Suggestion: Consolidating Classes [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Vulkan_NTooki

05-09-2012, 07:15 AM

<cite>Melpheos@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>You realize the massive work that would require ?I'd rather the fix every bug in the game and various class than start to mess everything up.</blockquote>They had almost 8 years to try and balance 24(now 25) classes, and they still fail..It does require some work yes.. But you could basically just create 12 new classes.. called Crusader, Warrior, etc.. with completely new skills.. this would almost become as a new fresh start..Staying as your subclass would mean that your cutting yourself short.. no further balancing or improvement would be created for these subclasses (else we'd have 37 classes instead of 25).. It would be like bronze vs gold membership really.. u can choose if you want that extra something a consolidation would bring.It would require a good portion of work, but doesnt have to be complicated..

Grumpy_Warrior_01

05-09-2012, 08:07 AM

Vulkan_NTooki

05-09-2012, 09:01 AM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite> <blockquote>Hi. Could SoE please consolidate classes in the next Xpansion? Its getting tiresome how your class gets from good, to bad, to good again over the different expansions or updates. usually across the classtype.. Here is my suggestion.. Make a rebirth option next xpac.. You can rebirth into your classtype.. Warrior, Brawler, Crusader, Summoner, Sorcerer, Enchanter etc.. You'd have to level up from lvl 1. But your end class (say Crusader) would be a mix of the two classes (paladin/SK) but stronger than both.. All continued class balancing from then on, would then be on the classtype for the next expansions.. BL would not have to rebirth(since its allready where I suggest all classes should be at after rebirth).. If you disagree with the suggestion, please be constructive and polite..</blockquote> A) What makes you think 12 classes would be distributed more to your liking than 24? B) What do you mean by "your class gets from good, to bad, to good again"? C) If you're okay with leveling up from level 1 with a new class, why not consider rolling an alt of the other subclass from your current character? D) Betraying would be another option with less impact on your time. </blockquote>A) Easier to balance 13 classes than 25 (the disparities are usually between sub classes tho (sk vs pala | guard vs zerk etc)) But also across fighter types.. Like how OP brawlers are nowadays.. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />B) One expansion the class is OK, then next its nerfed, then its OP, then its useless etc etc..C) I have 8 lvl 90+ toons (2 x assassins, 1 SK, 1 Paladin, 1 coercer, 1 inquisitor, 1 BL, 1 Wizard) Gearing them up requires alot of time. INQ and BL are OP atm, so gearing them up first would be the logical choice..However 6 months from now when they are geared up, they might no longer be the best choice, and I have to gear up another toon which is the flavor of the month due to bad balancing.However.. betraying might be the answer now with all the new focuses being archetype instead of subclass.. when fully mastered on one subclass u can betray to the other subclass and back without loosing spell quality iirc.. And u no longer have to change gear.. Its easy to be good in two classes, but its better yet to excel in one. Betrayal does not solve the balancing issue across fighter types tho (warrior, brawler, crusader) which Im sure would be easier with 3 types instead of 6.

General_Info

05-09-2012, 09:09 AM

<cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite><blockquote>They had almost 8 years to try and balance 24(now 25) classes, and they still fail..It does require some work yes.. But you could basically just create 12 new classes.. called Crusader, Warrior, etc.. with completely new skills.. this would almost become as a new fresh start..Staying as your subclass would mean that your cutting yourself short.. no further balancing or improvement would be created for these subclasses (else we'd have 37 classes instead of 25).. It would be like bronze vs gold membership really.. u can choose if you want that extra something a consolidation would bring.It would require a good portion of work, but doesnt have to be complicated..</blockquote>I'll agree that they made too many classes to keep well rounded. however the last time sony cut back a ton of classes in one of their games they lost alot of customers in said game and until the very end of that game the people that didn't like the changes kept on with their negativity till the very end on the internet (dispite not playing said game for years) and kept peopel away who would have otherwise tried the game.What makes you think what you propose is any different?It doesn't matter if it is optional or not if it is forced you will anger at least 90% of the playerbase as they will have to start from level 1 meaning all the time they have spent to this day ingame is worthless and if it isn't forced but development of existing classes is halted you will still anger the population.

Kenelven

05-09-2012, 10:08 AM

Dasein

05-09-2012, 10:27 AM

The NGE moved SWG from a skill-based system to a class/level based system. At launch, a 'class' was determined by the skill paths you selected, and a player could freely choose any skill (up to a fixed amount), and respec at will. Experience was earned in those specific skills. The NGE moved to a more class/level based system, where the class defined the available skills, and advancement was handled at the class level. Consolidating classes but remaining within a class/level paradigm is not at all the same as the NGE.

