People are tired of "flavor of the expac" classes! [Archive]

Ocello

12-19-2009, 05:56 PM

I think it is also stupid to make certain classes better at AoE than others (mainly tanks). Why make a class worthless to ANY content, when the other can technically do both? What SK or Zerker can't hold single target aggro??? Cuz I know a ton of Guardians and brawlers who have basically given up trying to hold AoE aggro. Being "stronger" at one shouldn't mean you are --handicapped-- at another.And as far as FotE classes, I'd love to know what you play. There are classes that have been held back for so long, I think they deserve to shine, albeit not quite like SK's were this ENTIRE xpack. Druids, Brawlers and Summoners should shine in Sentinel's Fate IMO. They have been the ugly step-sisters of the EQ2 world for about 4 years. It's ridiculous and inane that they have remained that way for so long, but hey I'm not a dev. But if I were, I would be doing damage control to make these classes desireable ASAP.

Davngr1

12-19-2009, 06:16 PM

<cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think it is also stupid to make certain classes better at AoE than others (mainly tanks). Why make a class worthless to ANY content? And as far as FotE classes, I'd love to know what you play. There are classes that have been held back for so long, I think they deserve to shine, albeit not quite like SK's were this ENTIRE xpack. Druids, brawlers and Summoners should shine in Sentinel's Fate IMO. They have been the ugly step-sisters of the EQ2 world for about 4 years. It's ridiculous and inane that they have remained thus, but hey I'm not a dev.</blockquote>the point IS it does not matter what class i play! i SHOULD be able to play ANY class and be usefull to my group/raid! NO MORE EAZE MODE,SCRUB CLASSES IN 2010! bring balance SOE people are tired of this crap... let people play what they want to play don't force people to play what EVERYONE else wants to invite to the group/raid!

Ocello

12-19-2009, 06:28 PM

You are right, it doesnt matter and they should be. But if you play, say a Wizard, I would tell you to go have sex with yourself, with all due respect. Or if you play a Guardian, the most powerful tank in game for 4 of EQ2's 5 years, I would also object. And don't get me started on an Assassin, Templar or Defiler.But more likely you play a brawler or summoner and get left out of raids/groups. But I have no idea, and really I don't care. The Shadowknight was a debacle and SoE should be ashamed of how godly they were for the last 13 months. I wouldn't like to see this again, but they needed help, badly, and SoE gave it to them without considering the consequences. But now other classes need some love, and I would not be averse to them getting some love. I just hope they aren't as OP as the SK is and has been for TSO.

Tehom

12-19-2009, 06:36 PM

Asking for them to balance classes is kind of an empty request. They'll always try, though their priorities can be skewed from our perspective - for example, I think druids were left weak for an unacceptably long time, since their issues won't be addressed for until 15 months have passed since when they first started to encounter em.The real problem is presentation. Generally speaking they'll receive very contradictory information from a vast range of players, since classes all behave differently in different contexts. You can name any class and someone out there thinks they're completely broken and worthless because of their own experiences, and lacks the perspective to realize that their experiences are an aberration far from the norm. Even rarer are players who are able to cogently list exactly what makes a class strong or weak based on the demands of content and in direct comparison to other classes, while possessing an encylopedic knowledge of the advantages of the other classes that were previously valid but have since been diminished by new content or new player abilities. The vast majority of players can't do that, so their opinions are at best somewhat uninformed, and at worst completely errant nonsense.

Crismorn

12-19-2009, 06:37 PM

Im gonna laugh pretty hard when summoners, brawlers and druids are buffed up only to see Chanters/Bards and possibly even clerics and shamans re-roll or just quit.

Ocello

12-19-2009, 06:52 PM

<cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im gonna laugh pretty hard when summoners, brawlers and druids are buffed up only to see Chanters/Bards and possibly even clerics and shamans re-roll or just quit.</blockquote>This doesn't really make any sense to me, please explain your correlation.

Qandor

12-19-2009, 06:53 PM

Given 5 years time to do so, I would say that if they haven't managed to balance classes by this point, it is extremely unlikely that they will do so going forward. Just too many classes. Core of the problem is having launched with 24 classes to begin with.

