PDA

View Full Version : when will they bring back the beastlords thread


vochore
02-13-2007, 02:30 PM
<p>well...new forums...guess its time to start a new beastlord thread.</p><p>i personally think it will most likely be another 2 expansions before luclin makes its return.</p>

Lightstrider
02-13-2007, 06:30 PM
I believe SOE has stated many times that they have no intention of bringing in any new character classes.  Races are the only thing being expanded.  I personally would like to see the beastlords come back, but oh well.

DataOutlaw
02-13-2007, 11:20 PM
<p>Yeah new Beastlord thread!</p><p> It is quite clear that no new classes are going in anytime soon. There is still plenty of room for expansions with new zones (Odus, Kunark, Velious, etc) and new races (Arsai).</p><p>When they do look at considering new classes I would expect they could find a way to fit in a balanced melee based pet class. In my vision it would be a Scout based class that would have to tame wild creatures much like the Creature Handler class in the original SWG did. As they levelled up they would have to tame new beasties since their pets would not level with them like a Mage based pet does.  They would have weak defenses with Scout based avoidance and leather based mitigation without the fighter mitigation bonus that brawlers get. They would have weak melee skills without their pet better then a mage class but less then a fighter based class. With their pet their DPS would be on par with other scouts but it would be very situational depending on the type and level of pet they are using. And no buffing other then of themselves and their own pets.</p>

Fellindar
02-14-2007, 07:49 AM
I too liked the beastlord class but i doubt you will see it return, SOE have stated than no new class will be added until ALL existing classes are BALANCED so you are probably in for a long wait. As for Luclin it was a place that never appealed to me and I hope it stays shattered lol <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Sir Felindar Fierblade Paladin of Tunare Guk Server

Norrsken
02-14-2007, 08:37 AM
<cite>Fellindar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I too liked the beastlord class but i doubt you will see it return, SOE have stated than no new class will be added until ALL existing classes are BALANCED so you are probably in for a long wait. As for Luclin it was a place that never appealed to me and I hope it stays shattered lol <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Sir Felindar Fierblade Paladin of Tunare Guk Server </blockquote> Actually, they said all classes were balance, all bugs removed and all content fixed in any concievable way. And it was just a long way to say "It aint gonna happen" <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Themaginator
02-14-2007, 12:49 PM
every time you make a beastlord thread SOE kills patches the kitten

Ama
02-14-2007, 01:22 PM
<cite>Themaginator wrote:</cite><blockquote>every time you make a beastlord thread SOE kills patches the kitten</blockquote><p> <img src="/smilies/0320a00cb4bb5629ab9fc2bc1fcc4e9e.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Ya....</p><p>Anyways I do agree that right now it would be combersome and probably problematic to bring a new class into the mix.  There are numberous amounts of weapons, armor, items, and so on that would have to have a <Class> tag added to it.  I'm betting it takes more than a few simple keystrokes to make it so said class can use said item. </p><p>Thing is what would be the quote "Anti" beastlord?  You have Wardens which are defensive while furys are offensive.  Zerkers are Offensive tanks while Guardians are defensive tanks.  </p>

Cusashorn
02-14-2007, 01:44 PM
<cite>vochore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>well...new forums...guess its time to start a new beastlord thread.</p><p>i personally think it will most likely be another 2 expansions before luclin makes its return.</p></blockquote> SoE officially announced the other day that they'll be bringing back the Beastlord Class on February 31st.

DataOutlaw
02-14-2007, 02:33 PM
<cite>Amana wrote:</cite><blockquote> <p>Thing is what would be the quote "Anti" beastlord?  You have Wardens which are defensive while furys are offensive.  Zerkers are Offensive tanks while Guardians are defensive tanks.  </p></blockquote> Ooh yeah that typically gets discussed in the requisite Beastlord thread. They managed to balance Illusionist / Coercer as  Enchanter / anti-Enchanter so i am sure they could find some similarly clever way to do it for beastlord. Maybe they categorize the different beasts as "good" and "evil" creatures. The good BL would only be able to tame good beasties and would have more heal and buff spells. The evil BL would only be able to tame evil beasties and would have more offensive spells. Or maybe the pet would take on some transformation after being tamed to make them "good" or "evil" beasites?

