorite class in EQ1 and it wasn't ported to this game...you would miss it.I don't think the game needs it. We have plenty of classes as is. I'm just saying they can make it work. I know they won't any time soon. They have their hands full. But as I mentioned a few posts up, I wouldn't be surprised if they announced them 2 to 3 years from now, when the need to breath new life to the game starts to surface.

Kalem

09-21-2007, 12:53 PM

<cite>Amana wrote:</cite> <blockquote>I have to say personally I would like to see the Alchemist taken out of the TS route and have them replaced with "Apothecary". The Alchemist would be a neutral class that basically tosses bottels of poison on enemys, enhances the group or hands out mana vials. I loved these guys in EQOA cause they were funny to play and you could always use a "Potion Flinger". </blockquote>Now that's an idea that rocks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I miss the alchemist of EQOA.

Scigst

09-21-2007, 04:23 PM

nah just put assassins in the rouge tree with swashies and brigs (like it shows on character creation screen) then make a make a ranger pet class.seriously why do we need to create the same beastlords from EQPC?

Vlahkmaak

09-21-2007, 06:21 PM

We are trying to solve this problem the wrong way. The devs claim they don't want to introduce a new class untill the others are balanced. The rest of this conversation applies only to pvp servers. the classes are wholly unbalanced as it is and no sight of any real fixes. Predator scouts and melee spec'd healers are way over powered. Summoners and guardians suck. Even grouped summoners usually drop very fast. Guards are fine grouped but predator scouts are even more overpowered grouped. PVP classes need a major overhual to make them seperate and distinct from their pve counterparts. Since it has been 2 years of over powered classes on pvp servers with no hope in sight for a major fix the "we want to wait until the classes are balanced" arguement holds no water. The beast lord should be intorduced as it was in eq1, a powerful solo class with mixed utility in a group. They are essentially melee spec'd summoners if you think about it. The only classes they would really replace on a raid is maybe an extra wizard because a dps spec'd summoner can parse high in pvp raids but usaly get owned in pvp fights, especially by rangers/swashies/brigs. Since I have already countered the "class balancing" arguement, as weak as it is, my solution is simple. Stop clamoring for the beastlord and start clamoring for NEW DEVS. ...and Bring back the BEASTLORD!!!!

Zabjade

09-21-2007, 07:17 PM

<cite>Vaeamdar@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here is what happened to the Beastlords. You see...they were so convinced of their own unbeatable superiority that when Kerafyrm, the dreaded Sleeper, awoke they all rushed up to Luclin to challenge him to a duel. Now...being the unholy offspring of Naggy and Vox, Kerafyrm whooped all the Beastlords righteously with one slash of his claw.Then he blew up Luclin...just to make sure.The end. They're extinct.</blockquote>I would call :þ on that.! If for no other reason then it is bad storytelling which is illegal in all of the still standing Norratian cities.

JasonArgile

09-22-2007, 01:19 PM

please stop makeing stupid comments without reading the Thread before you post.I for one do not think that beastlord fans would be upset if beastlords were introduced as an AA line... aslong as they were even close to what a beast lord was on the surface.... im not talking about any thing but RP and story line issues here, dont care about Raid parse, dont care about PvP, dont care about grouping, beastlords were a solo class in all sense's, from the very Lore they sprung from the Beastlord was ment to be a Solo class, closer to nature than people... as i said before. in order to be a beast lord. Mystic's would need an AA line that aloud a major change to there trippler down arrow pet. 1 they would need be able to have diffrent skins 2 they would need pets that could take aggro and hold it, and way for the Mystic to take aggro and hold it for at least ONE mob. 3 they would need to reduce the Healing ablity of the mystic for every one but the pet 4 they would need dual wield. ... Now as for USE in groups or raids or any thing els.. frankly i dont care if they have it or not... but with those changes i dont see any reason why a mystic wouldnt still be just as usefull as a Solo/PvP spec Fury or a mele spec mystic is right now.if the devs tweaked an AA line and gave it a Beastlord title I would be happy... as long as there was even a semblence of beastlord there...as for those who dont understand WHY this thread will never die... Imagin if you will Beastlord was In the game.. and zerker wasn't ..... dont you think people who played barbarian zerkers in EQ1 would keep screaming about it...

JasonArgile

09-22-2007, 01:32 PM

For those of you who worry about over powered beastlords... clearly you never played a Necro or conj in this game...my conj at 52 has tanked .. main tanked mines of meldrathmy conj at 52 has Healed ... only healer with pally tank Hidden cachemy conj can solo at lv 52 all the way through sanctorium.... theres a conj farmer on my server that solo's MMCastlemy conj at 52 parse's round 500dps in an avrage group. the 70 conj in my guild parse's 1500 dps on raids and ive seen him as high as 2000... and were arnt even up to EOF raid gear yet.and Necros are MORE powerfull than Conj's... just ask them... or any raid leader..in pvp they SUCK!!!! but thats cause they have No hitpoints. beastlords sucked at pvp too, what they were good at was Soloing... yes i konw i can solo with a CONJ... every person who played and wants to see again a Beastlord KNOWS THAT!!!! what we want is our Cute, Funny, personable pets that we could get attached too... what we want is to get in there Face to Face with a mob when we fight instead of staying out of any posible aoe range and dieing any time a mob looks at us, we want the BACK STORY!!!!... beastlords were Lone wolves ... liveing off the land.. in the case of those with forage... beastlords needed No citys no people... it was in there LORE to be that way... its all about LOOK AND FEEL of the class.... and has NUTHING to do with the rest of the B.S people keep argueing about when they say they dont want beastlords brought back.... any one who want as uber powered solo class pick a necro or a conj.... just dont pick them for PvP... cause any scout will drop you in two hits. that beeing said... there are some necros out there that can pvp as well as any ranger.

Zabjade

09-22-2007, 04:10 PM

One thing as a Hybrid much like the Shadowknights and Paladins they would fall into the fighter/Brawler Tree with most of his/her DPS coming from a buff that talks back they can hit but they would not have the haste of the Monks nor the DPS of the Bruisers and would be the Neutral Brawler. Nor would they have Feign Death.

Shadowdragoon

09-22-2007, 05:49 PM

Lets see.. how often was my slow used in groups............................................ ....................Ah, yes that one time whit hte chanter that could not land slow..i was told to preslow the mobs that where pulled so chanter could ealily slow it because of it overiding my slow and that caused it to not check for resistances.. (Beasty slow was Disease i think, and mob had hig magic resist)heal.. wow that one was a joke.. at 53 i think i could heal for 93 hp a cast.. when mobs hit for 200+ a strike.Manaregen.. sure we where a small hearing- aid battery, if you wanted manaregen, there was the superior Bards or a chanter.. they where like A Batterys in comparison.and least but not least.you yust know some of the moore Lazy housecats (Vah Shir Beastlords) was to bussy relaxing near a milkfarm safly away from anny dropping shards of Luclin when it exploded..like my little Beastlord.and yes, what i want is to be back up and personal to the mob whitout dying from a solomob parrying me hitting at it whit my weapons.

Mihos

09-23-2007, 10:50 AM

The only thing I remember about beast lords was getting their crappy spell and gear drops when we didn't even have one in the guild for like 6 months.That and making sure absolutly no other class was available before inviting one to the group.

Cocytus

09-23-2007, 03:40 PM

The devs do not intend to bring any other classes in.The comment made about "adding new classes in when the first 24 are happy" was a sarcastic comment meaning that the first 24 classes will never be happy because people will always whine.

ke'la

09-23-2007, 04:55 PM

<cite>Neiloch wrote:</cite><blockquote>You wouldnt need to design two sub-classes, thats stupid. Not even in character creation do have the sub classes showing anymore. anyone who started playing EQ2 recently would have no idea what you are talking about when you say sub-class. its done with, gone, stop referring to it. Meaning you don't need even amounts of classes. Go look at character creation right now, thats the class structure. Oh we better make more ranger types since their falling behind with your logic.I really don't care if they add them or not but your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Maybe it did when EQ2 first launched.</blockquote>Just because you don't see it does not mean its not their. The Archtype > Class > Sub-Class system was NOT done awaywith it was MASKED. Saying they did away with the Archtype system(with overwhelming evdance that it is not if you just scratch the serface) is like saying Microsoft did away with DOS when they launched Windows 3.1. All you have to do is look at certain spells and weopons and you will still see the Archtype system in place. Also you HAVE to have atleast 2 classes otherwise you would have to completly rewrite the Betrail mechanics for the entire game.