Sprin

12-19-2009, 07:05 PM

<cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think it is also stupid to make certain classes better at AoE than others (mainly tanks). Why make a class worthless to ANY content, when the other can technically do both? What SK or Zerker can't hold single target aggro??? Cuz I know a ton of Guardians and brawlers who have basically given up trying to hold AoE aggro. Being "stronger" at one shouldn't mean you are --handicapped-- at another.</blockquote>This is exactly it... the major problem with tank classes.... perhaps SOE doesnt seem to know this subtle yet very important point..Question: You know what a "Single target" is equivalent to?Answer: Its the last mob to die in that "AOE Encounter" So if a tank can hold Aggro on ALL aoe mobs better then another class, that means they can hold aggro on single targets just as easy as the others.... which means they are just as effective at single target as the "single target" tanks are... yet the "single target tanks" cant hold crap for AOE aggro...

DukeOccam

12-19-2009, 07:23 PM

I went through this in EQ1...any time Paladins asked for a way of doing any kind of AE aggro, the SKs and Warriors went apesh*t. I mean, it's not like we were asking for AE taunt or to be MASTERS of AE aggro, but just 1 thing with some small amount of aggro. If you're going to design encounters/zones/NPCs in a way that involves multiples attacking a group, then why leave out one of the tank classes? Why should any class be so helpless in that rather common scenario?Anyway.I agree with Qandor...they just launched with too many classes. It's just not possible to balance that many classes. I always thought they should have just had 4 classes: Mage, Priest, Fighter, Scout. At the very least, don't go making up extra classes just for symmetry's sake. I don't think it was really necessary to distinguish between Wizards/Warlocks, Mystics/Defilers, Monks/Bruisers, Troubadors/Dirges, Illusionists/Coercers, etc.

Crismorn

12-19-2009, 07:48 PM

<cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im gonna laugh pretty hard when summoners, brawlers and druids are buffed up only to see Chanters/Bards and possibly even clerics and shamans re-roll or just quit.</blockquote>This doesn't really make any sense to me, please explain your correlation.</blockquote>Im all out of crayons : /

gloraron

12-19-2009, 08:30 PM

Different classes have different strengths and weakness's. We knew this when the game started when we made our first toon. There's solo content, group content, and raid content. Some classes can be highly powerful solo'ers- ie summoners and brawlers, yet be weak in dps and survivability on raids. Some healers offer first line of defense wards- but provide little offensive or solo capability- while others can bring the pain when needed.Now people cry about class inbalance to the point where the whole community firmly believes that certain classes- druid, brawler, and summoner- need this huge boost in strength- to what end? Are druids going to do 10k dps, have reactives and wards, and have group health buffs on par with templars and shamans? To the end result in being a superpowered class in every area of the game? It really does seem that is what certain classes are asking for- even demanding it.I would agree that there needs to be tweaks made to certain classes to improve their desirability- but the omg the world is ending posts every 3 days about x class being overpowered while y class needs this huge boost is growing old. In the end its going to do more harm than good.

Nephretiti

12-19-2009, 08:42 PM

What in the name of all of the uncaring gods makes you think every class is suposed to be balanced? How could you possibly even THINK all classes are supposed to be balanced? Perhaps a more appropriate questions should be "What IS balanced"? No one has EVER defined this meaning. Tanks are NOT supposed to hold agro the same way. All casters are NOT supposed to do the same amount of DPS. Scouts are NOT all supposed to do melee damage. What you define as balance quickly becomes a source of unbalance when you mitigate EVERYTHING a class is desinged to do. Tanks has more than just agro to consider. Mages have a LOT more than just DPS. Etc. Honestly - it sounds like you would be happy with a generic game with just 4 classes: Tank, Spank, Yank, and Heal......

Ocello

12-19-2009, 09:18 PM

<cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im gonna laugh pretty hard when summoners, brawlers and druids are buffed up only to see Chanters/Bards and possibly even clerics and shamans re-roll or just quit.</blockquote>This doesn't really make any sense to me, please explain your correlation.</blockquote>Im all out of crayons : /</blockquote>I meant in English, not TROLLish fyi