Tyrani
02-14-2007, 02:43 PM
<cite>DataOutlaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amana wrote:</cite><blockquote> <p>Thing is what would be the quote "Anti" beastlord?  You have Wardens which are defensive while furys are offensive.  Zerkers are Offensive tanks while Guardians are defensive tanks.  </p></blockquote> Ooh yeah that typically gets discussed in the requisite Beastlord thread. They managed to balance Illusionist / Coercer as  Enchanter / anti-Enchanter so i am sure they could find some similarly clever way to do it for beastlord. Maybe they categorize the different beasts as "good" and "evil" creatures. The good BL would only be able to tame good beasties and would have more heal and buff spells. The evil BL would only be able to tame evil beasties and would have more offensive spells. Or maybe the pet would take on some transformation after being tamed to make them "good" or "evil" beasites?</blockquote><p> With the old class/archetype system, this was more of an issue.  Now that they've just made it where there are 24 classes, they really shouldn't <i>have</i> to make an anti-beastlord and just make it a neutral class that can be in Qeynos and Freeport.</p><p>Even if you look at the class selection screen, they break out many classes into their own division (i.e. SK and Pally).</p>

Delameko Stone
02-14-2007, 06:14 PM
What they should do is bring them back, but make them so gimped that they don't even have to think about trying to balance them... <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Xaviou
02-14-2007, 06:15 PM
lock this thread, please. no beastlords.

Lyndro-EQ2
02-14-2007, 07:46 PM
My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums: I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle... Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them.

Jai1
02-14-2007, 08:16 PM
<p><i>Amana wrote:</i></p><p>Themaginator wrote: </p><blockquote>every time you make a beastlord thread SOE kills patches the kitten</blockquote><p> <img src="/smilies/0320a00cb4bb5629ab9fc2bc1fcc4e9e.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Ya....</p><p>Anyways I do agree that right now it would be combersome and probably problematic to bring a new class into the mix.  There are numberous amounts of weapons, armor, items, and so on that would have to have a <Class> tag added to it.  I'm betting it takes more than a few simple keystrokes to make it so said class can use said item. </p><p>Thing is <b>what would be the quote "Anti" beastlord</b>?  You have Wardens which are defensive while furys are offensive.  Zerkers are Offensive tanks while Guardians are defensive tanks.  </p><p>I think their is enough classes and if they add more they will have to do them in pairs to be consistant.  What about elemental BLs and then creature BLs.  I like the idea of taming but don't know what that involves.  In WoW it was food.  In SWG I think time brought loyalty.  I'm not sure there's a whole lot of elemental creatures out there but it could differentiate 2 classes. One being more of a caster and the other more melee.</p>

KerowynnKaotic
02-14-2007, 08:24 PM
<cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums: I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle... Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them. </blockquote><hr />You know .. I'm thinking you should just give them their Beastlord.  <p>Next Teir Increase .. Give Ranger's a White Bangle Tiger Pet and call it a Beastlord.  </p><p>Kerowynn's Beastlord ... sweet revenge ... <img src="/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I figure it's only fair .. </p><p>---- </p><p>for those that need explaination ...</p><p>(Ranger's in EQ1 were called Wardens, Beastlord Pets were called [player name]'s Warden)</p>

interstellarmatter
02-14-2007, 08:35 PM
<cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums: I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle... Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them. </blockquote> No Ninja or Pirate class?

Lornick
02-14-2007, 08:35 PM
<cite>vochore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>well...new forums...guess its time to start a new beastlord thread.</p><p>i personally think it will most likely be another 2 expansions before luclin makes its return.</p></blockquote>/em throws rotten fruit at Vochore.

Ama
02-14-2007, 08:59 PM
<cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums: I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle... Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them. </blockquote> Note to self when working for SoE do not mention new classes to EQ2 people lest I be pelt with rotten fruit.  Took me a long time to get the nasty onion smell outta my clothes when the raid people went after me.

Nuhus
02-14-2007, 09:29 PM
<p>lol, this just made me laugh. Even better when Lyndro posted his age old response! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>My first thought was to try and dig that up!</p>

Ama
02-14-2007, 10:13 PM
<cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>lol, this just made me laugh. Even better when Lyndro posted his age old response! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>My first thought was to try and dig that up!</p></blockquote> Shhh...he's got rotten fruit and he's not affraid to use it. <img src="/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Cusashorn
02-15-2007, 01:02 AM
February 31st folks. It's right around the corner. >_>

Articulas
02-15-2007, 11:30 AM
i have a gut feeling that you'll change your minds on not adding classes in a year or two.  class balance is a trivial matter that will never happen, and should be considered as such. better to just accept that, and move on to what can be done.