Willias

09-23-2007, 05:05 PM

<cite>Tamo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do people like beastlords so much anyway?</blockquote>It was a class that could do everything. It had enough defense to where it could take a hit or two from nasty stuff before dying, something a lot of other classes couldn't do. It had a pet that was as tough as a mage or necro pet. It had melee ability that wasn't too far behind that of a monk's. It had weak shaman buffs (including haste) and debuffs (mainly slow). It had the ability to heal, and the ability to heal its pet better than Necros or Mages could do.It was a very powerful class, and could fit many different roles when added to a group. The class could solo as well as Magicians or Necromancers, but was melee class, which made it rather unique. On the other hand, it wasn't extremely powerful in any particular role, but since it could handle a vast variety of roles so well, it was a hybrid that managed to outshine many of its parent classes in certain situations.Now for EQ2... Beastlords can't exist as they did in EQ1. Nuff said there. If they come here, they'll either be pushed into the Fighter or Scout archetype, and have their abilities tweaked for whichever role they're put in. They will not have the variety of abilities that they possessed in EQ1.

ke'la

09-23-2007, 05:07 PM

<cite>Plaguemeister wrote:</cite><blockquote>We are trying to solve this problem the wrong way. The devs claim they don't want to introduce a new class untill the others are balanced. The rest of this conversation applies only to pvp servers. the classes are wholly unbalanced as it is and no sight of any real fixes. Predator scouts and melee spec'd healers are way over powered. Summoners and guardians suck. Even grouped summoners usually drop very fast. Guards are fine grouped but predator scouts are even more overpowered grouped. PVP classes need a major overhual to make them seperate and distinct from their pve counterparts. Since it has been 2 years of over powered classes on pvp servers with no hope in sight for a major fix the "we want to wait until the classes are balanced" arguement holds no water. The beast lord should be intorduced as it was in eq1, a powerful solo class with mixed utility in a group. They are essentially melee spec'd summoners if you think about it. The only classes they would really replace on a raid is maybe an extra wizard because a dps spec'd summoner can parse high in pvp raids but usaly get owned in pvp fights, especially by rangers/swashies/brigs. Since I have already countered the "class balancing" arguement, as weak as it is, my solution is simple. Stop clamoring for the beastlord and start clamoring for NEW DEVS. ...and Bring back the BEASTLORD!!!!</blockquote>making your coments larger does not make them any more right. Did you accually READ the dev responce or are you going by what others are saying. The dev responce was a cute way of saying IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. You see they KNOW the classes will never be balanced, infact the quest for ballance(especally PvP balance when it was tacked onto a non-PvP game) while keeping the classes unque is an Impossable quest. The devs where NOT giving the argument or excuse of we want "to make shure that all the classes are balanced befor adding another" they where saying "We don't want to add anymore classes, but want to be cute about it so we will avoid saying never(because never is a BIG word) while saying something that means it will never happen" "We will think about adding more classes when the current classes are all balanced and everyone is happy" = "when hell freezes over we will THINK about adding new classes".

RoXx

09-23-2007, 05:48 PM

I hope the beastlords make it into eq2. Think this could have a nice effect on eq1 players thinking of coming to us <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

JasonArgile

09-24-2007, 08:26 AM

<cite>Cocytus wrote:</cite><blockquote>The devs do not intend to bring any other classes in.The comment made about "adding new classes in when the first 24 are happy" was a sarcastic comment meaning that the first 24 classes will never be happy because people will always whine.</blockquote>thank you for repeating the same thing 50 other people have said in this thread... and again.. to answer you the dev's comment is Very Old... and it has sence been suggested that they may have changed there minds... ergo the reason I have Hope for this game...

Elepian

09-27-2007, 02:30 PM

I'm sorry, but in all honesty they have brought in the other original classes from EQ 1 and nerfed them down, why should anyone complain if they hypothetically, did bring the Beastlord back? When I say "back" I mean it as it is put. 500 years ago in the norrathian world, Beastlords were everywhere, This present day, there is but 1 living still. Theres no point to bash on anyone because the SAME topic is constantly brought up only resulting in the same answer. Its a forum, if a player on the forums wishes to post the same topic 5 times a week, who are we to stop them? If they ever DID decide to bring a new class in, I would say bring the Beastlord in , yeah yeah quick your bickering you hate the beastlord right? OK then don't make one! If you see a scaley leezard chasing after you on PvP, and you happen to catch a glimpse of a scaled wolf behind him, Sprint is there for a reason! Start haulin tail! Or Evac. For some of you who don't have evac did you know if you give your KoS plant 5 water, 5 fertilizer, and 5 bones; it gives you an escape root? This root can evac you once in a blue moon so Yay! I'm safe from Mr.Scaley and his puppy!. Allow the man to have hopes, Even if we do not get a new class I'll still hope with him, Beastlord was a great class to play in EQ.

Usthaj

09-28-2007, 05:54 AM

im just going to throw my two coppers in the pot on this one, one time.Beastlords were hands down, the most enjoyable class to play in EQlive, I understand how some see it as an overpowered class (still paled in comparison to Necros, and if you dispute that then you had your head in the sand while playing EQLive). I will not dispute that it was a very powerful class, and I honestly do not care. Yes, it was powerful, and by god, yes it was fun to play!What the Beastlord brought to EQLive was an option for solo players they never had before, the ability to melee, get in the mix and have a blast. Until that point they were either a necro, druid, bard or wizzie, all doing some version of kiteing. Be it fear kite, quad kite, twist kite what ever, in the end its not exactly fun. Especialy considering the ungodly amount of down-time in EQLive, with out some form of "clarity" you were spending most of the time sitting on your butt.Beastlords ended that, they were granted minor versions of the main spells that helped aleviate down time (clarity, sow, heals..etc.). They had great pets, and were able to aid them in battle with their own two fists. Instead of running in circles, hoping mobs didnt break root, resist fear, or snare. They were actually able to get up and personal with their enemy.With the Beastlord the casual player or anti-socialite could log on have some fun and log off. Without spending 2 hours shouting for a group or begging to give away their plats for a little bit of crack. I know what people will say "EQ is a game meant for grouping" yada, yada.. Its a game people, meant to be enjoyed by everyone, not just the social elite. Some people aren't social, some simply dont have 2 hours to shout for a group, so people play it according to their lifestyle.video games are meant to be fun, beastlords were fun.Now in regards to EQ2 I happen to be very happy with the classes that are available, and dont NEED a Beastlord, But I sure wouldn't turn one down. EQ2 is by far a way more enjoyable game, the down time is hardly noticable, and pretty much all the classes are able to solo if needed. I have more fun in EQ2 then I ever did in EQLive with or with out my Beastlord. But like I said I would not turn away from the opportunity to make one in EQ2, no matter how "nerfed" they had to be.I know its very unlikely that they will ever be in game, and I'm ok with that. For those that think its do to an Archtype issue... I can't imagine it being that difficult to create an entire new "Hybrid" archtype. Whats required 3 classes and 6 subclasses?Archtype: Hybridclass 1 (Beastlord): martial arts/shaman sublcass A: monk/mystic subclass b: bruiser/defilerclass 2: tank/sorcerer subclass A: guardian/wizard sublcass b: berserker/warlockclass 3: predator/druid sublcass A: ranger/warden subclass b: assassin/furyAnd so on and so forth, theres countless combos to choose from, so I honestly do not beleive the need for a new archtype is the reason we wont see beastlords. No I tend to believe that the reason is we simply do not need them. The game is completely enjoyable as is, for all types of gamers. Social elite, social inept, casual or power gamer. EQ2 is gamer friendly, EQ2 is fun.Though as I stated previously, I would not pass up the chance to play a beastlord, because they were indeed the most enjoyable class in EQLive.Thems my coppers take em or leave em.

LaurnaRose Fauldorn

09-28-2007, 09:48 AM

I would like to see a profession akin to the creature handler in SWG. That was my favorite all time MMO profession and I think it would be so much fun to have in EQII. But thats just me.

Zarafein

09-28-2007, 11:20 AM

<cite>JasonArgile wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cocytus wrote:</cite><blockquote>The devs do not intend to bring any other classes in.The comment made about "adding new classes in when the first 24 are happy" was a sarcastic comment meaning that the first 24 classes will never be happy because people will always whine.</blockquote>thank you for repeating the same thing 50 other people have said in this thread... and again.. to answer you the dev's comment is Very Old... and it has sence been suggested that they may have changed there minds... ergo the reason I have Hope for this game... </blockquote>No they didn't, from fan faire(article on allakhazm): <li>Will you be adding new classes? Lyndro gives a very emphatic NO. Scott is more diplomatic, saying "Yes, as soon as the first 24 are happy." </li>

Terayon

09-28-2007, 10:23 PM

im not even gonna read the other 6 pages.. ill just say this.. Beastlords sounds like a Zerker and a Conjy/necro packed in one... unless my necro gets to wear plate Hell no to another class, lol.

