Variety: The spice of life OR Enemy number one?

[MrDiz]

<DIV>Everything we do in rpgs revolves around choices. This is so true in EQ2. Do I use my 2her, or a 1her and a shield? One gives me more dps, the other lets me tank better. Should I pick a focused class that noone else wants to play so I get groups, or shall I pick the popular easy to solo class that has more trouble getting groups because there are so many of them?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For many of us, this is half the excitement and half the stress. I remember in EQ1 that I stopped playing my rogue after 9 levels because I could not get groups, and soloing was impossible. It was not the class for me, and rather than play it to 50 and hope it magically changed, I decided to pick the class that wuited me instead. I looked around and decided on one of two chars. A halfling druid ... or a halfling cleric. Now the druid looked so much more fun. It had damage shields, sow and teleport. It could solo well (a big plus when u play off peak). But there were SOOOOOO many of them for this reason. They were sexy and lots of people wanted to play them. Clerics were boring (in themselves) and so few people wanted to play them, and they were the best at what they did. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Choices choices: Do i pick the sexy fun to play class and risk spending many nights forced to solo? Or do i play the dull class and make my fun by getting groups all the time and doing cool group things? I went with the cleric and never regretted it. I played the druid to 37 too <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lifeless I know <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But that right there was what the game was about. Choices. Take the easy path or the hard path? Solo friendly or group friendly. You could not have it all. Yes many druids were left out of groups. It was harsh for them. But that was the choice they made. It was the price they paid for being the great soloers. It was the price they paid for so much versatility and such uber travel abilities in a game where that was highly prized. And the clerics? Well the price they paid for being desirable to groups was the utter dependancy on groups. You pick a class, you play it a while, and you soon know is this class the one for you. You choose your path, and you live with the consequences.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sounds terrible right? Awful to have to sacrifice something, to gain something else?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yet I wonder if we did a survey of ALL players of ALL mmorpgs (ie Sonys target audience) whether they thought this difference in abilites was good or bad ... I wonder what we would see. I wonder if the majority would want a generic system of 4 choices.  A fighter, a thief, a wizard and a cleric. Back to basics (forgive the pun d&d players). Would they see this as a step forward from EQ1. An improvment? Something worth spending money on, and perhaps giving up their current game of choice for?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Was EQ1 with all its choices and variety such a bad business model Sony? Was the number of different classes something people complained about and left because of? Did they want 4 generic classes? Is variety the enemy here or is it the very thing that most of your players need? I cant speak for them all of course. But thats the question id be asking myself now if I were a developer.</DIV>

[Vulking]

<P>I have always thought that variety is what make the game, flavor, spice, whatever you want to call it. </P> <P> I thought things like the mystic's ability to transform into a hawk would make a great evac, but would only work outdoors.  Or the furies ability to turn into a rat would make a great evac but would only work in a dungeon.  I always thought that a guardian would be able to throw up a bubble around his party that protected the group for a bit of time from all damage raining down on the party, or that the illusionist could make members of the party appear as trees or rocks and there by instantly lose aggro because the mob doesn't care about eating rocks, only adventurers.</P> <P>I always thought that the troubador or the dirge would carry instruments that could make a grown man cry or sing a mob to sleep and allow the party to pass the mobs by with nary a worry.  I always thought that assassin would prey upon his victim in a most deadly way using snares and traps or plunging the blade if it came to that.</P> <P>I always thought that treasure chests and dungeons should have deadly traps that could only be sensed by the keen eye of the ranger or the brigand.</P> <P> I had thought that the wizard would use powers both mystical and magical and that his counter part the warlock would be the same but if you combined the ice of the wizard with the poison of the warlock the damage would double, the same could be said of fire and disease.  I had thought there would be things these brilliant minds could only do in tandem by putting them together you could move heaven and earth, or a party of adventurers half way across the map.</P> <P>I always imagined the paladin on a golden stallion and the SK on a black steed with fire in its eyes, charging across a field towards it foe with lance or sword or axe in hand because they were horsemen they gained a bonus from riding and fighting on one.  But put such a fighter in a close quarters environment and they would be the prey.</P> <P>I always saw the zerker and the swashbuckler as close quarters attackers supremely deadly up close.  The zerker going on a rampage and destroying all foes in his path until she was spent all health and power drained and open to being killed if the prey was not dead.</P> <P>I'm sure I have left someone out, Im sorry.</P> <P>I wonder what game it is, where this exists.</P>

[Nemi]

<P><FONT color=#ffff00>The problem MrDizzi that as you have succinctly put it: There are only 4 classes in RPGs. Fighter, Priest, Mage, Rogue - Thats it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>However, Fighter, Priest, Mage, Rogue is pretty boring - Gauntlet was Fun, but only 4 people could play it at a time and you kind of lose any semblance of uniqueness if everyone is playing the same character as you.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In a P&P game a DM can make a hybrid valuable and unique. In a MMO tho you don't have kindly DMs to look after you. Unfortunately with 250,000 people playing, everyone wants to feel the hero and be needed. That's the quandry MMO's face - Give choice and diversity but make everyone needed. I think the Archetype system is the best solution yet, so much so Vanguard is going with it too.</FONT></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Nemi on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:10 PM</span>