Illmarr
02-15-2007, 12:23 PM
<cite>KerowynnKaotic wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums: I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle... Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them. </blockquote><hr />You know .. I'm thinking you should just give them their Beastlord.  <p>Next Teir Increase .. Give Ranger's a White Bangle Tiger Pet and call it a Beastlord.  </p><p>Kerowynn's Beastlord ... sweet revenge ... <img src="/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I figure it's only fair .. </p><p>---- </p><p>for those that need explaination ...</p><p>(Ranger's in EQ1 were called Wardens, Beastlord Pets were called [player name]'s Warden)</p></blockquote> Actually Beastlord pets were Warders, not Wardens

Kittypoo
02-15-2007, 01:37 PM
<p>My main in EQ is a beastlord.  I love the class, I love the Vah Shir.  But this game is not EQ.  This plane of existance did not produce beastlords that I can find any evidence of.  I could be wrong.</p><p>Try a summoner if you want a pet.   Not trying to be mean or argumentative.  I would love a beastlord but the game developers/producers/creators don't want them in their game.  People (non-beastlords) from EQ had a love-hate relationship with beastlords.  They loved the buffs but they were very envious of the power of the beastlords.  They (we) are very overpowered.</p><p> Just my 2cp</p>

ChildofHate
02-15-2007, 03:39 PM
<cite>Kittypoo wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>My main in EQ is a beastlord.  I love the class, I love the Vah Shir.  But this game is not EQ.  This plane of existance did not produce beastlords that I can find any evidence of.  I could be wrong.</p><p>Try a summoner if you want a pet.   Not trying to be mean or argumentative.  I would love a beastlord but the game developers/producers/creators don't want them in their game.  People (non-beastlords) from EQ had a love-hate relationship with beastlords.  They loved the buffs but they were very envious of the power of the beastlords.  They (we) are very overpowered.</p><p> Just my 2cp</p></blockquote><p> Totally agree 110% on every point made.  bottom line:  no need to introduce more classes into EQ2.  There is a perfect balance already for what's available.  adding more will simply add no new benefits to the game.</p><p>There's enough broken atm as it is.  No reason to make additional problems.  Adding a new class will also involve rebalancing the rest which will lead to more bugs, unhappy players and ultimately more trouble then it was worth.  Let the devs be so they can focus on the issues at hand rather then run off creating a new class that will need to be molded into the play system.</p><p>/veto BL class</p>

Kyralis
02-15-2007, 04:14 PM
<cite>KerowynnKaotic wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>for those that need explaination ...</p><p>(Ranger's in EQ1 were called Wardens, Beastlord Pets were called [player name]'s Warden)</p></blockquote>WardeRs, actually, not WardeNs. I loved my beastlord. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But I don't see them coming into EQ2 anytime soon, alas.

KerowynnKaotic
02-15-2007, 07:05 PM
<cite>Kyralis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>KerowynnKaotic wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>for those that need explaination ...</p><p>(Ranger's in EQ1 were called Wardens, Beastlord Pets were called [player name]'s Warden)</p></blockquote>WardeRs, actually, not WardeNs. I loved my beastlord. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But I don't see them coming into EQ2 anytime soon, alas.</blockquote><hr /><p>meh.  Yeah.  I apparently have spent too much time away from EQ1 and too much time in EQ2.   </p><p>But, it the suggestion still stands.   Warder was the lvl 50/55/60 Ranger title  ... don't remember which.   Either before Pathfinder or after .. I preferred the Huntress, myself. </p><p>Then they came out with the crap quasi-hybrid Beastlords and I swear Brenlo gave a nod to the name of their pet as revenge for all the bashings Rangers gave him. </p><p>So, it's only fair in EQ2 that Rangers should get a Beastlord as a pet!   *evil gleam*</p>

TheFangs
02-19-2007, 11:23 AM
How about instead of an all new beastlord class they simply make a beastlord AA line for fury's? Much like the Inquisitors battle line, which changes the inquisitor form a stand back healer/crap nuke'er to a fair melee dps class/healer (thoug it does give some wardrobe problems since str suddenly becomes much more important) But anyways, in the next expantion ad another AA tree and let one of the lines in that tree be all about turning a fury into a beastlord. Then the fury can take it and become a beastlord  or leave it and pick another line.

ChildofHate
02-20-2007, 12:25 PM
<cite>TheFangs wrote:</cite><blockquote>How about instead of an all new beastlord class they simply make a beastlord AA line for fury's? Much like the Inquisitors battle line, which changes the inquisitor form a stand back healer/crap nuke'er to a fair melee dps class/healer (thoug it does give some wardrobe problems since str suddenly becomes much more important) But anyways, in the next expantion ad another AA tree and let one of the lines in that tree be all about turning a fury into a beastlord. Then the fury can take it and become a beastlord  or leave it and pick another line. </blockquote> Isn't there already a similar aa-line for wardens where they can charm animals and use them as pets?  Beyond that similarity, you have to REALLY becareful about what abilities you start giving classes so as not to encroach upon the PRIMARY abilities of other classes.  You start letting wardens and furies use shamantic skills of debuffs, etc... you will have verily ticked off shamantic types adding YOUR name to their "Do not buff or heal this person list".

Feywing
02-20-2007, 04:37 PM
I liked playing my beastlord in EQ1, so perhaps if people want to play a beastlord they should go back to EQ1.  As for seeing Luclin return in an expansion I doubt that, they'd have to figure out a way of putting a moon back together and even with magic that would be difficult, they don't have all the pieces anymore.  Now there is another moon orbiting Norrath so if we go back to the moons it will be one that wasn't blown up.