Xanrn

09-29-2007, 08:57 AM

No they were 4/5 Monk 1/3 Shaman with a decent pet.If they were in EQ2 they would not even be close to Eq1 and then you lot would be all over the boards moaning about how they suck.They would be something like a Scout with no defence and a tank pet or a tank with no offense and a dps pet or a Scout with no defence and a dps pet with no defence.Which is why you aren't going to be getting them anytime soon.All the Niches are filled already.Remember Emphatic NO! to Beastlords.

Athri

09-29-2007, 10:46 AM

All the classes are already in the game to give rise to any combination through different AA setups. Give Mystics an AA tree that emphasizes their melee abilities and makes their pet more on par with a real combat pet that's weaker than the summoner pet but still powerful enough to make a difference, especially with their buffs. They then become a more shamanic beastlord.

Taw

10-01-2007, 07:38 AM

Obvious that those that speak against BL's didn't play them and that those that did wish for them to be in EQ2. The immersion quality that the class provided was far greater then any other class in EQ1, especially when they were first introduced in Luclin expansion. I believe this to be one of the larger reasons that so many desire to see the class added to EQ2. As, imo, EQ2 is found lacking in the immersion feel. I played a Wiz main, high end raiding, but absolutely loved my BL. I play a wiz and warlock in EQ2 and pine for my BL in EQ1 so often that it draws me back to EQ1 now and again. My BL is not twinked, never was guilded, just my personal fun away from the grind of raiding. The BL makes me wish that Sony would just dump EQ2, completely revamp EQ1 using something OTHER then the EQ2 game engine (I'd drool over EQ1 with Guild Wars graphics). Yes, I realize that graphics are a personal feeling kind of thing in this case as EQ2 is not that bad, and some don't care about them at all...EQ2 is just somehow missing something I have never been able to figure out. I would officially die of happiness if EQ1 was completely redone as I waved goodbye to all the new MMO's that cater to people unable to handle a game which demands actual strategy. And for all of you who believed it too easy to be a BL, you are simply crazy. It took constant buff timing, a great deal of skill while hunting solo, and an absolute desire to push the limits of solo "in your face" content. We were no where near as good at anything any other class could do. It took a persons ability to combine all of the parts and pieces together to make the BL good. And when you did group, usually it was only because some odd pick up group couldn't find a better buff class. However, I will say, if you had a group of pet classes all together...oh the sweet carnage! 4 beastlords, 1 necro, and 1 mage = most fun I have ever had. Now that was way overpowered due to certain things those other classes added to the picture of course.

Norrsken

10-01-2007, 08:20 AM

<cite>Xanrn wrote:</cite><blockquote>No they were 4/5 Monk 1/3 Shaman with a decent pet.If they were in EQ2 they would not even be close to Eq1 and then you lot would be all over the boards moaning about how they suck.They would be something like a Scout with no defence and a tank pet or a tank with no offense and a dps pet or a Scout with no defence and a dps pet with no defence.Which is why you aren't going to be getting them anytime soon.All the Niches are filled already.Remember Emphatic NO! to Beastlords.</blockquote>that would make them 17/15ths. 2/15ths more than any other class. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Norrsken

10-01-2007, 08:21 AM

furthermore, if they wish to add beastlords to this game, I'd say, scrap one of the brawlers (or merge them into one) since there really is very little difference to begin with, and make the beastie dude be a brawler. Also, make brawlers into neutral classes to balance that a bit. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Zarafein

10-01-2007, 10:26 AM

*sigh* bad enough they are so close now.. basicaly a bruiser is as diferent to a monk as a Paladin to a Shadowknight, but they never release much bruiser specific lore(since they don't exist long) and then we got all this equipment that doesn fit to the classic bruiser only a monk, examples robe of enlightement, (some)bo staffes, Fighting gear of Wu... They aren't martial artists on Qeynos for Monks and in Freeport for Brusiers.. it's the fault of both some devs and players that the image of both is so washy. While the monk is a spiritual combatant who believes in the philosophy of mind over body(<a href="http://everquest2.station.sony.com/en/main.vm#professionMonk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://everquest2.station.sony.com/...#professionMonk</a>) the brusier doesn't care about ths stuff, his view is even the opposite.. he doesn't care about mind or spirit or philosophy but wants to become as strong as possible to get what he wants,to intimidate and brutalize his foes.

Xanrn

10-01-2007, 11:32 AM

<cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xanrn wrote:</cite><blockquote>No they were 4/5 Monk 1/3 Shaman with a decent pet.If they were in EQ2 they would not even be close to Eq1 and then you lot would be all over the boards moaning about how they suck.They would be something like a Scout with no defence and a tank pet or a tank with no offense and a dps pet or a Scout with no defence and a dps pet with no defence.Which is why you aren't going to be getting them anytime soon.All the Niches are filled already.Remember Emphatic NO! to Beastlords.</blockquote>that would make them 17/15ths. 2/15ths more than any other class. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Yes that was the point I was making. Their parts add up to more than a whole.

Senen74

10-01-2007, 02:50 PM

All Hybrid classes eventualy add up to more then a whole class, especialy once mudflation realy starts kicking in. That sad you don't see everyone rushing to play them, compare Paladins Vs Guardians from the tanking arch type. Look at how much more Paladins can offer outside of just a raiding Plate tank vs a Guardian, the same would happen with the BM. This isn't a bad thing for the people that like classes like this it gives them versatility that only Hybrids can offer. Its no diffrent then current raiding guilds now were people have several alts and log in any number of them during a raid to fill current specialized rolls. Wouldn't it be nice if you could play a class were you were somewhat jack of all trades not the best at them but sufficient enough that you could play that class alone and not 10 others.? Honestly they should just strip the classes down to 12 and let the AA's decide if your Guardian/Zerker or something in the middle. As many have pointed out like the Monk/Bruiser the lines are so grayed theres realy little diffrence.

Zarafein

10-01-2007, 03:48 PM

Thats not the case as i pointed out, sure you could make aas decide the class.. than we could use only 1 class and have something like swg before nge... seriously is this class realy worth even thinking about the trouble it would cause? I'am glad they try to make the classes more diverse instead of merging them and kill the soul of those classes.

CrazyMoogle

10-02-2007, 03:17 PM

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can they make a Beastlord fit in this game? I do think so. They could squeeze them into the brawler archtype. </blockquote>There is no such thing as a "brawler archetype". Brawlers are one class of the FIGHTER archetype.But, let's ignore that for the moment. Let's say that Beastlords were added as one (class? sub-class? Which would it be????) element of the FIGHTER archetype.First, you have to decide if Beastlords are going to be a CLASS, or a SUB-CLASS. If the former, then you need to design two SUB-CLASSES; if the latter, you need to design an opposing class, so that they fit within the rest of the class structure.Then -- since the FIGHTER archetype will now be unbalanced by the addition of Beastlords, you need to also design more classes for the rest of the archetypes, so that they'll be balanced with the FIGHTER archetype. & that means adding even MORE balance issues in, when the devs are already bombarded with balance issues.It's simply nowhere near as easy as just adding them in, because it's not just ONE class to add. That concept worked fine in EQ1, which doesn't have an "archetype" system. It would not work at all in EQ2./taunt/pelt</blockquote>LOL. I don't even want a beastlord class, but is this what qualifies as reasoning to some people? Crying about having to adhere to some irrelevant and outdated type vs archetype vs class malarkey?Anyway, of course they could easily add beastlords.The bigger problem is there are too many classes with useless distinctions. There should be one shaman class, one bard class, one cleric class, one druid class, and Ranger/Assassin/Brigand/Swashbuckler should have their abilities combined down to two classes. We have 24 "classes", but that's only because so many of them are pseudo-classes that never should've been seperated to begin with.Once you trim down the fat the number of classes to manage makes it a lot easier to add new classes into the game.Oh, and for anyone crying about "omg they have to balance all the classes first"....just stop. Seriously, just don't. Classes will never be balanced. Ever. As long as every class is viable and every class brings something to a group or raid they are in balance. They don't all have to be equal in power. The classes are balanced now.