Xisi

12-19-2009, 09:54 PM

<cite>Nephretiti wrote:</cite><blockquote>What in the name of all of the uncaring gods makes you think every class is suposed to be balanced? How could you possibly even THINK all classes are supposed to be balanced? Perhaps a more appropriate questions should be "What IS balanced"? No one has EVER defined this meaning. Tanks are NOT supposed to hold agro the same way. All casters are NOT supposed to do the same amount of DPS. Scouts are NOT all supposed to do melee damage. What you define as balance quickly becomes a source of unbalance when you mitigate EVERYTHING a class is desinged to do. Tanks has more than just agro to consider. Mages have a LOT more than just DPS. Etc. Honestly - it sounds like you would be happy with a generic game with just 4 classes: Tank, Spank, Yank, and Heal......</blockquote>totally agree.Also how do you balance non-combat abilities. Druids have the portal abilities, which is huge convenience. Plus druids have nice speed buff. If druids are as desirable as templars and defilers for main tank healing, what's the point of templars and defilers since they don't have the fluffy ports, they solo extremeley slow?Again, define "balance" please. Not everyone is a hardcore raider. If you want to balance the game around hardcore raiding, you will need reconsider the non-raid spells. You will need to buff defilers' dps as furies. Why should furies be able to solo to 80 easily then at 80 as desirable as defilers when defilers struggle to kill anything?Same logic applies to summoners. Summoners are king of soloing. They can even solo some dungeons. At 80, summoners can solo shard of love. So how do you gonna balance other classes' solo abilities if summoners are as desirable for raid as other mages? Are you gonna give other mages huge survivability or you are gonna have to take away some of summoner's solo abilities. Otherwise, it's another imbalance.

The_Cheeseman

12-19-2009, 11:47 PM

Balance is simple to envision, even if difficult to define. I would judge the classes as balanced if a brawler/summoner/druid could volunteer to tank/DPS/heal any given heroic group and be welcomed to do so without concern, even if other classes were available to fill those roles. Until that happens, the classes are not balanced.

Tehom

12-20-2009, 12:02 AM

<cite>Xisi@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>totally agree.Also how do you balance non-combat abilities. Druids have the portal abilities, which is huge convenience. Plus druids have nice speed buff. If druids are as desirable as templars and defilers for main tank healing, what's the point of templars and defilers since they don't have the fluffy ports, they solo extremeley slow?Again, define "balance" please. Not everyone is a hardcore raider. If you want to balance the game around hardcore raiding, you will need reconsider the non-raid spells. You will need to buff defilers' dps as furies. Why should furies be able to solo to 80 easily then at 80 as desirable as defilers when defilers struggle to kill anything?Same logic applies to summoners. Summoners are king of soloing. They can even solo some dungeons. At 80, summoners can solo shard of love. So how do you gonna balance other classes' solo abilities if summoners are as desirable for raid as other mages? Are you gonna give other mages huge survivability or you are gonna have to take away some of summoner's solo abilities. Otherwise, it's another imbalance.</blockquote>This view has come up before and it really only has merit to the extent to which those convenience abilities matter. When balancing raiding utility against one another, things like ports are extremely minor. Cosmetic abilities also have an extremely small draw for people. In addition, you may not be entirely well-informed when it comes to other mages' soloing. Why would you think other mage classes can't solo dungeons? That's nothing special, and wizards/enchanters have done that for years. So again, not a huge balance point for the classes.

Davngr1

12-20-2009, 02:56 AM

i think too many people answer questions for dev's as if they know their limits. i for one think they started doing this "flavor of the expac" class crap because dev's ended up giving the class they played extra attention. THAT is what has to stop. ALL classes should recive the abilitys they need to accomplish their role AND players should define the classes performance NOT the class in it self. my necro went from top parse in EoF to the same dps as chanters/bards with out ANY of the utillity, THAT should not happen again to ANY class. my guard went from good single target agro and slightly better survivabity over other tanks to CRAP agro and the same survivability as other tanks.my troub went from a fun class to solo and group with that could sometimes even top a parse or two to a class that can't solo half as well and is bottom of the damage table even among other utillity.my bruiser went from a solid dps tank with untouchable single target agro to being the second rate brawler with a utillity no one cared about. my wizard when from parsing just under summoners in longer fights to destroying every one on parse(exept lock on aoe).my sk went from "lol, why did you roll and sk?" to "best tank period, roll an sk!"my assassasin went from solid single target dps to "[Removed for Content], how can i kill the mob IF I CAN"T MOVE" stun/stiffle/targetlock/aoe inc the entire duration of EVERY raid encounter.my coercer went from "what do coercers do again?" to "70-79: NEED coercer for blah blah zone please!" so as you can see i have for the most part every class there is and i can play any class that devs decide to over power at any given point and time.. BUT i dont want to! it's dumb i want to play the class i feel like playing not the class soe decided to over power. further more dev's don't usualy just overpower a class they also end up breaking a class or two as well AND that is what really sucks.. why did my necro need to become useless? why did my guard have to get nerfed? why does my assassasin need to be useless on so many raid encounters? i mean.. how does this help the game? it does not. im serious, people are tired of the class they like to play becoming useless for no reason.