Deadrus
02-20-2007, 05:30 PM
<p><wishes i could rename this thread When will they stop makeing "bring back the beastlords thread"> Because its not going to happen. Soe has said no more classes and there are class balance issues as it is. Like some one else said if they brough in a new class it would throw all classes out of balance and theyd have to rework everything over agian. And even if you got your coveted Beastlord class. You will be disapointed with it. It wont be nearly as powerfull as it was in EQ1 even though we can all pick our final classes now the classes were based on an archtype and the beatlord class doesnt really fit in with any of thoes base archtypes. Thease threads about beastlord have been getting old and was disapointed to see that it was one of the first things to be posted after the revamp. Please drop it and post about more intresting things. </p><p>I would however like to see Luclin come back or at least parts of it. It could be creatively done. The nexus was from what i understood to be like the central "hub" of the combine spires. With the combine spires not activated for porting i wonder if some activity has gone on the moon. The way I invison porting to work was that the nexus was like the satilite that would recive the people porting and redirect them down to the desination. Kinda like a video signal being sent around the world. It would be very intresting seeing an expation dealing with the magic of the combine and about Luclin or what ever is left with it. People keep saying the next expation will deal with how much something has changed. Well yes odus has changed with the magic that changed the Erudites. Antonica changed with the underfoot colapsing under it. Faydwer has changed from masive wars. But what has changed the most Luclin i mean what can be more of a change then it haveing exploded with masive chunks still hanging near each other. </p>

Findara
02-20-2007, 05:52 PM
<cite>TheFangs wrote:</cite><blockquote>How about instead of an all new beastlord class they simply make a beastlord AA line for fury's? Much like the Inquisitors battle line, which changes the inquisitor form a stand back healer/crap nuke'er to a fair melee dps class/healer (thoug it does give some wardrobe problems since str suddenly becomes much more important) But anyways, in the next expantion ad another AA tree and let one of the lines in that tree be all about turning a fury into a beastlord. Then the fury can take it and become a beastlord  or leave it and pick another line. </blockquote> I really think that will be the ultimate answer to more classes.  To add more AA trees in the future to more specialize.  Give wardens more swarm pets or more melee attacks, give furies a permanent pet (like booboo from eq1, but not totally suck) with buffs, or give them a more wizard lines.  Conj could get pet draw lines, which give them a pet buff that essentially  Draws the damage potential of the pet into the conjurer (thus killing the pet) giving them high hitting nukes and dots for a limited time (just like the Fury ability that reduces heals in exchange for higher damage) which could be an end line, with more spell enhancements for the conjurer along the way, or a reverse, Giving the conjurer more buffs for their pets and ending in an ability that gives the conjurer a temporary mirror pet, which doubles the current pet, and all of its abilities for a short duration, say 30s, or 1min.   These suggestions further focus the classes and give them a more tailored play style and almost creates new classes. Hell if you really want to go into a creative angle, if a summoner merges their scout pet they gain 2 abilities that will create 2 ice daggers (or katana if M1), or an earth sword and shield if they merge with their tank pet.  Of course the necros would be poison and disease based,  Thus creating "battle mages".  You could do the same thing with Wizards and warlocks, giving them melee attacks along the hand 2 hand lines, sorta making them elemental and noxious based monks. The possibilities are endless, its not adding in any new classes, but its allowing players to choose different ways to play their class.

ke'la
02-22-2007, 01:17 PM
<cite>interstellarmatter wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums: I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle... Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them. </blockquote> No <span style="color: #00cc00">Ninja</span> or<span style="color: #990000"> Pirate </span>class?</blockquote><p> <span style="color: #339900">Monk (kinda)</span></p><p><span style="color: #990000">Brigand </span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">No Need for others</span></p>

ChildofHate
02-22-2007, 01:35 PM
ke'la wrote: <blockquote><cite>interstellarmatter wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums: I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle... Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them. </blockquote> No <span style="color: #00cc00">Ninja</span> or<span style="color: #990000"> Pirate </span>class?</blockquote><p> <span style="color: #339900">Monk (kinda)</span></p><p><span style="color: #990000">Brigand </span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff">No Need for others</span></p></blockquote><p> <span style="color: #009900">Assassins</span></p>