[Grumpy_Warrior_01]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hammarus wrote:<BR> <P>I have always thought that variety is what make the game, flavor, spice, whatever you want to call it. </P> <P> I thought things like the mystic's ability to transform into a hawk would make a great evac, but would only work outdoors.  Or the furies ability to turn into a rat would make a great evac but would only work in a dungeon.  I always thought that a guardian would be able to throw up a bubble around his party that protected the group for a bit of time from all damage raining down on the party, or that the illusionist could make members of the party appear as trees or rocks and there by instantly lose aggro because the mob doesn't care about eating rocks, only adventurers.</P> <P>I always thought that the troubador or the dirge would carry instruments that could make a grown man cry or sing a mob to sleep and allow the party to pass the mobs by with nary a worry.  I always thought that assassin would prey upon his victim in a most deadly way using snares and traps or plunging the blade if it came to that.</P> <P>I always thought that treasure chests and dungeons should have deadly traps that could only be sensed by the keen eye of the ranger or the brigand.</P> <P> I had thought that the wizard would use powers both mystical and magical and that his counter part the warlock would be the same but if you combined the ice of the wizard with the poison of the warlock the damage would double, the same could be said of fire and disease.  I had thought there would be things these brilliant minds could only do in tandem by putting them together you could move heaven and earth, or a party of adventurers half way across the map.</P> <P>I always imagined the paladin on a golden stallion and the SK on a black steed with fire in its eyes, charging across a field towards it foe with lance or sword or axe in hand because they were horsemen they gained a bonus from riding and fighting on one.  But put such a fighter in a close quarters environment and they would be the prey.</P> <P>I always saw the zerker and the swashbuckler as close quarters attackers supremely deadly up close.  The zerker going on a rampage and destroying all foes in his path until she was spent all health and power drained and open to being killed if the prey was not dead.</P> <P>I'm sure I have left someone out, Im sorry.</P> <P>I wonder what game it is, where this exists.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Now THAT'S a game I'd give up my job to play!</P> <P>/cheer</P> <P> </P>

[Qwert]

<span><blockquote><hr>Hammarus wrote:<p>I have always thought that variety is what make the game, flavor, spice, whatever you want to call it. </p> <p> I thought things like the mystic's ability to transform into a hawk would make a great evac, but would only work outdoors.  Or the furies ability to turn into a rat would make a great evac but would only work in a dungeon.  I always thought that a guardian would be able to throw up a bubble around his party that protected the group for a bit of time from all damage raining down on the party, or that the illusionist could make members of the party appear as trees or rocks and there by instantly lose aggro because the mob doesn't care about eating rocks, only adventurers.</p> <p>I always thought that the troubador or the dirge would carry instruments that could make a grown man cry or sing a mob to sleep and allow the party to pass the mobs by with nary a worry.  I always thought that assassin would prey upon his victim in a most deadly way using snares and traps or plunging the blade if it came to that.</p> <p>I always thought that treasure chests and dungeons should have deadly traps that could only be sensed by the keen eye of the ranger or the brigand.</p> <p> I had thought that the wizard would use powers both mystical and magical and that his counter part the warlock would be the same but if you combined the ice of the wizard with the poison of the warlock the damage would double, the same could be said of fire and disease.  I had thought there would be things these brilliant minds could only do in tandem by putting them together you could move heaven and earth, or a party of adventurers half way across the map.</p> <p>I always imagined the paladin on a golden stallion and the SK on a black steed with fire in its eyes, charging across a field towards it foe with lance or sword or axe in hand because they were horsemen they gained a bonus from riding and fighting on one.  But put such a fighter in a close quarters environment and they would be the prey.</p> <p>I always saw the zerker and the swashbuckler as close quarters attackers supremely deadly up close.  The zerker going on a rampage and destroying all foes in his path until she was spent all health and power drained and open to being killed if the prey was not dead.</p> <p>I'm sure I have left someone out, Im sorry.</p> <p>I wonder what game it is, where this exists.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> Great post sir. /salute</span><div></div>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The problem MrDizzi that as you have succinctly put it: There are only 4 classes in RPGs. Fighter, Priest, Mage, Rogue - Thats it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>However, Fighter, Priest, Mage, Rogue is pretty boring - Gauntlet was Fun, but only 4 people could play it at a time and you kind of lose any semblance of uniqueness if everyone is playing the same character as you.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In a P&P game a DM can make a hybrid valuable and unique. In a MMO tho you don't have kindly DMs to look after you. Unfortunately with 250,000 people playing, everyone wants to feel the hero and be needed. That's the quandry MMO's face - Give choice and diversity but make everyone needed. I think the Archetype system is the best solution yet, so much so Vanguard is going with it too.</FONT></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Nemi on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:10 PM</span><hr></blockquote>Then they should be open about it and have only 4 classes all of them hybrids. Pretending there are 24 clases when there are only 4 is something I wont forget in a hurry. Allowing people to play for 10 months with a game thats varied and has more in common with p&p rpgs, only to switch it for a version of guantlet with chat is pretty lame. They managed variety in EQ1 without much trouble, as they did with EQ2 for 10 months. So its possible to do.Noone wanted to play clerics in EQ1 even though they were the undisputed 'best' at what they did. People had the choice to play such a class, and yet did not. Now THATS balance.

[Nemi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>MrDizzi wrote:<BR><BR><BR><BR>Then they should be open about it and have only 4 classes all of them hybrids. Pretending there are 24 clases when there are only 4 is something I wont forget in a hurry.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>They have always stated that. That is the whole basis of the Archetype system, 4 classes, 24 flavours.</FONT></P> <P>Allowing people to play for 10 months with a game thats varied and has more in common with p&p rpgs, only to switch it for a version of guantlet with chat is pretty lame.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Maybe played for 10 months, however the combat revamp was on the cards for nearly what? 5 months? Not only that, the discussions and posts from Devs have always been upfront and honest about what they want to achieve. You can call them down for failing to achieve it, you cannot call them down for misleading you.</FONT></P> <P>They managed variety in EQ1 without much trouble, as they did with EQ2 for 10 months. So its possible to do.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>EQ1 had MANY problems. Knights were useless, Rogues were useless, Rangers were useless, Clerics were useless. Do you even remember the game when it came out in 1999? Rogues couldn't even move when hidden! Backstabs hit for 1hp damage. Rangers had no more skill with a bow than a Warrior. Knights were crippled by low level spells for high mana cost. Cleric were utterly pointless before level 39.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And you say not much trouble. The game only gained some sembalance of balance around the PoP expansion. That was 60 levels into the game. Even then the Warriors were hugely nerfed and Knights became the tank of choice.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I think you either played EQ1 very late on, or you have rose-tinted spectacles on.</FONT><BR><BR>Noone wanted to play clerics in EQ1 even though they were the undisputed 'best' at what they did. People had the choice to play such a class, and yet did not. Now THATS balance.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There was a reason for that. Druids were overpowered. Druids could heal for a group, buff a group, DPS for a group, Teleport a group, invis a group, SoW a group. Clerics like Enchanters were only worth playing later on, around level 40 when Complete Heal and Mes became necessary in the dungeons like Guk. Then again back in those days you could walk from the Entrace of Upper Guk to Lower Guk King and be lucky to see a frog it was so heavily camped.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Bottom line is EQ2 is what it has always been, an Archetype system where 4 main roles of Fantasy are expanded into 24 choices for players. Choices are Fun. Being equally important is Fun. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>If anything EQ1 has moved towards this system, the only difference being there is 1 Warrior class instead of 6. Frankly I never liked the hulking plate armoured warrior, I always preferred the nimble, graceful killer. I didn't have that choice in EQ1, I do in EQ2 which is what makes this game superior.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[MrDiz]