Sunlei

10-02-2007, 04:18 PM

maybe the developers can put back into one all the eq2 classes that are torn in half and then take a little bit of each and make a beastlord from the extra bits and pieces! i know my bard and enchanter would be happy to be whole again <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Malackbar Iben Sa'faro

10-03-2007, 02:06 PM

The devs only say there will be no new classes until some executive tells them to add one in. I'm positive we will eventually see the Beastlord in an expansion pack, and that will probibly be Lucalin. Since Kunark is the current expansion, and they have yet to do odus, velious, and some of the other planes, it could be quite some time before we see them. Considering that there is a years wait in between each of the unnamed number of expansions, that gives them a whole lot of time to bring added game balance to the classes. MMo's have a spotted history of saying they aren't going to do something and then turning right around and doing them several expansions down the road. When devs or executives need to spice up or revitalize the game, they start reexamening all the ideas they said were not fesable or likely before. Even two years is a long time, considering that the game has been out, what, roughly 3 years? Some where around that anyways. I'm positive that most of the things they've changed about the game, they never would have predicted in the beginning. They changed the ENTIRE class structure over a few free patches. That's why if I were a betting man I'd say the return of the Beastlord is a sure thing. The devs have been seeing that nostalgia sells, as EoF demonstrated, and the Beastlord is a loose end that is floating out there in the EQ mythos. It is one of the most hotly and frequently debated topic in the forums, maybe short of plat farmers and bots. They will return, and when they do all the people who loved them and hated them will battle it out in the forums and game blogs. That is exactly the atmosphere Sony wants for their game.

ke'la

10-03-2007, 04:25 PM

<cite>CrazyMoogle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kalem wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can they make a Beastlord fit in this game? I do think so. They could squeeze them into the brawler archtype. </blockquote>There is no such thing as a "brawler archetype". Brawlers are one class of the FIGHTER archetype.But, let's ignore that for the moment. Let's say that Beastlords were added as one (class? sub-class? Which would it be????) element of the FIGHTER archetype.First, you have to decide if Beastlords are going to be a CLASS, or a SUB-CLASS. If the former, then you need to design two SUB-CLASSES; if the latter, you need to design an opposing class, so that they fit within the rest of the class structure.Then -- since the FIGHTER archetype will now be unbalanced by the addition of Beastlords, you need to also design more classes for the rest of the archetypes, so that they'll be balanced with the FIGHTER archetype. & that means adding even MORE balance issues in, when the devs are already bombarded with balance issues.It's simply nowhere near as easy as just adding them in, because it's not just ONE class to add. That concept worked fine in EQ1, which doesn't have an "archetype" system. It would not work at all in EQ2./taunt/pelt</blockquote>LOL. I don't even want a beastlord class, but is this what qualifies as reasoning to some people? Crying about having to adhere to some irrelevant and outdated type vs archetype vs class malarkey?Last I checked a core part of the game play mechanics is the archetype "malarkey" and if you read the most reasont interview with Scott you can see that the good/evil (wich is part of the archetype "malarkey&quot<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> it too well ingrained into the core EQ2 game mechanics to even give us a TRUELY neutral city so instead they are basicly giving us an evil version of Kelethin, yes technically they are evil but they are diet evil. The type that cares only for itself and has no reason to take over the world and welcomes all as long as you help them.Anyway, of course they could easily add beastlords.So you are completly aware of exsactly how the game works and its code? I am sorry but you don't what little we as players DO know is that the Archetype system is STILL in place just masked(like Windows 3.1 masked DOS), and with that in place you need 2 classes not one. We also know the reason we did not get AAs is because it took the spell making devs the whole expaintion to make the 240+ spells required of all current classes, adding 160+(enough for both classes) more spells to add a class in while either raising the lvl cap or adding AAs would likly not be possable.The bigger problem is there are too many classes with useless distinctions. There should be one shaman class, one bard class, one cleric class, one druid class, and Ranger/Assassin/Brigand/Swashbuckler should have their abilities combined down to two classes. We have 24 "classes", but that's only because so many of them are pseudo-classes that never should've been seperated to begin with.Unforunatly that is the game they created and its not going to change now.Once you trim down the fat the number of classes to manage makes it a lot easier to add new classes into the game.Oh, look its the ONE guy that thinks the NGE was a good thing for SWG, why don't you sign up over thier and let them explain how good an idea it was.Oh, and for anyone crying about "omg they have to balance all the classes first"....just stop. Seriously, just don't. Classes will never be balanced. Ever. As long as every class is viable and every class brings something to a group or raid they are in balance. They don't all have to be equal in power. The classes are balanced now.maybe you need to accually READ THE EXPLANATIONS of the posts talking about balance instead of making yourself look like a fool. The devs made the coment because it is a FACT that all the classes will NEVER be 'balanced' and that the game will NEVER be bug free, and all classes will NEVER be happy, so by making those three iteams the conditions required to add a new class they are saying we will NEVER ADD A NEW CLASS while giving themselfs a loophole if like Malackbar said some point in the very distant future they do deside to add a class they can say that we never said we would never add a new class. The dev could have just as easially said "about the time hell freezes over we will THINK about adding a new class", and it would have ment the same thing.</blockquote>

ke'la

10-03-2007, 04:39 PM

<cite>Malackbar Iben Sa'faroud wrote:</cite> <blockquote> The devs only say there will be no new classes until some executive tells them to add one in. </blockquote>Only problem with that coment is the "executive" that would tell them to add one in is Scott HartsmanYou know the guy that said "Yes, as soon as the first 24 are happy." to adding more classes. Lyndro the other guy in that quote is the person incharge of creating spells for classes (among other things) so if the guy incharge of the whole game(the only person above him is John Smedly(President and CEO of SoE) who also has been on record I beleave as no new classes) and the guy that basicly designs the classes are both adimatly against adding a new class, atleast until they leave EQ2 there more then likly won't be a new class

CrazyMoogle

10-03-2007, 04:40 PM

Last I checked a core part of the game play mechanics is the archetype "malarkey" and if you read the most reasont interview with Scott you can see that the good/evil (wich is part of the archetype "malarkey"<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" /> it too well ingrained into the core EQ2 game mechanicsThe fact that you can be a good or bad druid, a good or bad guardian, or a good or bad berserker goes to prove that the whole "omg you have to have an evil class to balance a good class" and "everything has to be good or evil, you can't have neutral" is exactly malarkey.Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously bring more to the table than "that's the way we've always done it so that's the only way it can be done". That doesn't cut it.Oh, look its the ONE guy that thinks the NGE was a good thing for SWG, why don't you sign up over thier and let them explain how good an idea it was.Yes, because what I suggested is EXACTLY like NGE. You're so astute. Bravo.maybe you need to accually READ THE EXPLANATIONS of the posts talking about balance instead of making yourself look like a fool.Maybe you should actually read the succession of posts to which you're replying before calling others a fool.Seriously, why did you even bother coming in here, taking a poop on the thread, and acting like you're the one who has it all figured out. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Dred

10-03-2007, 04:42 PM

sooner or later the starting city idea for generating new account isn't going to work as well and they are going to need to offer something else to generate new account and a new class is going to be able to generate new accounts. leave it to sales and marketing to override the tech who know its a bad idea and we will have beastlords <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />

Cocytus

10-03-2007, 05:48 PM

Beastlords give me gas.

ke'la

10-03-2007, 05:57 PM

<cite>CrazyMoogle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Last I checked a core part of the game play mechanics is the archetype "malarkey" and if you read the most reasont interview with Scott you can see that the good/evil (wich is part of the archetype "malarkey"<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" width="15" height="15" />" /> it too well ingrained into the core EQ2 game mechanicsThe fact that you can be a good or bad druid, a good or bad guardian, or a good or bad berserker goes to prove that the whole "omg you have to have an evil class to balance a good class" and "everything has to be good or evil, you can't have neutral" is exactly malarkey.Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously bring more to the table than "that's the way we've always done it so that's the only way it can be done". That doesn't cut it.Its not that you have to have an "Evil" class to balance a "good" class, because last I checked there where TWO Druids (warden and Fury), Two Warriors (Guardian and Zerker), Two Socerors (Wizzard and Warlock) and TWO bards (Dirge and Trubi) so yes the game mechanics seem to require by ALL EVEDANCE that they require an "partner" class in order to work. Its just in the case of the "neutral classes" that you can choose either of the two when switching cities but you still need TWO CLASSes atleast, and as you where calling the archetype system malarkey and NOT the good/evil and you are NOT defending that comment oviously means you now can see that it is infact in game, and it has nothing to do with "what they always have done" it has everything to do with the fact that it would take the same number of man hours to create one set of new classes as it would to creat a whole tier of new spells, so thier choice is add 1 new class and do nothing for 90% of the population that could careless about a new class or add content for 100% of the current population by either raising the lvl cap, adding AAs or going in a differant direction(say adding in a sea faring "class"<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />Oh, look its the ONE guy that thinks the NGE was a good thing for SWG, why don't you sign up over thier and let them explain how good an idea it was.Yes, because what I suggested is EXACTLY like NGE. You're so astute. Bravo.Consitering the head of SoE has to take time out of nearly every interview he gives sence NGE went live saying "With the NGE, I'm sorry about the mistake we made," [John Smedley] told us. "We screwed up and didn't listen to the fans when we should have, and it's not a mistake we're going to make again." I don't think that its the best plan. That and the fact that the population of SWG was detroyied by it(it is only know almost 2 years latter recovering from that feasco) not only that but the hate it generated just look at the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.warcry.com/forums/read/118.49135" target="_blank">coments</a> to his apology... Two years later or check out these sites ( <a href="http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2005/12/69816" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">one</a>, <a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/24/star-wars-galaxies-new-game-enhancements-cause-player-backlash/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">two</a>, <a href="http://www.truegalaxies.com/forums/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">three</a> ) as to how good for the game it ismaybe you need to accually READ THE EXPLANATIONS of the posts talking about balance instead of making yourself look like a fool.Maybe you should actually read the succession of posts to which you're replying before calling others a fool.Seriously, why did you even bother coming in here, taking a poop on the thread, and acting like you're the one who has it all figured out. Stop embarrassing yourself.All I am doing is QUOTING the people who make the game and informing you of the difficulties of adding in more classes. I have read the sugjestions and all I see are NGE EQ2(aka nuke all of SoE as a company forever) or it's not that hard to add just one class just cut a piece off here and add it thier, and forget what the people who accually make the game are telling us about how it would be almost imposable to add a class under the current design of the game with out a MASSIVE amount of man hours put into it that could be better spent elsewhere.</blockquote>::EDIT::added the text in the middle comment after the ...