Koltr
02-22-2007, 11:40 PM
The statement that new classes will not be added until ballance is achieved in the current classes is just the same as saying they will NEVER add new classes, since ballance will never be achieved. Ballance is the much desired mirage which is always visible from a distance but never seen up close, it is the shadow of a gnat, and the honesty of a senator. Ballance does not exist, hence if that is what is being waited on then it is going to be a looooooong wait.<img src="/smilies/1069449046bcd664c21db15b1dfedaee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The precise measure of a classes usefullness is the variety and the different qualities it adds to the user's experience. A wizard is never going to go toe-to-toe with a guardian and survive, but the guardian better watch out at a distance. There are archetypes that have been neglected or poorly comingled with the current classes. Tool using classes are an example. Why can't a gnome equip a blunderbuss and go a huntin', ala Elmer Fudd? Why can a mage focus on utilitarian magic such as levitation, teleportation, scrying, and phasing? Why can't a palidin recruit some NPC members to go on a holy crusade? Why can't real thieves exist that can actually pick locks, find traps, lift purses, and scale walls, WITHOUT getting caught? They fact that the first winged race can't actually fly, says more about poor planning than it does about ballance. If Halo and friends can manage to create geometry encapsulating flight, then it seems a little ineffectual to claim that flight is impossible, and for everyone to believe them because, "the developers say it is so". Pardon me if I am just a little sceptical about the whole no fly zone. Honestly, how is a little fae, flying around EVER going to have an advantage over an ogre with a crossbow? Fea: Look at me, I am so cute when I fly.... snappp, yiieeeee, thump! Ogre: And crunchy too! Ballance is not a legitimate excuse for getting something done, and will NEVER be, not at least until you come up with a turing complete model of the gaming universe, which is not likely to happen as long as Johnny 14 year old plays on his daddy's account. I

TheFangs
02-24-2007, 02:49 PM
<cite>ChildofHate wrote:</cite><blockquote>Isn't there already a similar aa-line for wardens where they can charm animals and use them as pets?  Beyond that similarity, you have to REALLY becareful about what abilities you start giving classes so as not to encroach upon the PRIMARY abilities of other classes.  You start letting wardens and furies use shamantic skills of debuffs, etc... you will have verily ticked off shamantic types adding YOUR name to their "Do not buff or heal this person list".</blockquote> When I said the line should go to fury's I pretty much picked the class out of a hat, so your arguments are kind of missing the point even thoug the one about shamans is a good one. It's not like I'm a fury so it's not really important to me which class get the line. (should there be one) So give the line to one of the shaman classes instead. The original beastlord was a monk/shaman hybrid with pet after all, so I guess that would make more sense.

Maroger
02-24-2007, 05:16 PM
<p>They really need to discover the part of the moon of Luclin spalshed down in the sea and is an island with SharVahl on it. And of course the Vah Shir ( who are much better looking than the Kerra) and their beastlords. </p><p>Beastlords were the best class in EQ1 until SOE started nerfing them. But I do miss my level 71 Beastlord.</p>

Talz
02-24-2007, 06:59 PM
The game had too many classes at launch.  The cut and paste good/bad and defense/offense didn't work out.  The radical changes the game has seen proved that. The beastlord being a god mode or overpowered class is a stupid Lake of Ill Omen newbie argument. That being said it seems pretty clear that AA is how they are shaping classes into a more unique mold.  If it were up to me I would give Wardens a scout pet and serious pet AA.  The way AA works they would have to give up some serious things for it but most other classes have very hard AA choices because of caps.

DobyMT
02-24-2007, 07:22 PM
<cite>Talzar wrote:</cite><blockquote>The game had too many classes at launch.  The cut and paste good/bad and defense/offense didn't work out.  The radical changes the game has seen proved that. The beastlord being a god mode or overpowered class is a stupid Lake of Ill Omen newbie argument. That being said it seems pretty clear that AA is how they are shaping classes into a more unique mold.  If it were up to me I would give Wardens a scout pet and serious pet AA.  The way AA works they would have to give up some serious things for it but most other classes have very hard AA choices because of caps. </blockquote> Are you [Removed for Content] kidding me?  SUMMONERS didn't even get great AAs for pets.  Why the [Removed for Content] should an already set or above balanced class get extra?  Yeah, you're right, completely remove ALL unique sides of this game, give [Removed for Content] healers a DPS pet, with AAs that pet classes don't even get. 

liveja
02-24-2007, 11:47 PM
<p>Has the OP been well & fully taunted & pelted with rubbish & rotten fruit for asking this question?</p><p>If not ....</p><p>/target OP</p><p>/taunt</p><p>/pelt</p><p>Just say NO to the return of EQ1 beastlords.</p>