ReddyKY

05-09-2012, 10:32 AM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>The NGE moved SWG from a skill-based system to a class/level based system. At launch, a 'class' was determined by the skill paths you selected, and a player could freely choose any skill (up to a fixed amount), and respec at will. Experience was earned in those specific skills. The NGE moved to a more class/level based system, where the class defined the available skills, and advancement was handled at the class level. Consolidating classes but remaining within a class/level paradigm is not at all the same as the NGE.</blockquote>So "classes" weren't eliminated in the NGE?

Dasein

05-09-2012, 11:03 AM

<cite>ReddyKY wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>The NGE moved SWG from a skill-based system to a class/level based system. At launch, a 'class' was determined by the skill paths you selected, and a player could freely choose any skill (up to a fixed amount), and respec at will. Experience was earned in those specific skills. The NGE moved to a more class/level based system, where the class defined the available skills, and advancement was handled at the class level. Consolidating classes but remaining within a class/level paradigm is not at all the same as the NGE.</blockquote>So "classes" weren't eliminated in the NGE?</blockquote>Pre-NGE SWG used a system whereby what skills you advanced determined your 'class', rather than selecting a class when creating your character and having that determine your skills or other abilities. The NGE didn't merely remove certain classes, it completely redid the character advancement system. People do not seem to understand the magnitude of the NGE, which is why so many comparisons to it are flawed. Adding or removing classes within an established class-system is not at all comprable to the NGE. If EQ2 went from having fixed classes to a purely AA-based advancement system, with endline AA-abilities defining a 'class', that would be on par with the NGE, but in reverse.

ReddyKY

05-09-2012, 11:08 AM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ReddyKY wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>The NGE moved SWG from a skill-based system to a class/level based system. At launch, a 'class' was determined by the skill paths you selected, and a player could freely choose any skill (up to a fixed amount), and respec at will. Experience was earned in those specific skills. The NGE moved to a more class/level based system, where the class defined the available skills, and advancement was handled at the class level. Consolidating classes but remaining within a class/level paradigm is not at all the same as the NGE.</blockquote>So "classes" weren't eliminated in the NGE?</blockquote>Pre-NGE SWG used a system whereby what skills you advanced determined your 'class', rather than selecting a class when creating your character and having that determine your skills or other abilities. The NGE didn't merely remove certain classes, it completely redid the character advancement system. People do not seem to understand the magnitude of the NGE, which is why so many comparisons to it are flawed. Adding or removing classes within an established class-system is not at all comprable to the NGE. If EQ2 went from having fixed classes to a purely AA-based advancement system, with endline AA-abilities defining a 'class', that would be on par with the NGE, but in reverse.</blockquote>You are mired up in the details when all I want is to know whether there were LESS options after the NGE than before?He said "like" the NGE. If there were less options after the NGE than before, and the proposal for less classes in EQ2 ends up with less options than before, than I can certainly agree that they are "like" each other, regardless of the details. They are not "just like" or "exactly like" or "the same as," but they are "like" (if the options are less) and that was what you were disputing.

Dasein

05-09-2012, 11:24 AM

<cite>ReddyKY wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ReddyKY wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>The NGE moved SWG from a skill-based system to a class/level based system. At launch, a 'class' was determined by the skill paths you selected, and a player could freely choose any skill (up to a fixed amount), and respec at will. Experience was earned in those specific skills. The NGE moved to a more class/level based system, where the class defined the available skills, and advancement was handled at the class level. Consolidating classes but remaining within a class/level paradigm is not at all the same as the NGE.</blockquote>So "classes" weren't eliminated in the NGE?</blockquote>Pre-NGE SWG used a system whereby what skills you advanced determined your 'class', rather than selecting a class when creating your character and having that determine your skills or other abilities. The NGE didn't merely remove certain classes, it completely redid the character advancement system. People do not seem to understand the magnitude of the NGE, which is why so many comparisons to it are flawed. Adding or removing classes within an established class-system is not at all comprable to the NGE. If EQ2 went from having fixed classes to a purely AA-based advancement system, with endline AA-abilities defining a 'class', that would be on par with the NGE, but in reverse.</blockquote>You are mired up in the details when all I want is to know whether there were LESS options after the NGE than before?He said "like" the NGE. If there were less options after the NGE than before, and the proposal for less classes in EQ2 ends up with less options than before, than I can certainly agree that they are "like" each other, regardless of the details. They are not "just like" or "exactly like" or "the same as," but they are "like" (if the options are less) and that was what you were disputing.</blockquote>You are missing the important part of the NGE, which was a redefinition of player advancement. Had the devs consolidated or removed certain skill lines, but left the overall advancement system in place, I doubt there would be the outcry over the NGE that persists today.Do multiple overlapping classes really provide more options than fewer, better defined classes supported by robust AA choices? Do players have more options if certain classes are undesirable in groups and raids? Would a smaller number of classes consequently give players more options in term sof actual gameplay - group and raid spots that would otherwise be denied them because they play a class that is not in demand?