ke'la

10-03-2007, 05:59 PM

<cite>Dredok wrote:</cite><blockquote>sooner or later the starting city idea for generating new account isn't going to work as well and they are going to need to offer something else to generate new account and a new class is going to be able to generate new accounts. leave it to sales and marketing to override the tech who know its a bad idea and we will have beastlords <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src=" width="15" height="15" />" width="15" height="15"></blockquote>The thing is Sale and Marketing answer to Scott Hartsman of the "when all the other 24 for classes are happy" comment, as such I don't think they have much of a say one way or the other.

RoXx

10-04-2007, 10:54 AM

FUN >>> BALANCEBRING US BEASTLORDS (never played one, but sounds like fun) We need a new class in eq2 soon. Or hopefully 4 new (1 in each archetype). Next expansion could be focusing on these 4 classes. Please..

Malackbar Iben Sa'faro

10-04-2007, 03:07 PM

I will refer back to previous statments. An awful lot of things can change in two years of time that is the likely minimum that a Lucalin expansion would likely take to start production. That is also a whole lot of time to alter class structure and balance. I would also like to point out that even if they were working on it right now in one of their 2 expansion departments (not likely), they would tell you nothing and even tell you opposite news so that buzz would be bigger when the news actually hit the net down the road. The abilty to deny advancments or ongoing work allows the developers to tinker around with existing canon without having to comment on any failures or drastic changes. By the time the devs would be considering Lucalin, EQ2 will be a different game. If it wasn't, then they've already failed at their jobs. I also wanted to add that they didn't say never, they said when they get their 24 classes basicly worked out and balanced. 2-3 years is a long time to work on the tooling issues on classes. Plus, like Ke'la said earlier, this comment is applicable as long as they work there, and jobs change frequently in the game development world. If the stock chairs say it's time for a revitalization, at any point, multiple jobs change very quickly and fresh perspectives get added in. I'm just saying that the return of the Beastlords is likely, but not nessicarily timely. Besides, I didn't think they were that great of a class anyways. I played them after the Lucalin expansion, and wasn't very impressed, though I'm sure they were changed a lot after I stopped playing. I would be interested to see what an EQ2 developer could do with the class though.

Xanrn

10-05-2007, 12:35 PM

Yes becaase Everquest 1 has balanced classes, no wait they didn't. They never stopped balancing classes all the time I was playing and I doubt they have stopped now.Balancing Classes without adding new content is a it shouldn't take 2-3 years thing, balancing classes while adding new content is an ongoing thing.Balancing with 1 set of scales is easy, balancing with scales that change is not.As for Fun>>>Balance only if your an idiot.I don't know aboout you, but my Class not being balanced is not fun and I would prefer time spent balancing them and not on making more classes.24 is enough Classes, 24 classes who play different and playing to lvl 20 doesn't mean crap.You get all 24 Classes to lvl 70 and 100 AA and then try and say they play the same.

Margen

10-05-2007, 01:27 PM

<cite>RoXxer wrote:</cite><blockquote>FUN >>> BALANCEBRING US BEASTLORDS (never played one, but sounds like fun) We need a new class in eq2 soon. Or hopefully 4 new (1 in each archetype). Next expansion could be focusing on these 4 classes. Please..</blockquote>That has to be one of the silliest statements I've seen. If they don't attain some form of balance between classes, they tick off portions of their player base (trust me as some one that plays SK, balance issues are important, especially in end game play). What you just said was basiclly all you that play classes that aren't beastlords .... pound sand!The problem is that when you produce hybrid type classes, you either make them fairly weak (EQ1 beserkers and palladins) especially end game raiding. Or you make them extremly powerful, and saying beastlords where not desired in raids in EQ1 was bs, remeber alot of there buffs stacked with other buffs doing the same/simualar things (least they did when I still played eq1).We have 24 classes in this game, with many of those classes filling simalar roles (there are differences, but if you play a plate fighter your main function is tanking). There are numerous classes that need attention in this game still and I want them working on that vs putting a new class that is not need!Or if you do add them, just make them the weak sisters of all classes <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, can hear the screams now.

10-12-2007, 03:09 PM

<cite>Margen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>RoXxer wrote:</cite><blockquote>FUN >>> BALANCEBRING US BEASTLORDS (never played one, but sounds like fun) We need a new class in eq2 soon. Or hopefully 4 new (1 in each archetype). Next expansion could be focusing on these 4 classes. Please..</blockquote>That has to be one of the silliest statements I've seen. If they don't attain some form of balance between classes, they tick off portions of their player base (trust me as some one that plays SK, balance issues are important, especially in end game play). What you just said was basiclly all you that play classes that aren't beastlords .... pound sand!The problem is that when you produce hybrid type classes, you either make them fairly weak (EQ1 beserkers and palladins) especially end game raiding. Or you make them extremly powerful, and saying beastlords where not desired in raids in EQ1 was bs, remeber alot of there buffs stacked with other buffs doing the same/simualar things (least they did when I still played eq1).We have 24 classes in this game, with many of those classes filling simalar roles (there are differences, but if you play a plate fighter your main function is tanking). There are numerous classes that need attention in this game still and I want them working on that vs putting a new class that is not need!Or if you do add them, just make them the weak sisters of all classes <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />, can hear the screams now.</blockquote>Yep, thats a statement only a 12 year old could make. It shows a complete lack of life experience and reasoning skills.Fact is... the EQ1 class previously known as Beast Lords... has no place in EQ2... That's not opinion, thats simple fact. The BL class in EQ1 fit becasue there was room between the classes to put hybrids like this in, without directly tromping all over the existing classes. I played a BL to the 60s in EQ1 and know what ther were and what ther weren't... In EQ2, the classes are deffined differently and what the BLs would be in EQ2 is already taken by other classes at different phases of the game. They'd stomp all over summoners, or shaman, or light tanks(crusaders/monks) ...or all of the above, in order to be a viable class of their own. Plus, where do you put them? What arcetype do they fit under? As I've said in other threads... There is room for BLs.... as a subclass/subskillset to the shaman class. Using the AA system, there's no reason that they can't give them a beast handling subtree that focussed on them calling pets... & priests already have melee AAs the can greatly increase skills in that area... If you put a pet management AA line and a melee enhancing pet line together on 1 char... BAM, you get Beastlords in EQ2... The right way...The above example also shows even more how BLs as a class makes no sence in EQ2 becasue there are already classes that can acheive the exact same effect through mechanics that are or could already be in the game. If they made a BL class, that would basically hinder their ability to improve shaman in the way described above, becasue then the classe boundaries would begin to completely blur and disappear.

Zabjade

10-13-2007, 12:00 AM

Best way to be sure is, If Cusa say that ti will NEVER happen, then it will happen soon! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> fortunatly the reverse is not true.

