Was Sony's plan to have Hybrid classes?

[Raahl]

<DIV>To me it seem that Sony originally planned for EQ2 to have hybrid classes.  One's that could perform multiple roles, but not be the best in any one role.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crusaders = Hybrid tank/healer  (Tanking + Healing)</DIV> <DIV>Brawlers = Hybrid tank/scout  (Tanking + DPS)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bard = Hybrid scout/mage  (DPS + Magic)</DIV> <DIV>Rogue = Hybrid scout/tank  (DPS + Tanking)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Summoner = Hybrid mage/??  <FONT color=#ff9900>Not sure what 2nd class fits them</FONT></DIV> <DIV>Enchanter =  Hybrid mage/??  <FONT color=#ff9900>Not sure what 2nd class fits them</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff9900></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>Am I totally off base here?  </DIV>

[JeffBship]

<P>That's exactly what it seemed like to me...</P> <P>Soloers would want one of the hybrid characters.</P> <P>Small groups would want a mix of hybrid characters.</P> <P>Full groups would have enough depth that a character could be specialized (pure).</P> <P> </P> <P>I always considered this balanced...  you can choose to be best at one thing while knowing that you wouldn't solo well and could only really reach your potential in the right group, or you could choose to be hybrid and able to fill many more roles adequately knowing that you might not be the best choice for a specific role.  </P> <P>If you look around the forums and in game, you will find many people who solo, duo, or small group a lot.  Those players should have the same opportunity to choose a character that fits their playstyle as a player who wants to specialize in a specific end-game raid role.</P> <P>Isn't that the biggest benefit of the large number of character types?  To allow people to pick the character that will match their chosen playstyle or role and thereby provide them with the most fun and entertainment....consequently leading them to enjoy the game more, keep paying their subscription fee, tell their friends to sign up, etcetera.</P> <P> </P> <P>Bottom Line from a business standpoint:</P> <P>Everyone's the same:  small playerbase of people who like that specific playstyle....small revenue.</P> <P>Lots of Options:  Huge playerbase, something for everyone...huge revenue.</P>

[Raahl]

<DIV>Personally I've always preferred a skill based system vs. a class bases one.  This gives players the option to be what they want to be.  If they choose to give up tanking ability for more DPS or Utility, then they cannot come complaining that they cannot tank.  Because it was they who chose their skills and abilities.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Arpophyllum]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote:<BR> <DIV>Personally I've always preferred a skill based system vs. a class bases one.  This gives players the option to be what they want to be.  If they choose to give up tanking ability for more DPS or Utility, then they cannot come complaining that they cannot tank.  Because it was they who chose their skills and abilities.<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>My roommate (who I group with primarily) and I talk about these kinds of issues, and we always come to the same conclusion as you. The archetype system is at its core going to be difficult to balance. I would have preferred to choose a class at the beginning and pick from skills as I leveled. Then it becomes a choice like, 'Hmmm....do I choose a utility, attack or defense spell?' I am the only person I can blame for that choice.<BR>

[Nemi]

<DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>An interesting concept I agree. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>One that could be fun to play however I do think it has it's problems like many others. For instance it is wholly possible with that system to [Removed for Content] your character. You would need some way of continual respec' (like WoW's except perhaps not so exhorbitant a cost). It is alway far harder to balance a system that offers that level of customisation. Eventually would the developers not balance content on the perceived 'best' template thereby making it increasing harder for other templates?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>There are examples of this currently and historically:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>UO - purely skills based, you ended up with tank mages</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>WoW - Classes with a development tree. Still caused balancing issues as people complained certain powers were weak.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I guess if we could devise a system that is truly balance we would make a fortune.</FONT></DIV>

[Raahl]

AC1 is skill based also.  They eventually allowed you to do a quest to unlearn a skill and allow you to replace it.  Think it was on a 2 week timer. 

[RafaelSmith]

Ide pay twice what I pay to play EQ2 if i could play a well designed skill-based MMO. ide 3 times as much if i could play a well designed skill-based MMO where the ONLY way to get gear was to loot it yourself.  No economy, No crafting, NO HARVESTING....just groups of friends getting together to fight the baddies and take thier loot <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> RafaelSmith wrote:<BR>Ide pay twice what I pay to play EQ2 if i could play a well designed skill-based MMO.<BR><BR>ide 3 times as much if i could play a well designed skill-based MMO where the ONLY way to get gear was to loot it yourself.  No economy, No crafting, NO HARVESTING....just groups of friends getting together to fight the baddies and take thier loot <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I too long for the old days when you looted your equipment off of mobs.  Everything seemed more simple then.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'd switch in a heartbeat if AC1 was redone with a new engine and the exp passup was dropped.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Pry]

I will say it here again, because I feel strongly about it.  WoW's system of character advancement is superior to any other system out there.  Although it does need some tweaking, I like that I am in charge of my own destiny and when I reach level 60 I won't be exactly like 300 other people in my class. 