salty21db

12-20-2009, 03:58 AM

In some situations the term "dont hate the player, hate the game" can be switched to "dont hate the game, hate the player" and this is one of those.In much of your descriptions of how classes have had their ups and downs and throughout that course of time ive seen players able to handle all classes pretty darn well. It truly is the player not the game in most situations. Ive seen people play certain classes and completely suck...then ive seen other players play the same class and completely rock with it. You can blame SoE for tweaking things but u cant blame them for poor gameplay.Essentially if the class is available...its playable in its genre. This however is where cookie cutter comes into play and that god awful eq2flames with "spec this way" "play this way" "do this rotation" and when it suddenly dont work like some players want its "this class sucks!" "this class is broken" when realistically its just people not thinkin outside the box and learning the class for themselves.

Davngr1

12-20-2009, 04:29 AM

<cite>salty21db wrote:</cite><blockquote>In some situations the term "dont hate the player, hate the game" can be switched to "dont hate the game, hate the player" and this is one of those.In much of your descriptions of how classes have had their ups and downs and throughout that course of time ive seen players able to handle all classes pretty darn well. It truly is the player not the game in most situations. Ive seen people play certain classes and completely suck...then ive seen other players play the same class and completely rock with it. You can blame SoE for tweaking things but u cant blame them for poor gameplay.Essentially if the class is available...its playable in its genre. This however is where cookie cutter comes into play and that god awful eq2flames with "spec this way" "play this way" "do this rotation" and when it suddenly dont work like some players want its "this class sucks!" "this class is broken" when realistically its just people not thinkin outside the box and learning the class for themselves.</blockquote>right... so i guess i would call this "don't hate the hater, hate the ignorance?" do tell me how my necro was suppose to keep up with other dps classes in RoK when all the + spell and crit stats DID NOT affect at least 30% of his dmg(pet)? then tell me how my guard was suppose to keep with offensive tanks that got beefed up eof and kos AA while having his ONLY aggression generation AA ( STA line ) NERFED to crap? after you're done there then tell me how melee dps is suppose to keep up with casters when they end up stuned/stiffled/target locked 40%+ of the time not mention having to run out for AoE's(this drops their dps to near ZERO)? some of it is player ability but for those of us that KNOW how to play this game and KNOW our class it's clear that SoE needs to stop with the "flavor of the month" crap or at least start making sure that they dont make other classes useless while uber powering another.

Crismorn

12-20-2009, 05:40 AM

<cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im gonna laugh pretty hard when summoners, brawlers and druids are buffed up only to see Chanters/Bards and possibly even clerics and shamans re-roll or just quit.</blockquote>This doesn't really make any sense to me, please explain your correlation.</blockquote>Im all out of crayons : /</blockquote>I meant in English, not TROLLish fyi</blockquote>Now Im out of crayons and laughing, I thought you were trolling me tbh.

Dasein

12-20-2009, 11:22 AM

When it comes to fighters, a big problem is that fightrers do not complement each other. DPS classes work together with various buffs and debuffs to improve the overall DPS output of the group/raid. For example, a dirge and assassin complement each other, even though they are both scouts. Healers are similar, as multiple healers means more overall healing, and different healer classes can work together - wards and reactives, for example.Fighters, however, unlike the other archtypes, do not work together at all. Two tanks cannot hold agro better than one, and while there are a handful of encounters that require multiple tanks, these involve gimicks or adds. Thus, if we are to talk about fighter balance, all fighters need to fulfill their core roles equally well, since the tank role is solitary. Thus, all fighters need to have equal surviability and equal agro control. If a class is lacking in either of these areas, that class is at a severe disadvantage.The other option is to give fighters more abilities which complement each other, although this would require a lot more work and would change how some fighter classes are played.

Aull

12-20-2009, 01:52 PM

I think the issues are when class x is strong in one area and their counterpart class y is weak in that area then class y starts complaining that they too need to be as strong as class x just to compete. If class x and class y become equal in all aspects of play then why have them both?If all the fighters are equal in survivability, dps, utility, solo, ect then why have six of them?