Iseabeil

10-13-2007, 03:41 AM

<cite>Malackbar Iben Sa'faroud wrote:</cite><blockquote> I will refer back to previous statments. An awful lot of things can change in two years of time that is the likely minimum that a Lucalin expansion would likely take to start production. That is also a whole lot of time to alter class structure and balance. I would also like to point out that even if they were working on it right now in one of their 2 expansion departments (not likely), they would tell you nothing and even tell you opposite news so that buzz would be bigger when the news actually hit the net down the road. The abilty to deny advancments or ongoing work allows the developers to tinker around with existing canon without having to comment on any failures or drastic changes. By the time the devs would be considering Lucalin, EQ2 will be a different game. If it wasn't, then they've already failed at their jobs. I also wanted to add that they didn't say never, they said when they get their 24 classes basicly worked out and balanced. 2-3 years is a long time to work on the tooling issues on classes. Plus, like Ke'la said earlier, this comment is applicable as long as they work there, and jobs change frequently in the game development world. If the stock chairs say it's time for a revitalization, at any point, multiple jobs change very quickly and fresh perspectives get added in. I'm just saying that the return of the Beastlords is likely, but not nessicarily timely. Besides, I didn't think they were that great of a class anyways. I played them after the Lucalin expansion, and wasn't very impressed, though I'm sure they were changed a lot after I stopped playing. I would be interested to see what an EQ2 developer could do with the class though.</blockquote>Im not really sure how a Luclin expansion can ever work without goin to the extreme impossible.. Luclin.. is in pieces. Just head out of SQ gate and one of its pieces will lay just ahead of you. How could they possibly un-do that? Superglue? Live Event of collecting pieces of the moon and using some super gravitation spell to pull it all back in place? Sure, it is fantasy and SoE is very.. creative.. on bypassing their own choises but this would be taking it a tad too far. Balance... EQ2 launched in 2004, thats 3 years ago and it hasnt been long enough to balance the classes, not even close and 2 or 3 years more is most likely not gonna make any major progress in this arena. Besides, we already have a handfull classes that are 'claimed' to be jack of all trades, do we need yet another?No matter if they do add them or not, there will be whines. If they dont people will whine for that, if they do add them and they are alike the EQ1 version they will most likely be overpowered and people will whine for that. If they make them 'balanced' regarding other classes they will lose most of their 'EQ1'ish' flavour and people will whine because of that. Just look on all the complaints based purely on EQ1 pre-conceptions: Monks and pulling, enchanters and crowd control, bards and haste etc etc. Beastlords if added would just be another in the neverending displeasure of the loss of 'what the class should be'. If you want to play a Beastlord, it is there in EQ1, it will never exist in EQ2 even if they added something sharing its name.

Chay

10-13-2007, 11:26 PM

We have too many classes already that aren't anywhere close to being balanced. When you throw in AA choices the number of classes/subclasses/specializations it gets very difficult to balance the classes.Some subclasses need to be combined and made whole.

ke'la

10-14-2007, 12:00 AM

<cite>Malackbar Iben Sa'faroud wrote:</cite><blockquote> I will refer back to previous statments. An awful lot of things can change in two years of time that is the likely minimum that a Lucalin expansion would likely take to start production. That is also a whole lot of time to alter class structure and balance. I would also like to point out that even if they were working on it right now in one of their 2 expansion departments (not likely), they would tell you nothing and even tell you opposite news so that buzz would be bigger when the news actually hit the net down the road. The abilty to deny advancments or ongoing work allows the developers to tinker around with existing canon without having to comment on any failures or drastic changes. By the time the devs would be considering Lucalin, EQ2 will be a different game. If it wasn't, then they've already failed at their jobs. I also wanted to add that they didn't say never, they said when they get their 24 classes basicly worked out and balanced. 2-3 years is a long time to work on the tooling issues on classes. Plus, like Ke'la said earlier, this comment is applicable as long as they work there, and jobs change frequently in the game development world. If the stock chairs say it's time for a revitalization, at any point, multiple jobs change very quickly and fresh perspectives get added in. I'm just saying that the return of the Beastlords is likely, but not nessicarily timely. Besides, I didn't think they were that great of a class anyways. I played them after the Lucalin expansion, and wasn't very impressed, though I'm sure they were changed a lot after I stopped playing. I would be interested to see what an EQ2 developer could do with the class though.</blockquote>Your right things change all the time in the gaming industry and when(not if) the current set of devs are replaced who knows what they may want to do. As far as these devs are conserned though there will be no new classes added to the game, it would just be too difficult to do. Just one thing though, and its just a bit of trivia so you know. SoE is a Private company and accually does not have stock shares. Though that does not change the fact that its very unusual for a game company to keep the same people on the same project for a long time(though its usually the Dev that moves on, not the company moving them).

Mishkel

10-14-2007, 01:46 AM

I played a beastlord in EQ1... but there have been expansions and I believe a level increase since I left (it was 65 when I last played).Anyway just two things to say really.1) I really don't want to see them add any more classes. It just ends up being a balance issue because of all the crying on forums. So it results in the endless nerf/buff fotm cycle and a lot of peeved players.2) I find people that claim beastlords to have been very op'd to have either: a) not actually played eq1orb) failed to notice the multiple classes that can kill things (and more of them) than any beastlord could hope to do.(2) kind of is what leads to (1)... I actually see the op'd beastlord comment quite often. Which never fails to amuse me... (altho perhaps after I left things changed so that's a *disclaimer*.)Watching what a necro could do in EQ1... or when I played bard's could still swarm kite..and then telling me my beastlord was op'd.. Anyway to make it short.. no I don't want to see any more classes (and yes I played a BL).

Zabjade

10-14-2007, 06:10 AM

I wouldn't mind a magical musket class (dedicated wand in ranged slot) something ala Brock's Thermal Shocker but with better range

Elden

10-14-2007, 08:05 AM

It would not be that difficult to add a 'new' archtype so that there is room for a beastlord class.Lets call the new archtype Animalist and divide that into two new classes; Beastlord..who choses their pet and it starts out small and grows with the beastlord as the beastlord levels, and Beastmaster who can charm an animal into becoming their pet..which would be able to zone with the beastmaster. There ya go..done and done. They'd have animalist abilities, but also distinct abilities for their classes. Once the foundation is set..the rest is just details. personally, i loved the Beastlord class in EQlive..it was my main and most favored class. If Beastlord ever returned to Norrath in eq2, I'd make a new Main in an instant.I'm still not sure how they died out to begin with. yes luclin exploded..whatever, I hardly spent any time there anyway. Barbarians were beastlord, Trolls were beastlord, Ogre's were beastlord..how did they lose all that lore? Doesn't seem possible to me. They must have gone somewhere..maybe their in hiding on some distant..yet to be (re)discovered continent. The Vah Shir in eq2 are laughable..they look much more like the Kerrans in eqlive. How did they even live? Vah Shir lived and came from the moon Luclin..well it exploded! Shouldn't the Vah shir have been wiped out? yeah, yeah..convienient for one of their number to mate with some kerran and make the 'new' not-improved-at-all Vah shir of today. A real shame. And to digress just a bit more...no levitate? mages are supposed to be smart..and they 'forgot' how to levitate? What about druids? they used to be able to track..in fact druids are supposed to be able to communicate with nature, so really they should be the best trackers around..what with having trees and birds telling them who is where and all..but somehow they've lost that lore as well. Ah well..it's fantasy, I guess its not supposed to make sense..that would be too easy. back to the point...yes, bring back Beastlords!~Elden

Lightstrider

10-14-2007, 09:12 AM

How did the Beastlords disappear?"It is written that in the time of the great cataclysm, that it was the sin of the Beastlords that angered the gods. Tunare was most angered by their disruption of the natural order, their enslavement of lesser species. And so they were wiped fromt he face of Norrath as a parting blow when the gods left."I'm pretty sure that is canon. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

Vlahkmaak

10-15-2007, 01:18 PM

Its a fantasy world, we really cannot have to many classes. If you blue'bies want to continue to cry about not wanting Beastlords fine: Give them only to the pvp servers. We on the red servers delight in finding new ways to kill things and other toons. Give beastlords to the pvp servers and let the blue'bies wallow in carebear fantasy's of class balancing.Bring back BEASTLORDS!!!!

Mon

10-15-2007, 02:14 PM

<cite>Plaguemeister wrote:</cite><blockquote>Its a fantasy world, we really cannot have to many classes. If you blue'bies want to continue to cry about not wanting Beastlords fine: Give them only to the pvp servers. We on the red servers delight in finding new ways to kill things and other toons. Give beastlords to the pvp servers and let the blue'bies wallow in carebear fantasy's of class balancing. Bring back BEASTLORDS!!!!</blockquote>I think a very important question is how do you not disgust yourself? If I were anything like as arrogant and nasty as folks like you, I would probably choose not to breed for the good of the human race. Harsh? No, it is just good common sense.Anyway, onto the subjects at hand.Beastlords: Played one from the release of Luclin as my main till when I quit sometime in PoP. Loved them, they were NOT over powered in the slightest (no matter what some people like to claim). Doubt (HIGHLY doubt) we will ever see any new class in EQ2 let alone beastlords. Sad, but live with it. No amount of forum whining is going to make them do it. Vah Shir: Please, please don't mistake the mongrels that are EQ2 Kerran for the noble race that were EQ1 Vah Shir. I think that was my biggest complaint with EQ2 at the start, that the hideous travesty that is Kerrans replaced the Vah Shir. They were better looking and more interesting. Hey, for the next playable race, can the Vah Shir make a reappearance? That would be great.What I would like to see: EQ2 had a neat idea, that wasn't executed well. The idea that you would start out as a regular joe, then choose an archetype at a certain level, then a class, and then a subclass with further specialization. It ended up being tedious and a pain so they scrapped it. What they ended up with was 12 classes, not 24. For the most part the "counterparts" are similar enough that I personally can't play both. I have tried for giggles, but to me it is JUST like playing the same class again. Just a tiny bit different, not nearly enough to make it worthwhile. How can you fix this monumental pooch screwing? I don't know that it is possible. They are unwilling to take steps to make the "subclasses" stand on their own. All that aside, I would like to see some prestige classing attached to classes. Since we are talking Beastlords, lets use that. Mystics and Defilers both, once they reach a certain level can choose to (through AA maybe) activate a prestige class transition in which many of the fundamental aspects of the class change. For the Beastlord, they would move away from a "healer" role and more toward a melee/pet dps role. They would lose some of their buffs, heals, etc. and would gain others. The prestige classes would be a "neutral" class so both of the subclasses can merge into it if they choose. This way at most there will be only 12 prestige classes. Warlocks and Wizards would have a prestige class they can choose to move to for instance. Also, its a one way trip.