[Gaige]

<P>SWG had a skill based system and what it led to was every single patch having a new 'Flavor of the Month' class which about 80% of the population then regrinded out.</P> <P>There were plenty of classes you never even saw under that system.</P>

[Nemi]

<FONT color=#ffff00>Yep, thats the problem with skills classes. You would love for every combination to have a purpose (because what is the point otherwise) but invariably you end up wildly tipping the balance one way then the other.</FONT>

[Dasein]

<HR> My roommate (who I group with primarily) and I talk about these kinds of issues, and we always come to the same conclusion as you. The archetype system is at its core going to be difficult to balance. I would have preferred to choose a class at the beginning and pick from skills as I leveled. Then it becomes a choice like, 'Hmmm....do I choose a utility, attack or defense spell?' I am the only person I can blame for that choice.<BR> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>The problem with these systems is that there are optimal builds and gimped builds, and a single change to a spell or skill can ruin an entire build. Thus, you get an endless series of flavor of the month builds. </P> <P> </P>

[Pry]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Caswydian wrote:<BR> <HR> My roommate (who I group with primarily) and I talk about these kinds of issues, and we always come to the same conclusion as you. The archetype system is at its core going to be difficult to balance. I would have preferred to choose a class at the beginning and pick from skills as I leveled. Then it becomes a choice like, 'Hmmm....do I choose a utility, attack or defense spell?' I am the only person I can blame for that choice.<BR> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>The problem with these systems is that there are optimal builds and gimped builds, and a single change to a spell or skill can ruin an entire build. Thus, you get an endless series of flavor of the month builds. </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Well, historically this has been the fault of game designers, not the system.  The system would work well once the dynamics of character progression are understood.  Despite its pratfalls however, it is still far and above better than the archtype system that SOE has in place. </DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prynn wrote:<BR> <DIV>Despite its pratfalls however, it is still far and above better than the archtype system that SOE has in place.  <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>I think EQ2 has a better system than the skill system available in SWG.<BR>

[Pry]

Yeah, I don't like the SWG skill based system either.  I am only referencing Warcraft's system here.   Sorry for the confusion. 

[Raahl]

<P>You still get flavor of the month classes in class bases systems.  Especially when they are changing how the skills work.  One might argue that of the fighters, brawlers are the flavor of the month.</P> <P>My experience with skill based systems comes from AC1.     I thought their system worked rather well.  Though there were other issues with how they passed exp from vassals to patrons.  It made is extremely easy to power level a character.   There were always people looking to optimize their characters into the perfect template.</P>

[Prufro]

The way WoW has done warrior is pretty excellent.  You have 3 trees, one for dps with a 2h weapon, one for dps with two dual-wield weapons, and one for tanking with a shield sword. There are people who will always believe one is better than the other, but if you're primary purpose is tanking then you pick the tanking tree, if you love dual-wield but want a little tanking you choose that tree, and if you love big, slow weapons with massive crit values then you choose that tree. WoW made a warrior with dps and tanking, but you're only a great tank if you choose that tree.  The warrior is at the moment the only tank in the game, although paladins can do it they have to be good at it, and most of them just are not. The rage system is also unique to the warriors, and it requires strategy to be able to manage rage during a fight in order to keep hate.  EQ2 just gave every player mana and as of LU13 guardians expel it at astronomic rates.  As a guardian in eq2 when you end a fight you have little power and have to wait for regen.  As a warrior in WoW you either have no rage and pull another one when you're ready, or you have rage leftover and want to pull asap as it depletes when not in combat. For me this is a fun way to play a warrior, but that's not enough to make me play the game.  The rest of the game i absolutely hate, and that's the only reason i'm here. Right now i'm holding out with anxious anticipation of LU16b and some update for us.  If nothing, i will wait until LU17 since i'll be level 60 by then, and if nothing by LU17 to help my power consumption then WoW, as much as i hate it, will take me away.  (For reference, i haven't been playing since launch.  I started a guardian about 2 weeks before LU13 and i'm level 48 now.) <div></div>

[EvilIguana9]