Yimway

05-09-2012, 11:25 AM

Too much effort for SoE to deliver.

Senvares

05-09-2012, 11:25 AM

being a gold member i disagree with this not everything needs to be made easy its good to have a challenge and some easy go at it were its like a lvl 70 beating on lvl 5's, sorry i like it the way it is and is fine, and since im on gold and say no its not going to happen.

ReddyKY

05-09-2012, 11:30 AM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>You are mired up in the details when all I want is to know whether there were LESS options after the NGE than before?He said "like" the NGE. If there were less options after the NGE than before, and the proposal for less classes in EQ2 ends up with less options than before, than I can certainly agree that they are "like" each other, regardless of the details. They are not "just like" or "exactly like" or "the same as," but they are "like" (if the options are less) and that was what you were disputing.</blockquote>You are missing the important part of the NGE, which was a redefinition of player advancement. Had the devs consolidated or removed certain skill lines, but left the overall advancement system in place, I doubt there would be the outcry over the NGE that persists today.Do multiple overlapping classes really provide more options than fewer, better defined classes supported by robust AA choices? Do players have more options if certain classes are undesirable in groups and raids? Would a smaller number of classes consequently give players more options in term sof actual gameplay - group and raid spots that would otherwise be denied them because they play a class that is not in demand?</blockquote>I am not debating the details fo the NGE; simply debating whether it is at all "like" what was proposed. In that endeavor, you failed(evaded?) to answer the question. It isn't that hard.In your opinion, were there more or less options after the NGE? Not about what might happen in EQ2, but what DID happen in SWG.

Mermut

05-09-2012, 11:43 AM

Variety is good. Taking away options is generaly bad. I think this is a baaaaaad idea.

Sinnous

05-09-2012, 11:55 AM

Your'e out of your mind. The Everquest franchise has always had many choices for class. EQ1,EQOA and EQ2 have all had Shadowknights,paladin, enchanter(this is what they split with coercer and illusionist),necromancer,magician(conjuror),monk,r ogue(assassin),ranger, beastlord(not in EQOA),Shaman(mystic,defiler), etc etc. The only thing that is different about EQ2 is that they did split a few classes, but they do not need to combine down to anything like 12. The original EQ had 16 and that would be sufficient however choices as someone else said were a good thing and will always be. I've played a warlock and an assassin for the last several years and haven't had any problems with being useless or awesome. Less requested for raids is a possibility but I don't need to be awesome all the time to enjoy playing my class. They won't consolidate the classes, if anything they may introduce a couple more over the next few years lol.

Geothe

05-09-2012, 12:08 PM

I would of liked to see them consolidate classes quite a while ago (before they unloaded most of their Dev staff to other projects and put EQ2 mostly in maintain mode).With the addition of AA trees, that would of been a solid area to truely custom build your character. Pretty much put the class distiction in different paths, and let the player decided how in which direction they would like to design their toon, or stay middle ground with parts from both halves.However, far too late to do that now, not the staff to pull it off sadly.

SpineDoc

05-09-2012, 01:11 PM

Seems to me that having more classes is actually what is the choice limiting factor. Going all the way in the other direction is a completely skill based character, which IMO gives the player ALL the "choice" in selecting what kind of character they want to create. Delineating characters into specific classes takes away virtually all choice.I'd be all for consolidating subclasses into just one class, and then handling the "choice" through AA choices. A "cleric" could choose to become an inquisitor or a templar through AA choices, thus giving that cleric MORE choices instead of locking them into a single class.This is why it's short sighted to think that consolidating classes provides less choice, if properly implemented (yeah yeah I know, it's SOE) having less classes would in effect provide a much wider variety of choices. IMO this would make classes much more exciting and versatile. If it were me I'd actually choose an ALL skill based setup and get rid of classes completely, but that's just me. I'd be excited about the incredible amount of choice and personalization an all skill based system would provide.