TheFangs
02-25-2007, 12:06 AM
<cite>DobyMT wrote:</cite><blockquote>Talzar wrote: Are you [I cannot control my vocabulary] kidding me?  SUMMONERS didn't even get great AAs for pets.  Why the [I cannot control my vocabulary] should an already set or above balanced class get extra?  Yeah, you're right, completely remove ALL unique sides of this game, give [I cannot control my vocabulary] healers a DPS pet, with AAs that pet classes don't even get.  </blockquote> Dude! We aren't talking about amending the existing AA tree here (If someone is then forget it. It won't happen) so what summoners have <i>gotten</i> does not come into it in any way. What we ARE talking about is what some would like a AA tree to look like in a <i>future</i> expantions and how do you know what summoners will or will not get there? So go get a nice big glass of water and take a god [email protected] chill pill Then quit b*tching about what you don't have, what you don't want others to have and focus on what <i>you</i> would like to have (preferably in another thread far away from here.) I agree that it shouldn't be wardens who get it, but this is all theoretical so there is no need for that kind of BS

Talz
02-25-2007, 01:25 PM
<cite>DobyMT wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talzar wrote:</cite><blockquote>The game had too many classes at launch.  The cut and paste good/bad and defense/offense didn't work out.  The radical changes the game has seen proved that. The beastlord being a god mode or overpowered class is a stupid Lake of Ill Omen newbie argument. That being said it seems pretty clear that AA is how they are shaping classes into a more unique mold.  If it were up to me I would give Wardens a scout pet and serious pet AA.  The way AA works they would have to give up some serious things for it but most other classes have very hard AA choices because of caps. </blockquote> Are you [I cannot control my vocabulary] kidding me?  SUMMONERS didn't even get great AAs for pets.  Why the [I cannot control my vocabulary] should an already set or above balanced class get extra?  Yeah, you're right, completely remove ALL unique sides of this game, give [I cannot control my vocabulary] healers a DPS pet, with AAs that pet classes don't even get.  </blockquote>Stop getting your dress in a tizzy potty mouth.  I said a scout pet so it couldn't tank anywhere near summoner pets and nowhere did I say it had to be as good as a summoner pet.  Serious AA's that aren't worthless fluff so it is a viable play choice for people giving up other AA.  Again, nowhere did I say summoner or better AA. Pets aren't unique.  Every class can have some form of them if they want to pay the deity faction. You don't have to agree with me but don't twist my words.

Dragowulf
02-25-2007, 05:16 PM
well i dont know why you say that if they did make a beastlord class that it would be overpowered.  just give em sucky self dps, with a better dps bet, sh*tty heals, and some alright buffs.  maybe thorn for your pet. i don't know, but it could easily be made not to be overpowered

Vinh
10-05-2007, 01:32 PM
Just nerf Necros and bring back our Beasties!  classes balanced, all the world happy again <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Oakum
10-05-2007, 02:11 PM
<cite>Amana wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Themaginator wrote:</cite><blockquote>every time you make a beastlord thread SOE kills patches the kitten</blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0320a00cb4bb5629ab9fc2bc1fcc4e9e.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/0320a00cb4bb5629ab9fc2bc1fcc4e9e.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /> Ya....</p><p>Anyways I do agree that right now it would be combersome and probably problematic to bring a new class into the mix.  There are numberous amounts of weapons, armor, items, and so on that would have to have a <Class> tag added to it.  I'm betting it takes more than a few simple keystrokes to make it so said class can use said item. </p><p>Thing is what would be the quote "Anti" beastlord?  <b>You have Wardens which are defensive while furys are offensive.</b>  Zerkers are Offensive tanks while Guardians are defensive tanks.  </p></blockquote><p>I have to disagree with this little statement. Fury's are not and never have been since they were fixed in LU-13 less defensive then Wardens. They are roughly equal just different. Wardens can heal for a little bit longer and with EoF are much more slanted to melee where as Fury's are primarily nukers. </p><p>Wardens were fixed to be roughly equal with fury offensively with the same LU. </p><p>Now the devs have made that statement about "new classes will be added when all the current 24 classes are perfectly balanced"  so among other things, the devs would have to fix the way that the warden offensive capability has been nerfed by default (lack of being kept up to the fury dps capability and lack of str gear to go with the CA line in EoF equipment) </p><p>Now a statement like plate wearers are more defensive then chain which are more defensive then leather and then cloth I would completely agree with within an archtype (fighter/scout/mage/priest). Of course that opens up the other door. Within archtypes with multiple armor types, the higher DPS'er would be the lower defensive. Druids shoud do more damage then shaman which would do more dps then clerics. Brawlers should do more damage then warriors and crusaders for the fighter version.  </p><p>That makes sense to me though it might not seem logical to some I suppose. </p>

RoXx
10-05-2007, 02:38 PM
gogo beastlords, we wont give them up <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Dakryss
03-13-2008, 09:34 AM
I think it all boils down to laziness, imho.Rather spend time making new races than new classes.Rather spend time making vast solo zones for high end content, rather than investing the proper amount of lore and story.Beastlords would not be hard to make in eq2.Based on what's there already, you obviously wouldn't have different pets for different races. It would be nice, but not necessary.So, make a leather wearing, monk weapon only shaman type with defiler heals, no wards, and mystic buffs, then give em a stand alone melee pet about 3/4 the mit of a necro's tank pet with 3/4 the scout pet's dps.NO dumfire pets, no caster pet, no scout pet.  Weak dd nukes, split the spell lines between player and pet, just like in eq1.Done.Why is this so hard? If doin the work is the issue let us help!  The only reason I still play WoW occasionally is because of the Hunter class, which is the closest thing to a BL outside of eq1.Bring back BL's, you may take a bigger chunk of WoW players.