No I played EQ1 from the start, and I played a rogue and stopped by lvl 9 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But EQ1 for all its flaws had something that made it the most successful game of its genre ever.EQ2 had it in the start too. But it looks like its losing its way and trying to make a system that is "fair" rather than one that will make them money. Its a bold idea much like Marxism: Optimistic and idealistic, and perhaps it will work. But somehow with human nature being the way it is, I doubt it. Plus the inherent impossibility of making all classes equal make this a doomed venture in my opinion.RPGs evolved this way for a reason. its a mistake for sony to forget their base.

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:where 4 main roles of Fantasy are expanded into 24 choices for players. Choices are Fun. Being equally important is Fun.<hr></blockquote><div></div><hr>But they arent really choices as there are no consequences for those choices. It doesnt matter what class you pick. It changes nothing in reality, just the texture that are mapped on to your toon. It doesnt mater what class you pick. it changes nothing.Soon it wont matter if u choose 1h + shield or 2her, they will do the same dps and have the same defence. It wont matter what armour you choose to wear... plate or light... you will tank the same. As we head towards generic equality nothing we do will make a difference. No choice we make will have a consequence, good or bad.

[Nemi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>MrDizzi wrote:<BR><BR><BR>But they arent really choices as there are no consequences for those choices. It doesnt matter what class you pick. It changes nothing in reality, just the texture that are mapped on to your toon. It doesnt mater what class you pick. it changes nothing.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>But the great fallacy here is that it was any different in EQ. It wasn't. There was the illusion of choice. You can either choose to confirm to be needed or you can choose to have fun and be unwanted. I'd rather choose to be wanted and have fun.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>If dual wield is more DPS than 2H, then everyone uses dual wield. Where is the choice? If Clerics are the only raid capable healers due to CH, where is the choice? If Warriors are the only raid capable tanks due to /def disc, where is the choice? If Wizards are the only magic damage dealers due to bane spells, where is the choice?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There is none, its all illusion. Flavour is the key.</FONT></P> <P>Soon it wont matter if u choose 1h + shield or 2her, they will do the same dps and have the same defence. It wont matter what armour you choose to wear... plate or light... you will tank the same. As we head towards generic equality nothing we do will make a difference. No choice we make will have a consequence, good or bad.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And the problem here is what? So you can choose to play a class you enjoy, and still be needed by your guild. No longer do you need to be forced to pick a class simply to fulfil a guild shortage, you can pick a class you enjoy and still do the job for the guild.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I don't understand this mentality of having to be better than some other player. This isn't a PvP game. As long as you can do the job for your group and guild, where is the problem?</FONT><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[LadyDor]

<P>I would like to think variety is a good thing, the "spice of life" if you will. However, after EQ2 I can see where it can be something of an Enemy...at least in some situations.</P> <P>Yeah..it is mostly an illusion, which is sad (to me anyway). However the key word here is MOSTLY. This game offers a bit more variety than others I can think of and less than some I can think of. Personally I like having alts to play to see how the "other half lives" so to speak, and to learn how to play my chosen main in groups with other folks. Sounds silly I know, but I feel if I have a better idea and the experience of what other classes are capable of I can play my class in a way that doesn't "cut-in" on that. *shrug* Plus, sometimes it is just plain old fun to go from standing there being beat on (as Guardian Main) to standing back and lobbing in the nukes (as Wizzy Alt) or staying close by and healing folks (as Templar Alt) or hehehehe sneaking around a zone and opening the maps far earlier than my main could (as my sneaky Bard Alt). I will admit there are a few things I miss from "Old" EQ...such as my BeastLord or my ShadowKnights Skelly pets, but when I want them I just log into EQ and play them. All in all I still say this game is a bit more satisfactory (to me) than EQ. Does it have some problems? Yes. Do I have faith SOE is looking into these problems and planning on fixing them? Yes, though admittedly that faith is starting to wear thin. The thing is, it is a big game..in a big world..and there is probably alot to tend to and look into, but it would be nice to see a bit more communication from the Devs with the Players. I know that for them to take the time to respond would mean that would be time they aren't looking into things and accept that is why Raij is here...and I thank him for his posts to let us know a bit more than we did before his post(s). The really cool thing is the variety carries over from the game to the Forums. Some folks are totally happy with the game and their chosen Character, some aren't, some we will never know because they don't post here to say one way or another--but the CHOICE is theirs and it is just one more aspect of the Variety that is BOTH the Spice of life AND Enemy number one (it just depends on how you look at it and how it affects you at the time).</P>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:I don't understand this mentality of having to be better than some other player. This isn't a PvP game. As long as you can do the job for your group and guild, where is the problem?<p></p><hr></blockquote><div></div><hr>Thats just it Nemi, you dont understand. If it were a PVP game then id agree there should be only 1 toon and it be identical so its all about skill (Counter strike etc). But its not, its PvE. It doesnt matter if a monk is better at PvP duelling and soloing, it doesnt matter if guardians are better raid tanks. As long as both classes have an up-side and a down side that balance then it will work or at least work mostly. What matters is you get to pick what our good at, and what your bad at (or you pick a class thats competant a many).You are happy with generic gaming where a monk is a guardian is a paladin is an SK in a different suit, and where a sword and shield are the exactly same defence and attack value as a two handed axe. Where the differences are cosmetic only. Where really there are no differences in actuality.Now the majority of rpgs have celebrated these differences, the strengths and the weaknesses of the different classes. EQ2 has attempted to break that mould some 10 months into its life. Was it a good move? Well my opinion is it is a good move to attract more console gamers, but they also need to make leveling easier for that and perhaps add more pvp content. But for rpger? For fantasy fans of the classic rpg genre? No I dont think so.