I don't see where it ever said a hybrid class couldn't be as good at a task as a so called pure class.  Paladins are intended to be every bit as good a tank as a guardian, just that we get there by using spells rather than having as high an innate defensive ability as guards.  Suggesting that our spells should disqualify us from being good tanks is like me suggesting your taunts should disqualify you.  They are but a means to an end. And pure skill based systems are essentially impossible to balance.  Even class systems with too much emphasis on skills are difficult.  Take NeverWinter Nights for instance.  It was very easy to build a mediocre character based on the descriptions of feats.  It was very easy to build an extremely overpowered character by choosing one of a few very specific sets of feats and skills.  You have to have a high degree of control over what special skills players can use else you end up with people who get to the cap and suck vs a few very cheesy over powered skill combos.  In NWN there were 3 classes basically, a cheesy sorceror, a cheesy fighter, and a cheesy cleric.  The particular builds used very very specific sets of feats and multiclasses.  The worst part was NWN let you multiclass as a paladin, so you had a lot of people taking 1 level of pally and getting 90% of the class defining features without any of the sacrafices.  It really sucked.  <div></div>

[Pry]

<P>Again.</P> <P>Skill Based Trees = teh suck.</P> <P>Progression Based Trees =  teh win</P> <P>Archetype Structure = Substitute for Toilet Paper.</P>

[Wabit]

<P>i liked the mix and match of SWG...  but it was a FotM for professions...  then again they tried balancing the game around PvP not PvE...  i always picked the oddest combos for professions but had a blast doing it...  i miss my smuggler/commando (prior to their combat revamp)...  but it was also a soloers game then, no need to group ever...  get the entertainer buffs (buffbots), and the doc buffs (buffbot) never have to talk to anyone...</P> <P>what EQ2 needs now is AA's it'll give the endgame players a reason to keep playing besides camping eyes, and raiding zones with no loot...  the desire to be the best it what drives us...  now its hit 60 and its a brick wall, done the access quests, done all the run-to-here quests i care to...  whats left is hitting the roost and poets every day while waiting for lockouts to end on the raid zones, camping eyes ([Removed for Content] 20 lockout for 60 hrs of camping)...</P> <P>hybrid classes are fine, and actully needed for the game...  its the utility they bring to the table...  power regen, crowd control, soloability (you have your own group as a summoner), debuffs, ect...  the pure classes as you call them have are going to be severly gimped in most aspects of the game except for the endgame stuff...  thats the fun stuff for alot of ppl, and before a monk couldn't tank icy digs (gonna agree with Gaige here)...  so that trade off of 50 lvls (60 now) of fun is that you weren't the focus of the fun stuff as a tank or a healer...</P> <P>now most classes are balanced in almost every aspect of their fighter/mage/scout/priest...  but there are some very glaring broken classes (assass, coercer, guard)...</P> <P>ah well i just need something in the game to entertain me...  sitting in merchant mode selling my 8 million rocks for 1s each chatting is really getting boring...</P> <P>Wabit</P>

[TunaBoo]

Gaige never even played SWG by his previous posts but he is fanboi'ing the eq2 system over it? hhahahah <div></div>

[Wabit]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TunaBoo wrote:<BR>Gaige never even played SWG by his previous posts but he is fanboi'ing the eq2 system over it? hhahahah<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>OMG lol...  at least in SWG you could make a true avoidance tank (fencer/tk/pistoleer)...</P> <P>Wabit</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TunaBoo wrote:<BR>Gaige never even played SWG by his previous posts but he is fanboi'ing the eq2 system over it? hhahahah<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>SWG was my first MMO.  I played it for almost 15 months.  I had a TKA/Doctor, a Fencer/Rifleman/4004tka/novice medic, a merchant/artisan/chef and a Dark Jedi Knight.</P> <P>I had 3 accounts almost the entire time I played it.</P> <P>I was on Bria, in the guild Left For Dead.<BR></P>

[TanRaistlyn]

<P>Did you post continuously on the SWG boards for 7months to make the Rifleman Balanced to the Jedi by making them tank equally, while flying that same speed, and cooking the best foods??</P> <P>( know nothing about SWG but that that wont stop me from making fun!!)</P> <P>Covenant</P>

[Gaige]

<DIV>Nah, not really.  I mostly posted about jedi overall and doctor crafting.  I did have like 6500 posts when I left there though.  /shrug.</DIV>

[Hend]

<P>It's interesting to note that both Nemi and Gaige have posted in this thread, but neither of them have challenged the OP's view. I guess he must have been right on the mark, then.</P> <P>There's just no way that I'm ever going to believe that the designers didn't originally think in terms of specialist vs. hybrids, and wanted us to choose between versatility and expertise.</P> <P>I know things have changed now, and I can live with that, but don't tell me it was always meant to be like it is today.</P> <P>Vork, 52 guardian</P> <DIV> </DIV>

[Prufro]

<div></div><div></div>Anyone who argued FOR swg based classes.... well.... read this.... <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=nge_ann&message.id=5" target="_blank"> http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=nge_ann&message.id=5</a> edit: linked<p>Message Edited by Prufrock on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:41 PM</span>