ReddyKY

05-09-2012, 01:15 PM

<cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite><blockquote>Seems to me that having more classes is actually what is the choice limiting factor. Going all the way in the other direction is a completely skill based character, which IMO gives the player ALL the "choice" in selecting what kind of character they want to create. Delineating characters into specific classes takes away virtually all choice.I'd be all for consolidating subclasses into just one class, and then handling the "choice" through AA choices. A "cleric" could choose to become an inquisitor or a templar through AA choices, thus giving that cleric MORE choices instead of locking them into a single class.This is why it's short sighted to think that consolidating classes provides less choice, if properly implemented (yeah yeah I know, it's SOE) having less classes would in effect provide a much wider variety of choices. IMO this would make classes much more exciting and versatile. If it were me I'd actually choose an ALL skill based setup and get rid of classes completely, but that's just me. I'd be excited about the incredible amount of choice and personalization an all skill based system would provide.</blockquote>FFXIV does that I believe. I agree that in principal a classless system provides more choice, so the idea COULD have been a good one, early on in the game, or from the drawing board, but in order for it to be a good idea now, and provide more choice, one would have to believe that SOE could pull it off in a 7+ year old game. I don't think they would have even the slightest of chances of delivering us more choice from class consolidation.

SpineDoc

05-09-2012, 01:32 PM

<cite>ReddyKY wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>SpineDoc wrote:</cite><blockquote>Seems to me that having more classes is actually what is the choice limiting factor. Going all the way in the other direction is a completely skill based character, which IMO gives the player ALL the "choice" in selecting what kind of character they want to create. Delineating characters into specific classes takes away virtually all choice.I'd be all for consolidating subclasses into just one class, and then handling the "choice" through AA choices. A "cleric" could choose to become an inquisitor or a templar through AA choices, thus giving that cleric MORE choices instead of locking them into a single class.This is why it's short sighted to think that consolidating classes provides less choice, if properly implemented (yeah yeah I know, it's SOE) having less classes would in effect provide a much wider variety of choices. IMO this would make classes much more exciting and versatile. If it were me I'd actually choose an ALL skill based setup and get rid of classes completely, but that's just me. I'd be excited about the incredible amount of choice and personalization an all skill based system would provide.</blockquote>FFXIV does that I believe. I agree that in principal a classless system provides more choice, so the idea COULD have been a good one, early on in the game, or from the drawing board, but in order for it to be a good idea now, and provide more choice, one would have to believe that SOE could pull it off in a 7+ year old game. I don't think they would have even the slightest of chances of delivering us more choice from class consolidation.</blockquote>Certainly this is true. I speak from a pie in the sky wishful mentality, but we all know the truth of the matter is that with today's skeleton dev crew they could never pull it off. They would also probably pi$$ off a lot of people who are attached to their toons, so it would realistically have to be something done from the inception of the game. That's why I'm hesitantly looking forward to the Secret World, I dig the entirely skill based system as I'm the kind of player who enjoys working hours upon hours on my AA's and progression choices.

thesiren

05-09-2012, 04:44 PM

What I'd rather SOE did would be to loosen sub-class restrictions, similarly to what Rift has done. They have 8 of each main class, we have 6 of each. You level a Priest, you can switch between all 6 of our sub classes at will. Your gear would still generally hold and more importantly, so would the amount of AAs you have amassed; you'd just have to buy the different spell and skill upgrades up to your current level, and add to them as you level.Some people could choose to just remain an Inquisitor all the time, but others could switch between a Warden, then to a Mystic, then back to Inquisitor, etc. There would be the investment for spell upgrades, and the reassigning of AAs whenever you switch out, but then you'd be good to go.And ditch the whole Big Questline of Doom thing (like how Druids can go from Warden to Fury and back again, but only after the betrayal thing part-way).The thing is, the basic mechanics for swapping out have already been there for some time now (Warden to Fury and back again, etc.). This would just be expanding upon that to save AA grind, and add major utility on the fly to grouping.Thing about it-- EQ2 has about the only class system besides Rift that could even attempt such a thing. They're almost uniquely positioned in this industry to do this.I'm not saying to change any of the spells, skills or AA trees within each sub-class, but only to make it so you can switch between the sub-classes within your main class freely (Warriors could become Pallies, SKs, Guardians, Zerks, Monks etc. and back again at will).

Firecracker

05-09-2012, 04:49 PM

Not that this will happen any time soon, but how about for example AA tree that would define weather you’re a conjuror or necromancer but still be a summoner? The abilities that make them different are what would be in the AA tree if you decide to go down that line. This would mean though the starting professions could start anywhere or possibly make it where the AA line isn’t available to do down if evil or good. Basically the spell across the board are somewhat similar if your a mage or even a fighter if some haven’t noticed for we generally get similar spells at the same level like for example are buffs and other spells. In doing this, the AA tree would need to offer everything that would make them be different from each other or it won’t work with old time players. I can see the betrayal be somewhat useless if they consolidated the classes. –just my two sense for classes are out of whack as it is now