[Nemi]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>MrDizzi wrote:<BR><BR><BR> As long as both classes have an up-side and a down side that balance then it will work or at least work mostly. What matters is you get to pick what our good at, and what your bad at (or you pick a class thats competant a many).</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>That's the kicker though isn't it. This game was designed to have an upside and downside OUTSIDE of the main role. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I'm a monk, I'm bad at multiple mob pulls but I'm good at single mob pulls.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You're a Guardian, your good at multiple mob pulls and average at single mob pulls.</FONT><BR><BR>You are happy with generic gaming where a monk is a guardian is a paladin is an SK in a different suit, and where a sword and shield are the exactly same defence and attack value as a two handed axe. Where the differences are cosmetic only. Where really there are no differences in actuality.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Not true. I want differences, but not in my main role. If I can't do my main role as good as the next guy then my class is simply inefficient and will suffer because of it. That leads me to one obvious choice, to guarantee a group or usefulness to my guild I need to pick between my FUN and a guild NEED.</FONT></P> <P><BR>Now the majority of rpgs have celebrated these differences, the strengths and the weaknesses of the different classes.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I assume you are not talking about pen and paper here, because that is a completely different medium. If you are talking about MMOs then I have yet to find a game that has done it successfully.</FONT></P> <P> EQ2 has attempted to break that mould some 10 months into its life. Was it a good move? Well my opinion is it is a good move to attract more console gamers, but they also need to make leveling easier for that and perhaps add more pvp content. But for rpger? For fantasy fans of the classic rpg genre? No I dont think so.<BR><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No. You would love to have everyone believe SoE changed the design of this game after 10 months, fact is they finally reached the vision of this game after 10 months. It was always there and was always being strived for. To have missed it requires burying your head in the sand. Telling yourself it wasn't going to happen and ignoring the many many developer posts regarding the state of the game and combat revamp is your own fault, not anyone elses.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>

[Hend]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No. You would love to have everyone believe SoE changed the design of this game after 10 months, fact is they finally reached the vision of this game after 10 months. It was always there and was always being strived for. To have missed it requires burying your head in the sand. Telling yourself it wasn't going to happen and ignoring the many many developer posts regarding the state of the game and combat revamp is your own fault, not anyone elses.</FONT></P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh come on! Now you're saying that one has to read these forums to play the game well.</P> <P>Don't tell me that anybody chose a non-guardian fighter class 6-10 months ago expecting to tank as well as a guardian. If they did, they didn't know how to play the game, or didn't understand that you can't both be versatile and specialist in a balanced system.</P> <P>If it were really the game designers' vision that all fighters should tank equally well, they should find something else to do, because they failed that vision by such a huge margin that they might as well have come up with an FPS game. How could they design the guardian with only mitigation and hate generation, but lots of it, and still think that guardians would not be better tanks? And even if they did think that, why, then, did they gimpe the guardian in all other areas?</P> <P>We're talking subtle balancing issues here. The guardian was designed for one thing, the rest where designed to be more versatile. The evidence is there for anybody willing to see it. I don't care what SOE have stated about their vision in these forums.</P> <P>Stop this nonsense. Repeating it does not make it true.</P> <P>Vork, 52 guardian</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hendis wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Don't tell me that anybody chose a non-guardian fighter class 6-10 months ago expecting to tank as well as a guardian. If they did, they didn't know how to play the game, or didn't understand that you can't both be versatile and specialist in a balanced system.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Read your statement.  Look at the game now.  Who doesn't know how to play the game?  That's what I thought.</P> <P>You're simply wrong.<BR></P>

[Grumpy_Warrior_01]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hendis wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Don't tell me that anybody chose a non-guardian fighter class 6-10 months ago expecting to tank as well as a guardian. If they did, they didn't know how to play the game, or didn't understand that you can't both be versatile and specialist in a balanced system.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Read your statement.  Look at the game now.  Who doesn't know how to play the game?  That's what I thought.</P> <P>You're simply wrong.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>inflammatory

[Nemi]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:<BR><BR><BR>inflammatory <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Pointless post.</FONT></DIV>

[Salgo]

<P>Nemi, here's the problem though. We might be better at multiple mobs while you are better at singles. However, how can you deny that the difference in soloing between a monk and a guardian is night and day which makes leveling a monk easier? And that your utility also makes soloing easier? Is this not an advantage? Shouldn't we balance all aspects of the game? This is not meant to be an inflammatory question by any means. I would honestly like your opinion on this aspect of the game. </P> <P>This is my whole problem with the guardian nerf. I'm glad you can tank stuff now if you couldn't before but now that we no longer have any real advantage, what did I gain for giving up being able to solo easier? And I am going to be completely honest here because I want to have an intelligent constructive conversation here, but I am basing the ease of soloing on assumptions and other posts that I have read. Also, I have started an alt brawler and while I am only at level 15 with it, already I have noticed a difference in soloing. Tobe completely fair, I should probably start a new Guardian and see what had changed since LU13. I am doing this not because I want to hang up my Guardian but because I want to test my assumptions so that I can be better informed when posting on these forums about class differences and advantages.</P> <DIV>1) So I ask, is it all in my head, or is there a real advantage when soloing?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) And does your utility make soloing any easier?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, this is meant to start a meaningful discussion and for me to get a better understanding of all points of view. No flaming from either side please.</DIV>