TheLopper
03-13-2008, 02:23 PM
<cite>Lyndro-EQ2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My post from the beastlord thread on the old forums:I imagine we'll put in new classes when every class is perfectly balanced, every class has a unique and distinctive role and playstyle, all the class related bugs are fixed, and we have a good solid idea for a truly unique class that is useful, balanced, and doesn't infringe on another class' unique and distinctive role and playstyle...Seriously though, we have enough classes as it is, and enough issues with as many classes as we have. We really don't need to add any more. Anytime someone here suggests it, even in passing, we make it a point to pelt them with rotten fruit and taunt them.</blockquote><p>Lol.</p><p>Let the taunting and lobbing begin!!!</p><p>*throws a large brick*Oops...</p>

TheLopper
03-13-2008, 02:25 PM
<cite>Dakryss wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think it all boils down to laziness, imho.Rather spend time making new races than new classes.Rather spend time making vast solo zones for high end content, rather than investing the proper amount of lore and story.Beastlords would not be hard to make in eq2.Based on what's there already, you obviously wouldn't have different pets for different races. It would be nice, but not necessary.So, make a leather wearing, monk weapon only shaman type with defiler heals, no wards, and mystic buffs, then give em a stand alone melee pet about 3/4 the mit of a necro's tank pet with 3/4 the scout pet's dps.NO dumfire pets, no caster pet, no scout pet.  Weak dd nukes, split the spell lines between player and pet, just like in eq1.Done.Why is this so hard? If doin the work is the issue let us help!  The only reason I still play WoW occasionally is because of the Hunter class, which is the closest thing to a BL outside of eq1.Bring back BL's, you may take a bigger chunk of WoW players.</blockquote><p>LOL.</p><p>Yeah, because creating an entirely new class is just the easiest thing in the world!  All that balancing, defining, creation of spells/ca's...yeah, it's all really just a cinch.You're NOT a game developer.  You're obviously not even an experienced player...it takes a lot more than what you think.  And besides, the current <i>24</i> classes aren't balanced...Swashies, Brigs, Coercers, etc..</p>

ke'la
03-13-2008, 03:19 PM
<p>Necro Post FTW.</p><p>To the question when will there be a new class in EQ2 ANY new class?</p><p>When Satan is having snowball fights in hell, there will be a new class.</p><p>There are alot of core mechanics they would have to deal with in order to create a new class, the biggest thing is that they can't just create 1 new class but 2, one for "good" and one for "evil" even if the classes themselfs are neutral, then ofcourse that would unbalance the Archtypes so in reality they may have to create 8 new classes.</p><p>What they could do is make Premier classes that are an expaintion or adjustment to current classes, that reduce certain class skills, while raising other class skills effectivly doing the equivlent of making a new class without acccually making a new class.</p>

Dreyco
03-13-2008, 03:47 PM
There are 24 classes.These classes fill a variety of roles, from pets, to pure casters, to pure melee, to DPS, to tanking.Adding another class at this point is completely unnecessary.  There are already plenty.  More than i've seen in most other MMO's, if not all.

Dakryss
03-13-2008, 08:38 PM
<cite>TheLopper wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dakryss wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think it all boils down to laziness, imho.Rather spend time making new races than new classes.Rather spend time making vast solo zones for high end content, rather than investing the proper amount of lore and story.Beastlords would not be hard to make in eq2.Based on what's there already, you obviously wouldn't have different pets for different races. It would be nice, but not necessary.So, make a leather wearing, monk weapon only shaman type with defiler heals, no wards, and mystic buffs, then give em a stand alone melee pet about 3/4 the mit of a necro's tank pet with 3/4 the scout pet's dps.NO dumfire pets, no caster pet, no scout pet.  Weak dd nukes, split the spell lines between player and pet, just like in eq1.Done.Why is this so hard? If doin the work is the issue let us help!  The only reason I still play WoW occasionally is because of the Hunter class, which is the closest thing to a BL outside of eq1.Bring back BL's, you may take a bigger chunk of WoW players.</blockquote><p>LOL.</p><p>Yeah, because creating an entirely new class is just the easiest thing in the world!  All that balancing, defining, creation of spells/ca's...yeah, it's all really just a cinch.You're NOT a game developer.  You're obviously not even an experienced player...it takes a lot more than what you think.  And besides, the current <i>24</i> classes aren't balanced...Swashies, Brigs, Coercers, etc..</p></blockquote>I recognize that it isn't as easy as <poof> have a new class.  I also know that most of the hard part of creating the classes has already been done, seeing as how there are 24 of them.They are all based off of archetypes, one or two of which can be used as the building blocks for a BL class.  I'm not a game developer, but I do understand software development.And, I don't know your definition of an experienced gamer, but I have been playing MMO's since the original EQ, and been on betas for several others.But ad hominems aside, I do not believe it would be as difficult as you suggest either.  There is a sizable group that would like to play an EQ2 Beastlord.  I do not recall an outcry for a stupid in-game CCG, but they made one anyway.Even allowing for a prestige class of sorts for a Defiler/Mystic, Monk/Bruiser,Fury/Warden to take would be cool.Will it happen? Probably not, but it doesn't hurt to ask and expect a serious, well thought out answer.