Raffir

05-09-2012, 04:50 PM

The more classes, the better as far as I'm concerned. I like playing all of them. Unfortunately, that splits my time on each, so only a few of them are maxed. But, what the heck..its all a time sink.Raf

The Dark Savant

05-09-2012, 07:06 PM

EQ2 has more classes than devs to handle them, no doubt - but for just that reason, this is an impossible suggestion.On top of all the logistics, think of the thematic nightmare that ditching the specialisations would create. Paladin and Shadowknight, for example, or Necromancer and Conjuror. Does a Crusader heal or lifetap? Does a Summoner turn into a lich or summon elemental forces? Back when we *could* be one of the subtypes, believe me I was grateful to get out of it and finally get some class-defining abilities. There's an argument to be made for putting the diversity back in through AAs, but that would a) completely ignore the good-evil setting of the game, which is still clinging in there, and more seriously b) mean discarding a whole bunch of functional AAs in order to introduce aesthetics which you could just as profitably have by... wait for it... splitting the classes!Think about it: the process of consolidation means that every AA and spell you have is up for negotiation. The end result is bound to be an absolute disaster, butchering classes left and right, throwing out class-defining abilities entirely or turning them into AAs that replace strategy-defining AAs we have now...

General_Info

05-10-2012, 06:24 AM

<cite>thesiren wrote:</cite><blockquote>What I'd rather SOE did would be to loosen sub-class restrictions, similarly to what Rift has done. They have 8 of each main class, we have 6 of each. You level a Priest, you can switch between all 6 of our sub classes at will. Your gear would still generally hold and more importantly, so would the amount of AAs you have amassed; you'd just have to buy the different spell and skill upgrades up to your current level, and add to them as you level.Some people could choose to just remain an Inquisitor all the time, but others could switch between a Warden, then to a Mystic, then back to Inquisitor, etc. There would be the investment for spell upgrades, and the reassigning of AAs whenever you switch out, but then you'd be good to go.The thing is, the basic mechanics for swapping out have already been there for some time now (Warden to Fury and back again, etc.). This would just be expanding upon that to save AA grind, and add major utility on the fly to grouping.Thing about it-- EQ2 has about the only class system besides Rift that could even attempt such a thing. They're almost uniquely positioned in this industry to do this.I'm not saying to change any of the spells, skills or AA trees within each sub-class, but only to make it so you can switch between the sub-classes within your main class freely (Warriors could become Pallies, SKs, Guardians, Zerks, Monks etc. and back again at will).</blockquote>I would support this provided it has a coin/status cost and requires some questing as long as the class you are swapping to is not prohibited by alignement. for example a good charater changing to a shadowknight would require the charater to swap to paladin then betray to become a shadowknight.

convict

05-10-2012, 11:19 AM

<cite>retro_guy wrote:</cite><blockquote>As long as it's optional.Otherwise, isn't this exactly what killed SWG?</blockquote>No, SoE/LA killed swg. Poor decisions killed swg, and it's happening here.

The_Cheeseman

05-10-2012, 01:14 PM

This suggestion comes up every now and again, and I generally say the same thing. Class balance isn't the most important factor in the game, and sacrificing the identity of the classes is too high a cost. I remember back at launch, I wanted to play my necromancer character from EQ1. However, I started off as a Mage shooting lightning bolts at stuff, which just didn't feel right. At level 10 I became a summoner, with a stone spider as my pet and more lightning bolts. It wasn't until level 24 that I finally got to summon an undead knight to fight for me, and that was almost halfway through all the levels that existed at the time!Options are nice, but it is restrictions that breed creativity. I'd rather keep 25 precariously-balanced classes that each have their own style and feel, than 14 perfectly balanced classes with no soul.