[Belgor]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hammarus wrote:<BR> <P>I have always thought that variety is what make the game, flavor, spice, whatever you want to call it. </P> <P> I thought things like the mystic's ability to transform into a hawk would make a great evac, but would only work outdoors.  Or the furies ability to turn into a rat would make a great evac but would only work in a dungeon.  I always thought that a guardian would be able to throw up a bubble around his party that protected the group for a bit of time from all damage raining down on the party, or that the illusionist could make members of the party appear as trees or rocks and there by instantly lose aggro because the mob doesn't care about eating rocks, only adventurers.</P> <P>I always thought that the troubador or the dirge would carry instruments that could make a grown man cry or sing a mob to sleep and allow the party to pass the mobs by with nary a worry.  I always thought that assassin would prey upon his victim in a most deadly way using snares and traps or plunging the blade if it came to that.</P> <P>I always thought that treasure chests and dungeons should have deadly traps that could only be sensed by the keen eye of the ranger or the brigand.</P> <P> I had thought that the wizard would use powers both mystical and magical and that his counter part the warlock would be the same but if you combined the ice of the wizard with the poison of the warlock the damage would double, the same could be said of fire and disease.  I had thought there would be things these brilliant minds could only do in tandem by putting them together you could move heaven and earth, or a party of adventurers half way across the map.</P> <P>I always imagined the paladin on a golden stallion and the SK on a black steed with fire in its eyes, charging across a field towards it foe with lance or sword or axe in hand because they were horsemen they gained a bonus from riding and fighting on one.  But put such a fighter in a close quarters environment and they would be the prey.</P> <P>I always saw the zerker and the swashbuckler as close quarters attackers supremely deadly up close.  The zerker going on a rampage and destroying all foes in his path until she was spent all health and power drained and open to being killed if the prey was not dead.</P> <P>I'm sure I have left someone out, Im sorry.</P> <P>I wonder what game it is, where this exists.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I know I would be pretty [Removed for Content] if a ranger or a brigand was required to survive in a dungeon :p<BR></DIV>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: This game was designed to have an upside and downside OUTSIDE of the main role.</blockquote>I disagree. This game was designed to be addictive for the players and make money for Sony. All other things are open for discussion. The differences should exist in all roles of a character, whatever sony decide the 'man role' is for them. Otherwise its boring and less addictive, and ergo makes less money for sony.<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: I want differences, but not in my main role.</blockquote>You want cosmetic differences then. Like I said, its a bold experiment.<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: I assume you are not talking about pen and paper here, because that is a completely different medium. If you are talking about MMOs then I have yet to find a game that has done it successfully.</blockquote>Id stop assuming If i were you cos youre dead wrong. There have been many, perhaps even hundreds of games like this that were great successes: Meridian59, UO, EQ1, HexOnyx, Diku/Circle and a host of others. These games were all hugely successful.<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: You would love to have everyone believe SoE changed the design of this game after 10 months, fact is they finally reached the vision of this game after 10 months.</blockquote>Not ..... .....THE VISION!???? *grin* They change the game design on a daily basis depending on the bottom line. Dont be naive. The reality is they changed THE GAME after 10 months. And they did so in a way to try and remove variety. They have decided that they will make money for longer and in larger ammounts by instigating a generic clone policy on classes. They will change the skins to keep those who only care about cosmetics, and are praying thats the majority of their base. The vision doesnt exist Nemi, its something they tell you because you would be offended to find out they want your money <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: To have missed it requires burying your head in the sand. Telling yourself it wasn't going to happen and ignoring the many many developer posts regarding the state of the game and combat revamp is your own fault, not anyone elses.<p></p><hr></blockquote><hr>Well I wasnt on the boards back then. The game wasnt broken and I was happily playing my templar <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And as for burying my head .... you played a game for 10 months ignoring the reality on the ground. And you still ignore the reality of human nature and the inevitable steps that must follow now:1) This change will now require guardians get the same DPS as monks. Thats non negotiable. Unless they simply accept guardians as a dead class they cannot equalise the 'main role' without equalising a fighters 'secondary role' ... dps. With 1 in 3 toons being a fighter only half of them are tanking in a group, meaning the other halfs are dps. For a fighter this means there is no difference between the 'main' and the 'secondary' roles for frequency of requirement. You will be dps as many times as you are tank.2) It will need to be the same dps when guards use 1h + shield as a monk dual wielding. Also non negotiable. A monk dual wielding equal tanks to a guardian with shield. Guardian must equal dps with the same setup.3) 2h weapons will need to be nerfed/altered/brought close to the vision because of point 2. Can have guards switching to 2h and out dps a monk dual wielding. They would go bezerk.4) Difference between classes outsside the 'vision based main role' will be laughably trivial.5) Other games will not follow this bold new experiement.6) Everquest2 will be out of business before anyone has a computer capable of playing it on extreme detail.

[Gaige]

<P>**REMOVED FLAME BAIT**</P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:16 PM</span>

[Vulking]