Dasein

12-20-2009, 02:27 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think the issues are when class x is strong in one area and their counterpart class y is weak in that area then class y starts complaining that they too need to be as strong as class x just to compete. If class x and class y become equal in all aspects of play then why have them both?If all the fighters are equal in survivability, dps, utility, solo, ect then why have six of them?</blockquote>There isn't any reason to have 6 fighter classes, but we do, and I highly doubt the devs will ever remove any classes, so we need to work with what we've got.The fact is, the tank role in a group/raid does not allow for much variation, so any fighter that is going to tank needs a certain set of abilities, and any fighter lacking in these areas will be regarded as a second-class tank. Granted, this may be enough for some content, and gear can close the gap, but all else being equal, it comes down to raw class abilities.The other part of the balance equation is content. In a PvE game, classes need to be balanced both against each other for limited spots in groups and raids, and against the enemies they will face in the game. Thus, while certain classes may look balanced on paper, if the content favors certain abilities over others, then there will be a functional imbalance. For example, immunity to stuns versus immunity to fear may look equal on paper, as both allow the player to ignore certain control effects. However, if virtually every mob has a stun, while fears are rarely used, then stun immunity is far more useful and gives that class a substantial advantage.

TheSpin

12-20-2009, 03:14 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think the issues are when class x is strong in one area and their counterpart class y is weak in that area then class y starts complaining that they too need to be as strong as class x just to compete. If class x and class y become equal in all aspects of play then why have them both?If all the fighters are equal in survivability, dps, utility, solo, ect then why have six of them?</blockquote>There isn't any reason to have 6 fighter classes, but we do, and I highly doubt the devs will ever remove any classes, so we need to work with what we've got.The fact is, the tank role in a group/raid does not allow for much variation, so any fighter that is going to tank needs a certain set of abilities, and any fighter lacking in these areas will be regarded as a second-class tank. Granted, this may be enough for some content, and gear can close the gap, but all else being equal, it comes down to raw class abilities.The other part of the balance equation is content. In a PvE game, classes need to be balanced both against each other for limited spots in groups and raids, and against the enemies they will face in the game. Thus, while certain classes may look balanced on paper, if the content favors certain abilities over others, then there will be a functional imbalance. For example, immunity to stuns versus immunity to fear may look equal on paper, as both allow the player to ignore certain control effects. However, if virtually every mob has a stun, while fears are rarely used, then stun immunity is far more useful and gives that class a substantial advantage.</blockquote>This is the reason for my suggestion to make a utility tank, just like there are utility mages and scouts. Monks get a little power regen/crowd control, bruisers get surviveability 'transfer' for another fighter and best aggro transfer. That's just my personal idea for the whole fighter thing.

Davngr1

12-20-2009, 03:15 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>When it comes to fighters, a big problem is that fightrers do not complement each other. DPS classes work together with various buffs and debuffs to improve the overall DPS output of the group/raid. For example, a dirge and assassin complement each other, even though they are both scouts. Healers are similar, as multiple healers means more overall healing, and different healer classes can work together - wards and reactives, for example.Fighters, however, unlike the other archtypes, do not work together at all. Two tanks cannot hold agro better than one, and while there are a handful of encounters that require multiple tanks, these involve gimicks or adds. Thus, if we are to talk about fighter balance, all fighters need to fulfill their core roles equally well, since the tank role is solitary. Thus, all fighters need to have equal surviability and equal agro control. If a class is lacking in either of these areas, that class is at a severe disadvantage.The other option is to give fighters more abilities which complement each other, although this would require a lot more work and would change how some fighter classes are played.</blockquote> SoE has started doing this with fighters and if everything stays as planned brawlers will become the utillity tanks. i think it should work out well as long as my bruiser does not become a buff bot only.. this can really suck the fun out of a class or at least it did when my troub was nerfed back in kos. <cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think the issues are when class x is strong in one area and their counterpart class y is weak in that area then class y starts complaining that they too need to be as strong as class x just to compete. If class x and class y become equal in all aspects of play then why have them both?If all the fighters are equal in survivability, dps, utility, solo, ect then why have six of them?</blockquote>it's not so much that dev's make class X better then class Y on a certain thing.. it's that they end up making class X better then class Y at one thing then nerfing class Y at what their stong point is. this is what needs to stop. ei. offensive tanks better then guards at aggression generation and AE control. guards are better then offensive tanks are survivability and snap agro. dev solution? give offensive tanks just as many saves/survavility as guards AND give them just as many snap agro tools(we're really fine still tbh) BUT here is where they went too far.. NERF guard aggression generation.. [Removed for Content] why? lol stop this practice.edit. had guard myth and STA line never been touched balance would have been maintained.