Mermut

05-10-2012, 01:48 PM

Gilasil

05-10-2012, 02:50 PM

<cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hi.Could SoE please consolidate classes in the next Xpansion? Its getting tiresome how your class gets from good, to bad, to good again over the different expansions or updates. usually across the classtype..Here is my suggestion..Make a rebirth option next xpac.. You can rebirth into your classtype.. Warrior, Brawler, Crusader, Summoner, Sorcerer, Enchanter etc.. You'd have to level up from lvl 1. But your end class (say Crusader) would be a mix of the two classes (paladin/SK) but stronger than both.. All continued class balancing from then on, would then be on the classtype for the next expansions.. BL would not have to rebirth(since its allready where I suggest all classes should be at after rebirth)..If you disagree with the suggestion, please be constructive and polite..</blockquote>I presume that the reason you think they should do this is because 13 classes would be easier to balance then 25 which is probably true.Except with this approach they wouldn't be balancing 13 OR 25 classes, but 37 since the old classes wouldn't be going away. This would make the problem WORSE not better.It wasn't real clear whether you'd be resetting the adventure level to 1, or just saying that would be for new characters although there seems to be an implication for the former. I don't know about you but there is no way I would EVER reset the adventure level to 1 for a level 90 toon. Ain't going to happen. Ever. It would be like deleting the toon. I think a lot of other people would have a similar outlook.If you really wanted to reduce the number of classes in a game which is already running you would have to FORCE people into it. i.e. every bruiser and every monk would be FORCED to become a brawler. Every paladin and every SK would be FORCED to become a crusader, and so on. The outcry would be deafening and would probably kill the game.Bottom line -- you can't do such a major restructuring of a game which is already running and in which people have invested huge amounts of time on their characters. The only time you can do something like that is before the game launches. Therefore, this makes sense as a suggestion for EQ Next. However, many have already suggested that EQ Next have fewer classes and I think it's a safe bet it will; so you wouldn't exactly be suggesting anything earth shattering.

SweetSynergy

05-11-2012, 01:22 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>This suggestion comes up every now and again, and I generally say the same thing. Class balance isn't the most important factor in the game, and sacrificing the identity of the classes is too high a cost. I remember back at launch, I wanted to play my necromancer character from EQ1. However, I started off as a Mage shooting lightning bolts at stuff, which just didn't feel right. At level 10 I became a summoner, with a stone spider as my pet and more lightning bolts. It wasn't until level 24 that I finally got to summon an undead knight to fight for me, and that was almost halfway through all the levels that existed at the time!Options are nice, but it is restrictions that breed creativity. I'd rather keep 25 precariously-balanced classes that each have their own style and feel, than 14 perfectly balanced classes with no soul.</blockquote>Total agreement with The Cheeseman.You know, everytime I see this asked/suggested, I fear soe will listen to you guys.Who do you actually speak for? Yourselves or everyone in the game?Not once in the years I have played this game have I heard anyone in game ask for or wish for a consolidation of classes.Most ask for fixes to their classes.. most ask for more definining attributes etc, to their class. They ask for fairness for their class instead of having to watch their class fall to the wayside while dev's and other powers that be decide their flavour of the month class or in some cases the class they play should be the best. Many of us chose the specific classes cause it suited us. If we didnt like it we just rolled another one till we found what we liked.You're asking that some of us give up a class or classes we love and have built for yrs.. for what? To be perfect? To be like everyone else?NO thank you. I dont care if the classes I choose to make arent fantastic in the eyes of some. I dont care that others may think my class isnt worthy to be in their presence. What I do care about is that I get to keep the classes I have and not fear that because of some people, soe might actually listen and do this.

Vulkan_NTooki

05-11-2012, 07:08 AM

I notice alot of you paint a very dark picture as to how this would affect the game.. It doesnt have to be that grim.The distinct evil vs good has become more and more shaded.. Especially with the new coalition between queynos and freeport this GU.. Just to answer that one..The thought would be that the next progression after you've leveled a max lvl Assassin, was to rebirth and become a Predator. Hence you wouldnt need to balance assassin after max lvl..I'm told, that everquest 2 has a max lvl of 100.. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate, but lets play with the thought that there is a max lvl. After max lvl what is the natural progression of your character? more AA? Another game?With rebirth, you could get another way to go when the game has reached its boundaries lvl wise.. It would be a reset of your lvl to 1, but how you choose skills / abilities would be up to the developers.. it could be a completely new skill set, it could be a completely new structure..( like choose which skills from your subclass each time u gain a new ability.. You could get the best of two worlds with the latter).. You could choose to stay max lvl as your preferred subclass if you have no desire to rebirth..You'd prolly loose out vs a reborn toon in the long run, but thats your perogative.. You'd be less wanted in raids I'm sure, but its not like that doesnt happen allready. have to say I lol'd a bit about this one_______________________________________________ _________________________You know, everytime I see this asked/suggested, I fear soe will listen to you guys.Who do you actually speak for? Yourselves or everyone in the game?Not once in the years I have played this game have I heard anyone in game ask for or wish for a consolidation of classes.__________________________________________ ______________________________You see this often asked/suggested enough to fear soe will listen, yet never ever in all the years you played this game have u seen it asked for? And I only speak for myself.. Obviously.. Just like you do.. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Vulkan_NTooki