<P>__________________</P> <P>Belgorim wrote:</P> <P>__________________</P> <BLOCKQUOTE>Hammarus wrote:<BR> <P>I have always thought that variety is what make the game, flavor, spice, whatever you want to call it. </P> <P> I thought things like the mystic's ability to transform into a hawk would make a great evac, but would only work outdoors.  Or the furies ability to turn into a rat would make a great evac but would only work in a dungeon.  I always thought that a guardian would be able to throw up a bubble around his party that protected the group for a bit of time from all damage raining down on the party, or that the illusionist could make members of the party appear as trees or rocks and there by instantly lose aggro because the mob doesn't care about eating rocks, only adventurers.</P> <P>I always thought that the troubador or the dirge would carry instruments that could make a grown man cry or sing a mob to sleep and allow the party to pass the mobs by with nary a worry.  I always thought that assassin would prey upon his victim in a most deadly way using snares and traps or plunging the blade if it came to that.</P> <P>I always thought that treasure chests and dungeons should have deadly traps that could only be sensed by the keen eye of the ranger or the brigand.</P> <P> I had thought that the wizard would use powers both mystical and magical and that his counter part the warlock would be the same but if you combined the ice of the wizard with the poison of the warlock the damage would double, the same could be said of fire and disease.  I had thought there would be things these brilliant minds could only do in tandem by putting them together you could move heaven and earth, or a party of adventurers half way across the map.</P> <P>I always imagined the paladin on a golden stallion and the SK on a black steed with fire in its eyes, charging across a field towards it foe with lance or sword or axe in hand because they were horsemen they gained a bonus from riding and fighting on one.  But put such a fighter in a close quarters environment and they would be the prey.</P> <P>I always saw the zerker and the swashbuckler as close quarters attackers supremely deadly up close.  The zerker going on a rampage and destroying all foes in his path until she was spent all health and power drained and open to being killed if the prey was not dead.</P> <P>I'm sure I have left someone out, Im sorry.</P> <P>I wonder what game it is, where this exists.</P> <BR>_______________________________________</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I know I would be pretty [Removed for Content] if a ranger or a brigand was required to survive in a dungeon :p</DIV> <DIV>______________________________________________<BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66cc00>Hehe, yeah, well some scout class at least, or you as what ever class having spent 10x as much time learning to detect them (<EM>perhaps so much time that it wouldn't be worth it and you would be better off just finding a scout</EM>).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66cc00>I was just looking to suggest that its the differences that make the game interesting and fun not the similarities.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66cc00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66cc00>Other thoughts that I had, which I have posted elsewhere, include the idea of having quested weapons come in pieces.  You must find all the parts scattered in dungeons and elsewhere, maybe even crafted parts.  Class specific armor that only truely gets great when you have the full suit.  The armor quests in the twenties were fun the first time you did them, but how many ppl try to do them with alts now?  You level past that point of the game too fast now to make it worth it. The concept needs to be re-installed in the game as a level 60+ quest. And it needs to be hard! Not impossible just hard, clues need to be given and puzzles solved, puzzles whos solutions change everytime, <STRONG>sorry folks no Ogaming solutions to be found.</STRONG> The armor can not be just about stats either, perhaps it allows you access or title or level advancement?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66cc00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66cc00>Progression is needed too.  Wouldn't it be great if you could move beyond 60 Guardian to become "Captain of the Guard" or "Guardian of the Realm" or from Templar to "Protector of the Faith" or "Templar in the First"  or from Warden to "Natures Hero" or "Spirit of Nature" new classes not fewer, oh your still a guardian or a templar or a ... but maybe slightly different from your fellows.  It doesn't necessarily mean whole new spell lines, perhaps one or two unique abilities that have real meaning.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66cc00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffcc00>I guess what I am really suggesting is expanding outward, not collapsing inward.  </FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff size=2><EM>SoE if you are hiring creative thinkers I'm available.  I got thousands of ideas. Just not very good at expressing them in a forum.  I'm a story teller at heart.</EM></FONT></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Hammarus on <SPAN class=date_text>11-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:42 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Hammarus on <span class=date_text>11-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:48 AM</span>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:6) Everquest2 will be out of business before anyone has a computer capable of playing it on extreme detail. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I can almost do it now, so I highly doubt that.</P> <P>I love your posts MrDizzi, you'd make a really good Chicken Little.</P> <hr></blockquote>We have different definitions of 'can play'. Playable: 80+ fps. Acceptable: 100+fps. Good. 120+fps.I have about as ultimate a machine as is possible on a commercial machine and I can maybe play balanced if there is noone around. But mostly I play high performance. Anything higher than this is unplayable for me. I just feel quezy when playing.Chicken little... showing youre age there.But basically what I was saying Gaige is that EQ2 isnt going to have the lifespan that EQ1 has enjoyed.<p>Message Edited by MrDizzi on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:29 AM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR>But basically what I was saying Gaige is that EQ2 isnt going to have the lifespan that EQ1 has enjoyed. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Probably not, but then again I doubt any MMO does that again.  EQ1 got lucky.</P> <P>As for FPS you're pretty demanding for an MMO, I think 30 is good for EQ2.  Now if we were talking BF2, sure I'd want 60 minimum.  No wonder you don't think Extreme is a possibility, lol.<BR></P>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR>But basically what I was saying Gaige is that EQ2 isnt going to have the lifespan that EQ1 has enjoyed. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Probably not, but then again I doubt any MMO does that again.  EQ1 got lucky.</P> <P>As for FPS you're pretty demanding for an MMO, I think 30 is good for EQ2.  Now if we were talking BF2, sure I'd want 60 minimum.  No wonder you don't think Extreme is a possibility, lol.<BR></P> <hr></blockquote>Yeah I played serious q2ctf years back and became accustomed to high fps. By the time I was playing counter strike I just couldnt play unless I had 100fps. Now EQ2 isnt as bad because I dont have to do turn so fast so the stutter and tearing isnt as easy to spot, but it still breaks my immersion.I got a 4ghz cpu cooled to 30 below freezing, water cooled geforce7800 gfx and overclocking it beyond reason, and I still cant make balanced look smooth for me <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Hend]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR><BR>I got a 4ghz cpu cooled to 30 below freezing, water cooled geforce7800 gfx and overclocking it beyond reason, and I still cant make balanced look smooth for me <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As this thread has gone off-topic already, let me add this: Try Balanced again, but reduced shadows to a minimum. Works wonders for me.</P> <P>Vork, 53 guardian<BR></P>

[aislynn00]