10-15-2007, 05:15 PM

<cite>Plaguemeister wrote:</cite><blockquote>Its a fantasy world, we really cannot have to many classes. If you blue'bies want to continue to cry about not wanting Beastlords fine: Give them only to the pvp servers. We on the red servers delight in finding new ways to kill things and other toons. Give beastlords to the pvp servers and let the blue'bies wallow in carebear fantasy's of class balancing.Bring back BEASTLORDS!!!!</blockquote>Uhm, no you're wrong. This isn't a fantasy world... Its a real world. A world or programmers and customers and business executives doing and planning things that will increase profits. And in that world, the BL class would not be profitable, and would most likely cause balance and design issues for every other class in the already existing game. Thus the unprofitable, becomes even less profitable.Ultimately this is reality and a fact that can't be ignored.

Themaginator

10-15-2007, 05:55 PM

no new classesreallythats all that needs to be said here

Geakor

10-16-2007, 01:56 PM

9 pgs of bickering ftw! keep it going guys!

Talz

10-16-2007, 02:46 PM

<cite>Zald wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Margen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>RoXxer wrote:</cite><blockquote>FUN >>> BALANCEBRING US BEASTLORDS (never played one, but sounds like fun) We need a new class in eq2 soon. Or hopefully 4 new (1 in each archetype). Next expansion could be focusing on these 4 classes. Please..</blockquote>That has to be one of the silliest statements I've seen. If they don't attain some form of balance between classes, they tick off portions of their player base (trust me as some one that plays SK, balance issues are important, especially in end game play). What you just said was basiclly all you that play classes that aren't beastlords .... pound sand!The problem is that when you produce hybrid type classes, you either make them fairly weak (EQ1 beserkers and palladins) especially end game raiding. Or you make them extremly powerful, and saying beastlords where not desired in raids in EQ1 was bs, remeber alot of there buffs stacked with other buffs doing the same/simualar things (least they did when I still played eq1).We have 24 classes in this game, with many of those classes filling simalar roles (there are differences, but if you play a plate fighter your main function is tanking). There are numerous classes that need attention in this game still and I want them working on that vs putting a new class that is not need!Or if you do add them, just make them the weak sisters of all classes <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img mce_tsrc=" />" width="15" height="15" />, can hear the screams now.</blockquote>Yep, thats a statement only a 12 year old could make. It shows a complete lack of life experience and reasoning skills.Fact is... the EQ1 class previously known as Beast Lords... has no place in EQ2... That's not opinion, thats simple fact. The BL class in EQ1 fit becasue there was room between the classes to put hybrids like this in, without directly tromping all over the existing classes. I played a BL to the 60s in EQ1 and know what ther were and what ther weren't... In EQ2, the classes are deffined differently and what the BLs would be in EQ2 is already taken by other classes at different phases of the game. They'd stomp all over summoners, or shaman, or light tanks(crusaders/monks) ...or all of the above, in order to be a viable class of their own. Plus, where do you put them? What arcetype do they fit under? As I've said in other threads... There is room for BLs.... as a subclass/subskillset to the shaman class. Using the AA system, there's no reason that they can't give them a beast handling subtree that focussed on them calling pets... & priests already have melee AAs the can greatly increase skills in that area... If you put a pet management AA line and a melee enhancing pet line together on 1 char... BAM, you get Beastlords in EQ2... The right way...The above example also shows even more how BLs as a class makes no sence in EQ2 becasue there are already classes that can acheive the exact same effect through mechanics that are or could already be in the game. If they made a BL class, that would basically hinder their ability to improve shaman in the way described above, becasue then the classe boundaries would begin to completely blur and disappear.</blockquote>That's exactly how it will play out if it ever does. Treadmill newbies can think whatever they want about the state of the BL being overpowered. Their vast experience with repetitive trivial content makes them an expert on game mechanics after all.Gods will never come back. AA will never come back. Epics will never come back. Anyone notice a blatantly obvious pattern yet? Sooner or later there will be a new class no matter what they say now because their resolve only goes as far as the bottom line allows it. It probably won't be the BL though because the foundation for it through AA already exists. If the weapon specced Mystic had a more reliable wolf and was named a BL at launch, people would have never known.I am pretty confident that there will some sort of tradeskill class in the future because hardcore townies make up a decent segment. It's pure speculation but I have a pretty good record to date.

10-17-2007, 05:02 PM

Just to be clear... I have no problem with them adding classes... or as someone mentioned... adding prestige classes that are specialized adaptations of existing classes...But whatever they do, it MUST make sence in the grand scheme of things. Just dropping in a BL class would be stupid and problematic at a fundamental level, due to EQ2's class model. There are many ways to add what EQ1 called a BL to EQ2, but it can not be done as a core class. Thats really the only limitation.Will they do that in the future... I'd bet $1M that at some point they do recreate the idea in an EQ2 appropriate way. No doubts...

GwenRelentless

10-17-2007, 08:12 PM

<cite>Fjorg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> <blockquote>Archtype: Hybridclass 1 (Beastlord): martial arts/shaman sublcass A: monk/mystic subclass b: bruiser/defilerclass 2: tank/sorcerer subclass A: guardian/wizard sublcass b: berserker/warlockclass 3: predator/druid sublcass A: ranger/warden subclass b: assassin/fury</blockquote>I really think this is genious. I have often thought about how cool a game with true hybrid classes would be. The important thing would be to make sure the "pure" classes were still the best at what they do and they hybrid classes would truely be masters of nothing but pretty good at a couple of things. Also, I love how the current class structure is and I totally agree with you that they would have to add 6 new subclasses to keep it in line with the current structure. They would probably have to add new 5x raid mobs too but why not?

GwenRelentless

10-17-2007, 08:13 PM

<cite>GwenRelentless wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fjorg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> <blockquote>Archtype: Hybridclass 1 (Beastlord): martial arts/shaman sublcass A: monk/mystic subclass b: bruiser/defilerclass 2: tank/sorcerer subclass A: guardian/wizard sublcass b: berserker/warlockclass 3: predator/druid sublcass A: ranger/warden subclass b: assassin/fury</blockquote>I really think this is genious. I have often thought about how cool a game with true hybrid classes would be. The important thing would be to make sure the "pure" classes were still the best at what they do and they hybrid classes would truely be masters of nothing but pretty good at a couple of things. Also, I love how the current class structure is and I totally agree with you that they would have to add 6 new subclasses to keep it in line with the current structure. They would probably have to add new 5x raid mobs too but why not? PS: Sign me up for Guardian/Wizard !!! </blockquote>

Graywindnz

10-17-2007, 08:37 PM

<cite>GwenRelentless wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>GwenRelentless wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fjorg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> <blockquote>Archtype: Hybridclass 1 (Beastlord): martial arts/shaman sublcass A: monk/mystic subclass b: bruiser/defilerPlay a Melee speced Mystic will produce te same here..class 2: tank/sorcerer subclass A: guardian/wizard sublcass b: berserker/warlockAllready in the game they are called Paladins and Shadowknightsclass 3: predator/druid sublcass A: ranger/warden subclass b: assassin/furyThis is the same as a melee speced warden or fury</blockquote>I really think this is genious. I have often thought about how cool a game with true hybrid classes would be. The important thing would be to make sure the "pure" classes were still the best at what they do and they hybrid classes would truely be masters of nothing but pretty good at a couple of things. Also, I love how the current class structure is and I totally agree with you that they would have to add 6 new subclasses to keep it in line with the current structure. They would probably have to add new 5x raid mobs too but why not? PS: Sign me up for Guardian/Wizard !!! </blockquote></blockquote>How about we drop these types of threads as the Beast lord is already in the game and its just named differently....