Aull

12-20-2009, 04:54 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>it's not so much that dev's make class X better then class Y on a certain thing.. it's that they end up making class X better then class Y at one thing then nerfing class Y at what their stong point is. this is what needs to stop. ei. offensive tanks better then guards at aggression generation and AE control. guards are better then offensive tanks are survivability and snap agro. dev solution? give offensive tanks just as many saves/survavility as guards AND give them just as many snap agro tools(we're really fine still tbh) BUT here is where they went too far.. NERF guard aggression generation.. [Removed for Content] why? lol stop this practice.edit. had guard myth and STA line never been touched balance would have been maintained.</blockquote>That was what I was trying to imply. Problem was when they gave these offensive tanks the saves/survivability they forgot to tone down the dps portion. That is why I said many cried in ROK (even me back then) that guards had better snap aggro and defensive array of abilities that made other tanks seem not a desirable "on raids".What I wanted was guard survival & snap aggro too. I also wanted to keep what my zerker and sk already had as well. In doing so it left guards in the situation they are today and that is where I seen the wrong of my jealousy. What should have happened was since my zerker and sk got more defensive abilities their dps should not have remained the same. Nothing wrong with having aggro and survivability but having both plus dps made them better than a guard.That is why I think that class x should differ from class y. Just like monk tsunami was once a monk defining class ability. Later most fighters get similar abilities and to me that should have never taken place to begin with.

Thunndar316

12-21-2009, 11:24 AM

You can't balance 24 classes and make everyone happy.SOE should have never launched with so many classes but what's done is done. The only solution is class consolidation and that will never happen.

MoonSorceror

12-21-2009, 01:09 PM

<cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can't balance 24 classes and make everyone happy.SOE should have never launched with so many classes but what's done is done. The only solution is class consolidation and that will never happen.</blockquote>I would really hate to see the number of classes as one of EQ2s unique features going away. Also even games with very few classes have their balance problems - be they real or only perceived. The only way to get real balance is to have only one class and everybody being able to tank/heal/dps equally - and that would be a tad boring.So please keep trying to balance things, SOE and try not to overshoot too much - although it's difficult to get right 'cause what SKs deemed fair after all was perceived as far OP by every other tank and chanters will probably hate next xpack with everybody else rejoicing...

Davngr1

12-21-2009, 01:27 PM

i don't belive that. i think it's not that hard to balance 24 classes.balancing group content is not so hard and in all reality it's almost there.. aside from a few quirks here and there. the problem is balancing 24 classes in a raid BUT soe has all ready taken a step in the right direction with "raid wide buffs" THAT is what will allow true or at least realistic balance (ie. some classes will stay mostly solo/group content friendly more then raid) balancing raid utillity/dps/tanking/heals has been hard till now because it's not a 24 characters that are being balanced it's 4 groups of 6. thus at times it's better to make two exact groups of each kind ei. two dps and two tanking groups. by making raid wide buffs it would in effect turn the entire raid in to ONE group. by making the raid one group it will open up for better balance since the buffs(even good ones) will not stack so if you decided to take 8 bards and chanters and 3 sk's/guards then you will be wasting 8 buffs since they will not stack. this change along with listening to the player base as far as class balance goes would mean "realistic" balance. again there is nothing wrong with a class or three shining for each expac it's the exesive nerfing of other classes that sucks. i don't want my SK to go back to being a "fetish tank", meaning only reason i played him is because I wanted to.. everyone told NO no no SK sorry! i don't want my scout to continue being next to useless on some encounters because of stuns/stiffles/target locks/aoe's i don't think it's fair that my troub has such a hard time soloing content because he's not in high end raid gear. these are small tweaks that would be easy to implement and the player base could guide devs to the fair values that should be given to classes. aftre all if i posted that my guard needed 80% avoidance and 90% mitt along with *ice commet* to be balanced, I'm pretty dam sure thre would be AT LEAST 10 guards alone in this foroum that would post against it.