<DIV>Class variety is great, to an extent.  The only regret I have in that regard as far as EQ2 is concerned is that SOE sought to arbitrarily balance the archetype trees so there would be three classes in each, and in each class, two subclasses, resulting in a few obviously redundant subclasses as well as too many subclasses in some archetypes.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My preference would have been doing away with the class level and the resultant redundancy as well as shuffling around some of the subclasses to more accurately reflect what is actually needed in the game (i.e., fewer tanks and more damage dealers), giving us something like this:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fighter</DIV> <DIV>--Warrior</DIV> <DIV>--Paladin</DIV> <DIV>--Shadow Knight</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Mage</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Conjuror</DIV>--Enchanter</DIV> <DIV>--Necromancer</DIV> <DIV>--Wizard</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>Priest</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Druid</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Templar</DIV> <DIV>--Inquisitor</DIV>--Shaman</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scout</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Assassin</DIV>--Bard</DIV> <DIV>--Berserker</DIV> <DIV>--Brawler</DIV> <DIV>--Rogue</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Ranger</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by aislynn00 on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:34 AM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> aislynn00 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Class variety is great, to an extent.  The only regret I have in that regard as far as EQ2 is concerned is that SOE sought to arbitrarily balance the archetype trees so there would be three classes in each, and in each class, two subclasses, resulting in a few obviously redundant subclasses as well as too many subclasses in some archetypes.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My preference would have been doing away with the class level and the resultant redundancy as well as shuffling around some of the subclasses to more accurately reflect what is actually needed in the game (i.e., fewer tanks and more damage dealers), giving us something like this:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fighter</DIV> <DIV>--Warrior</DIV> <DIV>--Paladin</DIV> <DIV>--Shadow Knight</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Mage</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Conjuror</DIV>--Enchanter</DIV> <DIV>--Necromancer</DIV> <DIV>--Wizard</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>Priest</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Druid</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Templar</DIV> <DIV>--Inquisitor</DIV>--Shaman</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scout</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Assassin</DIV>--Bard</DIV> <DIV>--Berserker</DIV> <DIV>--Brawler</DIV> <DIV>--Rogue</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Ranger</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>LoL.  Berserker's and Brawler's are awesome scouts...</P> <P>I understand your point but it just doesn't make sense.<BR></P>

[Ironmeow]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> aislynn00 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Class variety is great, to an extent.  The only regret I have in that regard as far as EQ2 is concerned is that SOE sought to arbitrarily balance the archetype trees so there would be three classes in each, and in each class, two subclasses, resulting in a few obviously redundant subclasses as well as too many subclasses in some archetypes.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My preference would have been doing away with the class level and the resultant redundancy as well as shuffling around some of the subclasses to more accurately reflect what is actually needed in the game (i.e., fewer tanks and more damage dealers), giving us something like this:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fighter</DIV> <DIV>--Warrior</DIV> <DIV>--Paladin</DIV> <DIV>--Shadow Knight</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Mage</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Conjuror</DIV>--Enchanter</DIV> <DIV>--Necromancer</DIV> <DIV>--Wizard</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>Priest</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Druid</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Templar</DIV> <DIV>--Inquisitor</DIV>--Shaman</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scout</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Assassin</DIV>--Bard</DIV> <DIV>--Berserker</DIV> <DIV>--Brawler</DIV> <DIV>--Rogue</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Ranger</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by aislynn00 on <SPAN class=date_text>11-07-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:34 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I actually agree with this only cause this is how eq1 was built and i think eq1 had a nice arch system</DIV>

[Starwind]

<div></div><blockquote><blockquote><hr> aislynn00 wrote: <div></div> <div>Class variety is great, to an extent. The only regret I have in that regard as far as EQ2 is concerned is that SOE sought to arbitrarily balance the archetype trees so there would be three classes in each, and in each class, two subclasses, resulting in a few obviously redundant subclasses as well as too many subclasses in some archetypes. </div> <div> </div> <div>My preference would have been doing away with the class level and the resultant redundancy as well as shuffling around some of the subclasses to more accurately reflect what is actually needed in the game (i.e., fewer tanks and more damage dealers), giving us something like this:</div> <div> </div> <div>Fighter</div> <div>--Warrior</div> <div>--Paladin</div> <div>--Shadow Knight</div> <div> </div> <div> <div>Mage</div> <div> <div>--Conjuror</div>--Enchanter</div> <div>--Necromancer</div> <div>--Wizard</div> <div> </div></div> <div>Priest</div> <div> <div> <div>--Druid</div></div> <div>--Templar</div> <div>--Inquisitor</div>--Shaman</div> <div> </div> <div>Scout</div> <div> <div> <div>--Assassin</div>--Bard</div> <div>--Berserker</div> <div>--Brawler</div> <div>--Rogue</div></div> <div>--Ranger</div> <div> </div> <p>Message Edited by aislynn00 on <span class="date_text">11-07-2005</span> <span class="time_text">03:34 AM</span> </p><hr> </blockquote></blockquote>Holy class-balancing, batman! I already F-ing said that. That's about the identical class system that EQOA uses, and it works. Plus Gaige loves my comparisons to that "other" game, that has absolutely no comparable scenarios or information to EQ2 despite the fact that the same company made it, ran it, balanced it, it's the same "universe" and it has/had the same type of situations. Oh, wait.

[Gungo]

<P>I do think there are to many subclasses but i think this would of been a cooler setup</P> <DIV>Fighter</DIV> <DIV>--Paladin                      fantasy based good fighter</DIV> <DIV>--Shadow Knight         fantasy based evil fighter </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Mage</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--elementalist- elemental pets cold/fire nukes </DIV>--Psionic - personea pets mental nukes/dots</DIV> <DIV>--Necromancer- undead pets poisen/disease nukes </DIV> <DIV>--Hunter- animal pets Divine nukes/dots </DIV> <DIV>--Bard songs dots magic nukes/dots snares/roots charms</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>Priest</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Druid- regens</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Templar- direct heals</DIV> <DIV>--Inquisitor- reactives</DIV>--Shaman- wards</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scout</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>--Assassin- positional attacks/ invis attacks big slow hits/ poisens/ backstabs etc</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Berserker- no posiens, magic or dots /big slow and lots of AoE's</DIV> <DIV>--monk-  no poisne, magics or dots/ no aoe's fast small hits</DIV> <DIV>--brigand- stuns fast small hits postiional/ Aoe's/ flanking atks etc</DIV></DIV> <DIV>--Ranger- ranged bows snares/roots mezzes</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>O wait this is a different game</DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<P>Personally i think the lack of arch types is whats killing the game and trying to stuff 24 sub classes into 4 arch types is just too much for it to handle.</P> <P>Could of always made 2 more arch types to spread it out so so many sub classes werent stepping on each others toes.</P> <P>Something like, Priest, Fighter, Bard, Brawler, Scout, Mage, and you could of potentially broken each arch type down into 4 sub classes ( still having 24 total sub classes ) each and had a much bigger sprectrum when it came to class diversity and we all wouldnt be so generic.</P>

[Starwind]