Strade

10-17-2007, 09:01 PM

Seriously we should speak louder (beastlord supporter, wanter) cause what do we get with RoK?? another freaking useless race that add nothing more to the gameplay. Don't we have enough races already? why put another one? to raise graphic lag?For the love of god, PUT IN BEASTLORD!

hellfire

10-17-2007, 10:27 PM

<cite>Gazzie@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Don't we have enough Classes already? why put another one? to raise graphic lag?For the love of god, Just Say no!</blockquote>Fixed

VladisSar

10-18-2007, 02:56 AM

IMHO, they shoudl simply scrap one of the druids (Warden and Fury are so simular they can easily combine them into 1 class) and then make a totaly NEW druid which would have pets as his dps arsenal rather than nukes/dots. That esentialy will be your Beastlord. So, A Fury can remain as it is, and Warden will have its damage spells heavily nerfed , get slightly bigger melee aspect and get 3 pet variety . Good choice would be Bear (tank), Wolf/Panther (rogue), and say some sort of tiny FayDrake as caster

Nerull

10-28-2007, 03:10 AM

I've posted this a couple times since release of Faydwer but I'll toss it in again. A day or so after release of Echoes a couple of guides got together for a story telling at the Fay starting point. I won't bore you trying to recreate the story which I've long since lost the log of but the jist was this; There is one master remaining, alive, with the knowledge of training BeastLords.Never say never and keep on hoping <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Koltr

10-31-2007, 05:10 AM

It is impossible to balance classes without making them altogether bland, repetitive and meaningless in distinction. Variety is the magic of a MMORGP, not the cookie cutter, one size fits all, approach that we see so much of. Why do you think players yearn for a new expansion or a new game? They are seeking variety, difference, a means to escape the dull drudgery that is often their RL experience. Is it of any merit to reduce their online experience to the same, albeit fanciful, equivalent? Truth be told, unless somebody comes up with a Turing complete model of human behavior, there will never be balance. Not today, nor ever in the future. What there will be is boredom, and the player base might just pull up stakes and move onto the next best thing.If the player base wants a Beast Lord class then, why not give it to them? Though I don't fancy ever rolling one myself, there really isn't any functional reason, not to have one. Where are the broomsticks for the witches and wizards of Norrath? Not there because, somebody decided that they would give somebody an unfair advantage against other players. Maybe every toon should get one spell, or combat art, that scales with level and does exactly the same thing no matter the class. Even then, somebody would find a way to exploit the subtle differences, and somebody else (the less imaginative ones) would cry "Nerf!"In EQ2 there does not appear to be any thief archetype. Certainly not in the strictest sense of the word. If a scout does anything that is even slightly aggressive the mob always gets to pound on them, but a thief would consider getting away with theft, and not getting into a fight, success. The dumbing down of the thief into a scout occurred for the reasons mentioned above.The ranger, who should be able to kite, exploit geometry, and attack without being pursued, can get maybe two or three shots off before they get a good pounding. In RL, it is almost impossible to determine the origin of a ranged attack unless you actually see the attacker., yet beetles, snakes, deer, and beavers all get the supernatural ability to make a bee-line towards the ranger hidden in a distant bush. The assassin should have the ability to kill instantly, individual targets, as long as they get the initiative, is instead turned into a fighting class which hardly resembles it's name. Don't even get me started on what has become of the coercer, the conjurer or the bard.There is a problem with development using the *DELETE* key, if you keep doing it, no matter how much eye candy the artists throw up, you will eventually have only a small set of features since your developers become more and more afraid of the balance bug-a-boo.Class balance is like the pot at the end of the rainbow. Find me one of them pots, and I'll admit that they can be balanced, until then, I will just assume that *nerf* intimidation was the factor, that prevented my flying mount, multiple summoner pets, true thief, true coercer, and of course beastlord, from being introduced into eq2.

Rainmare

10-31-2007, 06:14 AM

and lets be honest. we don't have 24 classes. we have a bunch of half classes marketed as a class.conjurer, necro, wizard, paladin, shadowknight are the only real classes.A Warlock is just all of a Necro's AE spells made into a 'class'Guard and Zerker are just both halves of a Warrior.Brig and swash are just both halves of the Rogue.assassin and ranger are really just the Ranger class, with all his bow attacks on one and melee on the other.a deflier and a mystic are both parts of a Shaman. mystic got all his buffs, deflier got all the debuffs.Dirge and Troub are just a Bard. like the pervious example, dirge got all the debuffs, and the troub got all teh buffs.I can go on.I bet a reason why a lot of EQ1 players didn't jump here is for that reason. they didn't want to play half the class they were in EQ1. that's why my gf never touched her illusionist beyond level 10.It's working, and it's alright and fun, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the rearrangement of the system or the like. just it's that way with these games. we really could use some new class.

Besual

10-31-2007, 08:21 AM

<cite>Rainy wrote:</cite><blockquote>and lets be honest. we don't have 24 classes. we have a bunch of half classes marketed as a class.conjurer, necro, wizard, paladin, shadowknight are the only real classes.A Warlock is just all of a Necro's AE spells made into a 'class'Guard and Zerker are just both halves of a Warrior.Brig and swash are just both halves of the Rogue.assassin and ranger are really just the Ranger class, with all his bow attacks on one and melee on the other.a deflier and a mystic are both parts of a Shaman. mystic got all his buffs, deflier got all the debuffs.Dirge and Troub are just a Bard. like the pervious example, dirge got all the debuffs, and the troub got all teh buffs.I can go on.I bet a reason why a lot of EQ1 players didn't jump here is for that reason. they didn't want to play half the class they were in EQ1. that's why my gf never touched her illusionist beyond level 10.It's working, and it's alright and fun, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the rearrangement of the system or the like. just it's that way with these games. we really could use some new class.</blockquote>Why don't you say necros and conjurer are the same? Both summon a pet and have nukes. The only difference is that a necro has a touch for undeads while the conjurer favors elemental = each half of a summoner.Same goes for pally / SK: Both combine melee combat with a bit of magic. Pally is about heal / protection while SK is about siphon strength = both half of a knight (or crusader).Wait, dosn't this sound something like... a class / sub class system?

Skua

10-31-2007, 08:50 AM

<cite>Besual wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rainy wrote:</cite><blockquote>and lets be honest. we don't have 24 classes. we have a bunch of half classes marketed as a class.conjurer, necro, wizard, paladin, shadowknight are the only real classes.A Warlock is just all of a Necro's AE spells made into a 'class'Guard and Zerker are just both halves of a Warrior.Brig and swash are just both halves of the Rogue.assassin and ranger are really just the Ranger class, with all his bow attacks on one and melee on the other.a deflier and a mystic are both parts of a Shaman. mystic got all his buffs, deflier got all the debuffs.Dirge and Troub are just a Bard. like the pervious example, dirge got all the debuffs, and the troub got all teh buffs.I can go on.I bet a reason why a lot of EQ1 players didn't jump here is for that reason. they didn't want to play half the class they were in EQ1. that's why my gf never touched her illusionist beyond level 10.It's working, and it's alright and fun, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the rearrangement of the system or the like. just it's that way with these games. we really could use some new class.</blockquote>Why don't you say necros and conjurer are the same? Both summon a pet and have nukes. The only difference is that a necro has a touch for undeads while the conjurer favors elemental = each half of a summoner.Same goes for pally / SK: Both combine melee combat with a bit of magic. Pally is about heal / protection while SK is about siphon strength = both half of a knight (or crusader).Wait, dosn't this sound something like... a class / sub class system?</blockquote>Wrong : conjurers are wannabeMAGICIANS (i miss my magi >.<<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" /> , Necros are necros lol ....both still miss a lot from eq1Pallys and SK are different , pallys are "light" (heals wards utility ) , Sks are lifetaps , death , and more dps . a lot of different.... and I agree with Rainy 100%Illu and coercer ......illus usea reactives (proc when mob is hitted) , coercer when mobs hit u (sux badly, makes no sense why? stuns pacify ect add tanka avoidance , the better the tank the worse the coercer dps....) , coercer can charm , illus use the personae , illus EOF AA are awesome .....Guardian and zerker.....mix both , create a Zerker stance (include all zerker buffs) , guardian stance (include buffs) .....and u will have a WARRIOR.Bards......lol bards sux in eq2 so bad.......i feel bad for them.... Assasins are the old rogues....Rangers need more "nature" spells >.> are rangers after all , no a archer with some melee attacks....Rogues....oh well...the rogues in eq2...1 debuff the incoming dmg , the other debuff the mob = you will do insane dmg.....Wizard and warlock .... the wizard is ok in eq2......but warlocks.....pffff Shaman.....i agree......Monk / bruiser....... but remember eq2 <> eq1.....we are playing a different game.....