Dasein

12-21-2009, 01:46 PM

<cite>MoonSorceror wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can't balance 24 classes and make everyone happy.SOE should have never launched with so many classes but what's done is done. The only solution is class consolidation and that will never happen.</blockquote>I would really hate to see the number of classes as one of EQ2s unique features going away. Also even games with very few classes have their balance problems - be they real or only perceived. The only way to get real balance is to have only one class and everybody being able to tank/heal/dps equally - and that would be a tad boring.So please keep trying to balance things, SOE and try not to overshoot too much - although it's difficult to get right 'cause what SKs deemed fair after all was perceived as far OP by every other tank and chanters will probably hate next xpack with everybody else rejoicing...</blockquote>Actually, having only abilities players can obtain, but no actual classes would work very well. To limit things, players could only have a certain number of abilities active at any given time, so while you may know all the healing damage, buff and tanking abilities, you might only be allowed to have 20 with you at a time.

Eugam

12-22-2009, 04:15 AM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>like it reads, people are TIRED of this practice. STOP doing it bring balance for once soe!it's ok that some classes will shine better in different content ie. SK/lock in AE content BUT it's not ok for other classese to be NERFED or IGNORED to the point that THEY ARE in FACT useless to a group/raid.thank you for your attention to this issue <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>LOL.There is nothing wrong with the classes. The problem are the players who WANT easymode, else they would pick any class to group with <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And the other thing is, that the gameplay is broken. It is now beyond the basic game design. Incoming damage, taunt, dps and heals are no longer properly balanced. Not to mention all the AOE crap that has massive impact on gameplay. Just think of wards vs. direct heals while a AOE is active. Just one example.. it was not always this way. And i am only talking about heroic content.

bks6721

12-22-2009, 08:32 AM

<cite>Ghettoblaster@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think it is also stupid to make certain classes better at AoE than others (mainly tanks). Why make a class worthless to ANY content, when the other can technically do both? What SK or Zerker can't hold single target aggro??? Cuz I know a ton of Guardians and brawlers who have basically given up trying to hold AoE aggro. Being "stronger" at one shouldn't mean you are --handicapped-- at another.</blockquote>This is exactly it... the major problem with tank classes.... perhaps SOE doesnt seem to know this subtle yet very important point..Question: You know what a "Single target" is equivalent to?Answer: Its the last mob to die in that "AOE Encounter" So if a tank can hold Aggro on ALL aoe mobs better then another class, that means they can hold aggro on single targets just as easy as the others.... which means they are just as effective at single target as the "single target" tanks are... yet the "single target tanks" cant hold crap for AOE aggro...</blockquote>I have healed in Befallen:CoA with every tank class in the game with no issues. It's really very simple if you think about it for a while. IF you don't have an AOE tank then DON"T do massive AOE dps and you will have no problems.

bks6721

12-22-2009, 08:40 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Balance is simple to envision, even if difficult to define. I would judge the classes as balanced if a brawler/summoner/druid could volunteer to tank/DPS/heal any given heroic group and be welcomed to do so without concern, even if other classes were available to fill those roles. Until that happens, the classes are not balanced.</blockquote>they CAN tank/dps/heal.. its the players demanding perfection (meaning: parse) that limit their desirability.as a templar, I have never had a problem healing a brawler that was tanking.unbalanced to most people means - someone did something better than I can do, therefore UNBALANCED. People use "balance" for an excuse for their own failure.

bks6721

12-22-2009, 08:53 AM

bks6721

12-22-2009, 08:57 AM

<cite>MoonSorceror wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can't balance 24 classes and make everyone happy.SOE should have never launched with so many classes but what's done is done. The only solution is class consolidation and that will never happen.</blockquote>I would really hate to see the number of classes as one of EQ2s unique features going away. Also even games with very few classes have their balance problems - be they real or only perceived. The only way to get real balance is to have only one class and everybody being able to tank/heal/dps equally - and that would be a tad boring.So please keep trying to balance things, SOE and try not to overshoot too much - although it's difficult to get right 'cause what SKs deemed fair after all was perceived as far OP by every other tank and chanters will probably hate next xpack with everybody else rejoicing...</blockquote>balance will never exist. How do I know? Dev's stated that we won't get Beast-lords until classes are balanced. They've also stated that Beast-lords will never happen. So.... Dev's admit there will never be balance and even IF they think they have balance the players will cry reguardless about something.