<div></div>Or how about this? Tanks- All wear heavy (plate) armor. No pajama monkeys. Warriors: Neutral, high HP, ok melee damage, no spell damage, minor or no healing ability, group offense buffs, self defense buffs, pimarily focused on stopping physical damage but has high hp to absorb the extra magical damage. Paladins: Good only, good hp, low melee damage, some spells, good self/group healing ability, group defense buffs, self defense buffs,  primarily focused on stopping elemental damage, but still has the tank heavy armor to be able to absorb melee damage fairly well. Shadowknight: Evil only, good hp, ok melee damage, good spell damage, no  group healing ability but good self healing through lifetaps, no group buffs, offense and defense self buffs, primarily focused on stopp disease/poison/arcane damage, but also has the tank heavy armor so can take melee damage fairly well. Scouts- All wear medum (chain) armor. Rogue: Neutral, ok HP, great piercing melee damage, no spell damge, no healing ability, no group buffs, great self offensive buffs, has poison,  good stealth ability, has trap/chest disarming and lockpicking skills, primarily focused on heavy melee damage, and relies on starting a fight in stealth for soloing. Ranger: Good only, ok HP, ok slashing melee damage, good spell damage (arrow spells), minor self and group healing ability, ok group defensive and offensive buffs, no self buffs, ok stealth ablity, tracking ability, can equip special bows. Berserker: evil only, amazing crushing (fists, or hammers) melee damage, no spell damage, good self healing ability, good offensive group buffs, best self offense/haste buffs, no stealth ability. Bard: Neutral, ok slashing damage, no spell damage, ok self healing and minor group healing, great group defensive buffs, great group power buffs, ok group offensive buffs, no self-only buffs, no stealth ability, minor crowd control through lulls. Casters- Light armor only (Cloth - lighter, Leather - heavier) Wizard: Neutral, cloth only, wands/staves only, tomes/books only, pitiful melee damage, low HP, MASSIVE single target spell damage, decent AOE spell damage, no self healing, minor self defensive/power buffs, no group buffs, teleportation spells, root. Necromancer: Evil only, cloth only, wands/staves/daggers/Scythes(2h, good stats, no sheild) cicles (1h, ok stats, no sheild), ok hp, books/tomes only, good single target spell damage, no AOE spell damage, minor self healing from lifetaps, minor pet healing, ok self defensive buffs, no grop buffs, offensive based pets with good pet buffs, good debuff spells, fear. Beastmaster: Good only, leather or cloth, clubs/staves/daggers/small swords, small sheilds (bucklers/roundshileds and tombs/books), ok hp, good single target spell damage, good AOE spell damage, no self/group healing, good pet healing, good pet buffs, no group buffs, ok self defensive buffs, balanced offensive/defensive based pet, great debuffs, great stat syphons (from mob to pet), ok crowd control through fear and root. Enchanter: Neutral, cloth only, wands/staves only, books/tombs only, low hp, good single target damage, ok AOE spell damage, no self/group healing, no pet healing, good group offensive and defensive buffs, good group power buffs, minor self defensive buffs, ok pet buffs, defensive based pet, good crowd control through mezzes, lulls and roots. Healers- Varying armor, heavy, medium, and light. Cleric: Neutral, plate armor, clubs/hammers/wands only, up to kite shields, low hp, ok single target damage, no AOE damage, great group healing, ok self healing, great group defensive buffs, ok self offensive buffs, most powerful rez, ok debuffing ability, root. Druid: Good only, leather armor, clubs/hammers/staves only, books/tombs only, low hp, ok single target damage, ok AOE damage, good group healing, okay self healing, good group defensive buffs, okay group offensive buffs, okay self offesnive buffs, rez, no debuffing ability, root, ok offensive based pet, travel powers, some teleportation. Shaman: Neutral, chain armor, clubs/hammers/staves, small shields, okay hp, good single target damage, ok AOE damage, good group healing, okay self healing, great group offensive buffs, good self defensive buffs, good crowd control through roots, snares, and fear, ok debuffing ability. Heretic: Evil only, chain armor, clubs/hammers/staves/daggers, tombs/books only, great single target damage, ok AOE damage, great group healing, no self healing, good group offensive buffs, minor group defensive buffs, good self offensive buffs, okay crowd control through snares and fear, great debuffing ability. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Starwind87 on <span class=date_text>11-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:39 PM</span>

[Gungo]

Haha thats my point star what you are designing is a different game. EQ2 devs believe balance can be achieved between avodiance and mitagtion some other games do not. The fact is everyone here has thier own idea of what classes should be made and what will be balanced. The actual balance is acheived not by the classes, but how those classes fair vs PvE (unless u going pvp whihc i beleive is an entriely different balance) in equal regards. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So to be clear the class system in not changing anytime soon and this thread is pointless. But what you are describing sound salot liek vangaurd (who belives avodi and mitgation can not be balanced) But they have 4 tank classes themselves so don't expect to go there and not see fighter A complaining about fighter B.</DIV>

[Veshtan]

<DIV>I took a little jaunt over to the WoW boards....wonder of wonders...it was just like here.  Bickering about whose class sucked the worst and the classes that didn't suck coming over to the boards of the classes who were less fortunate and stirring up trouble and trying to repudiate all hints of possible nerfs that might need to be thrown their way.   So...the grass isn't always greener, is it?   That's not to say Guardians don't need fixing...they do...badly.  More then any other class.   Unfortunately i'm worried that it might be too late.  There are so many Guardians that are leaving the game or leaving their class to play another that by the time SOE fixes what they botched, it won't matter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, i think variety is a good thing, i just think the system SOE setup is innately very difficult to balance.  Hence why Guards were better then other tanks before and why the nerf bat swung and now we're worse then every one else.  Of course, SOE has a grand history of using the nerf bat much too extensively and much too hard and then showing an unwillingness to admit they made a mistake, but i'll leave that for some other time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At this point, i just can't wait for DDO to come along.  No GAIGE, i'm not going to say it's an EQ2 killer, it isn't, it's just what i'm looking forward to since SOE butchered my class.</DIV>

[Hzor]

<DIV>**multiple reposts and spamming message**</DIV><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>11-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:24 PM</span>