05-11-2012, 07:27 AM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>I presume that the reason you think they should do this is because 13 classes would be easier to balance then 25 which is probably true.Except with this approach they wouldn't be balancing 13 OR 25 classes, but 37 since the old classes wouldn't be going away. This would make the problem WORSE not better. This was commented later in the post. and the post above this one. at a max lvl the rebirth option would not affect balance of the 25 classes allready in game. they would stay the same, and future balance would be towards the new class types.It wasn't real clear whether you'd be resetting the adventure level to 1, or just saying that would be for new characters although there seems to be an implication for the former. I don't know about you but there is no way I would EVER reset the adventure level to 1 for a level 90 toon. Ain't going to happen. Ever. It would be like deleting the toon. I think a lot of other people would have a similar outlook. You can get back to 92 in a couple of days. If anything it would be like creating a new alt, just that its your fav toon just getting stronger. And with a huge amount of the players who would most likely do the rebirth just to get stronger, grouping up and experience old content again shouldnt be a problemIf you really wanted to reduce the number of classes in a game which is already running you would have to FORCE people into it. i.e. every bruiser and every monk would be FORCED to become a brawler. Every paladin and every SK would be FORCED to become a crusader, and so on. The outcry would be deafening and would probably kill the game. Forcing is the bad way to go.. you dont have to if there is a max lvl boundary of the game. It would be more like an addendum than a change.. Look at it another way. Would you stop playing if SoE in the next expansion said they would add 90 more lvls?Bottom line -- you can't do such a major restructuring of a game which is already running and in which people have invested huge amounts of time on their characters. The only time you can do something like that is before the game launches. Therefore, this makes sense as a suggestion for EQ Next. However, many have already suggested that EQ Next have fewer classes and I think it's a safe bet it will; so you wouldn't exactly be suggesting anything earth shattering.</blockquote>

Katz

05-11-2012, 08:13 AM

Huge changes in a game that has this many levels and old content would cause too many bugs and problems.

SweetSynergy

05-11-2012, 10:05 AM

<cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite><blockquote>I notice alot of you paint a very dark picture as to how this would affect the game.. It doesnt have to be that grim.The distinct evil vs good has become more and more shaded.. Especially with the new coalition between queynos and freeport this GU.. Just to answer that one..The thought would be that the next progression after you've leveled a max lvl Assassin, was to rebirth and become a Predator. Hence you wouldnt need to balance assassin after max lvl..I'm told, that everquest 2 has a max lvl of 100.. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate, but lets play with the thought that there is a max lvl. After max lvl what is the natural progression of your character? more AA? Another game?With rebirth, you could get another way to go when the game has reached its boundaries lvl wise.. It would be a reset of your lvl to 1, but how you choose skills / abilities would be up to the developers.. it could be a completely new skill set, it could be a completely new structure..( like choose which skills from your subclass each time u gain a new ability.. You could get the best of two worlds with the latter).. You could choose to stay max lvl as your preferred subclass if you have no desire to rebirth..You'd prolly loose out vs a reborn toon in the long run, but thats your perogative.. You'd be less wanted in raids I'm sure, but its not like that doesnt happen allready. have to say I lol'd a bit about this one_______________________________________________ _________________________You know, everytime I see this asked/suggested, I fear soe will listen to you guys.Who do you actually speak for? Yourselves or everyone in the game?Not once in the years I have played this game have I heard anyone in game ask for or wish for a consolidation of classes.__________________________________________ ______________________________You see this often asked/suggested enough to fear soe will listen, yet never ever in all the years you played this game have u seen it asked for?And I only speak for myself.. Obviously.. Just like you do.. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Lol all you like then read that part of the sentence again? How did you miss the " anyone in game " part? I apologise and next time will elaborate for those that dont or cant see / dont comprehend every word in a sentence.So in case you dont understand that....Yes I have seen it asked for a few times in these forums. No I have not heard/seen anyone IN GAME ask or wish for it.Clear enough for you now?Your apology is accepted.Have a great day <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />

7foggynites

05-11-2012, 01:46 PM

I'm a new player to this game and all of hte classes are just another incentive to play the game because it makes you want to try the different classes. I can see how reducing the number of classes might increase devceloper productivity and decrease the chances for classes imbalances, but I am of the opinion that the worst thing you can do to a player is to break their connection with their character. It's easy to add something to the game and make a mistake, but it's much much harder to remove it after it has been added. When you add things, players become attached to them and familiar to the flow of the game. If you break the flow (and the attachment) then you're making the game harder to play and also a much more emotional issue (which is not fun and it's dangerous to play with a player's emotions).I would like to see the ability to switch classes. Switch classes within your own subclass category (rogues: rangers/swashies/brigands/assassins/etc) and you might lose 5% raw ability, but the rest of the losses are just your own knowledge of how to play the class. If you switch to another category (like going from a rogue-base to a warrior-base) then you lose 10% raw ability. There's no charge for switching, but if there're some races that don't have access to certain classes then that might apply. I put in a hard-penalty to raw ability because players who stick to their original class should be reward, but on the other hand, the penalty should not be significant. Being able to switch classes would be very beneficial if you needed a healer and didn't have one or you needed something specific and didn't have it.(there could be a one-time charge to switch classes... maybe you'd have to do quests for the class guilds... for example, if i wanted to be able to switch classes from a rogue-base to a warrior-base then i'd need to do quests for the warriors guild. one-time charges are not necessarily a bad idea and can fit within the whole feel of progression.)I personally like skill-based systems more because it really makes you feel like there's a personal connection to your character. The only problem with skill-based systems is when they don't offer direction. For example, if I want to make a ranger-type class in a skill-based game then how do I do it? If the skill-based game doesn't offer me any advice or direction in my attetmp then I'll become somewhat irritated and have to wade through the game to figure it out. Another problem with skill-based games is that when you look at someone else there isn't usually a quick way to measure their abilities. For example, are they more melee than caster? Are they more dps than healer? Are they more utility than crowd control? A skill-based game must have an easy way to measure the abilities of another player without having to have a five minute conversation where you must dig deep into their skill-choices in order to figure out where they stand.

Gilasil

05-11-2012, 02:55 PM

<cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>I presume that the reason you think they should do this is because 13 classes would be easier to balance then 25 which is probably true.Except with this approach they wouldn't be balancing 13 OR 25 classes, but 37 since the old classes wouldn't be going away. This would make the problem WORSE not better. This was commented later in the post. and the post above this one. at a max lvl the rebirth option would not affect balance of the 25 classes allready in game. they would stay the same, and future balance would be towards the new class types.It wasn't real clear whether you'd be resetting the adventure level to 1, or just saying that would be for new characters although there seems to be an implication for the former. I don't know about you but there is no way I would EVER reset the adventure level to 1 for a level 90 toon. Ain't going to happen. Ever. It would be like deleting the toon. I think a lot of other people would have a similar outlook. You can get back to 92 in a couple of days. If anything it would be like creating a new alt, just that its your fav toon just getting stronger. And with a huge amount of the players who would most likely do the rebirth just to get stronger, grouping up and experience old content again shouldnt be a problem</blockquote></blockquote>Near as I can tell, you would advocate that SoE not spend resources on the existing classes in the game but only on those new classes. Anything else and they're supporting 37 classes. So lets recap. According to this plan, players would be given the choice of either playing a class which SoE will not support anymore, or starting over from scratch. Basically creating a new toon.Playing an unsupported class would presumably mean there would never be any hope of any broken features being fixed. If the class is underpowered it's guaranteed to stay underpowered forever. I don't know how you would handle when they raise the level or AA cap whether SoE would spend time on the old classes for new spells and extending AA trees. But if they spend time on the old classes the they are again be trying to support 37 classes instead of 13. Therefore, presumably those classes would NOT get any attention when levels or max AA is extended. Completely abandoning the old classes is the only way you can avoid supporting 37 instead of 13.You say it's no big deal to start over at 1. That you can get back to 92 in a few days. Well, maybe if you're a hardcore powereleveler, but most of the player base is NOT hardcore. My current character is leveling pretty fast for me in that it's been 4 months and it's already at level 80. It'll probably be another month before I hit 90 (I'm leveling much faster because mercenaries allow me to spend much more time in dungeons). So for me 5 months is fast. Most of the people in the kinds of guilds I'd join have similar time to level or even longer. Taking a year or more to hit max level is common. And you're going to make those people choose between throwing away a year or playing a completely unsupported class? How do you think they'd take it? Think a lot might decide they've had enough and go play SWTOR instead? I do.You yourself said that resetting adventure level to 1 would be like creating a new alt. I.e. it would be like starting over. Since you wouldn't have access to your old char it would actually be like deleting your main and starting over.I have never deleted a toon over about level 30. The thought of deleting a max level char (i.e. resetting it's adventure level to 1) just doesn't fly with me at all. Ain't going to happen. YOU may think that's reasonable and maybe you would do it, but I most definately would not. I think a lot of the casual gamers I play with wouldn't either.There's also the *minor* detail of itemization. They're still sorting out itemization issues from adding the one beastlord class. Imagine if they suddenly added 12 new classes. Enough to give anyone at SoE nightmares I'm sure.I'm sorry but, while I think it's a good idea to reduce the number of classes, trying to do something like this in a game which has been running this long would be a disaster.I don't think anyone else need worry that SoE would actually do something like this. I can't see it happening ever in EQ2. However EQ Next probably will have fewer classes.