shadowscale
03-13-2008, 08:50 PM
inc locked post in 3,2,1.9,1.8...what? it happens to all the others beastlord threds, why would this one be any different.

ke'la
03-13-2008, 10:15 PM
<cite>shadowscale wrote:</cite><blockquote>inc locked post in 3,2,1.9,1.8...what? it happens to all the others beastlord threds, why would this one be any different.</blockquote><p>Because they all devolved into name calling and Troll bait posts, once that happens they lock the thread. If you notice this particular thread was Dead(without alock) on 10/05/2007 until it was recontly revived, why did it not get a lock, because people remaind civil and did not let the post devolve into Troll Bait/Name calling. As long as this one does not either I don't see why it can't continue.</p><p>That said, this question has been asked at least once a month sence launch, the game has been out over 3 years, that means that atleast 36 times in posts(way more then that accually as there are usually 2 going at once), and alot more times in interviews and such, people have asked when will they add beastloards, or the more general when will they add another class. The answer has always been the MMO equivilant of "When heck freezes over". Yet that does not seem to be good enough and the question contnues to be asked.</p><p>Oh, and about the LoN, unlike adding a new class LoN took NO dev time from other aspects of EQ2, it was developed by a differant development group, so bringing that game into this argument does not hold water. That said, while yes there was no "outcry" for a TCG game there was an outcry for a deversion game that people could play (like Gems) while waiting on raids and such, LoN was that deversion game, and it came with the added benifit of not costing the EQ2 devs any dev time.</p>

shadowscale
03-13-2008, 10:56 PM
ah dident see it was a necro post, just saw beastlord and went oh not this agen.

Dakryss
03-14-2008, 12:46 AM
<cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Oh, and about the LoN, unlike adding a new class LoN took NO dev time from other aspects of EQ2, it was developed by a differant development group, so bringing that game into this argument does not hold water. That said, while yes there was no "outcry" for a TCG game there was an outcry for a deversion game that people could play (like Gems) while waiting on raids and such, LoN was that deversion game, and it came with the added benifit of not costing the EQ2 devs any dev time.</p></blockquote>My overall point with bringing up the LoN was that they sought out and then had the resources to make it.  Whether it was in house or not, they had them.  Perhaps SOE should outsource the classes in a similar fashion? Have them look into the classes that continue to have some balance issues and perhaps some new classes/class options.  I dunno.  I realize I'm so very into the "beating a dead horse" category here with the beastlords.  Just seems that no good reason has been given why they weren't originally included with EQ2 or why they cant appear in a future expansion.  "Till hell freezes over" is a condescending dismissal to a legitimate question.

Strade
03-14-2008, 01:46 AM
<p>They need to put beastlord in if they want people frome eq1 to migrate more to eq2.</p><p>the whole argument about balance dosent make any sens. bringing back besastlord cant unbalance a game that is not balanced. and if it's impossible to balance the classes, then why not bring beastlord then? you see how it spin on itself? no sens.</p><p>remove sarnak (god they are ugly) and transform gorowyn into cabillis 2, put Iksar in it and bring back beastlords <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ok this may be over the top ... but still ...</p><p>WE WANT BEASTLORD BACK!</p>

TheLopper
03-14-2008, 02:07 AM
<cite>Dakryss wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Oh, and about the LoN, unlike adding a new class LoN took NO dev time from other aspects of EQ2, it was developed by a differant development group, so bringing that game into this argument does not hold water. That said, while yes there was no "outcry" for a TCG game there was an outcry for a deversion game that people could play (like Gems) while waiting on raids and such, LoN was that deversion game, and it came with the added benifit of not costing the EQ2 devs any dev time.</p></blockquote>My overall point with bringing up the LoN was that they sought out and then had the resources to make it.  Whether it was in house or not, they had them.  Perhaps SOE should outsource the classes in a similar fashion? Have them look into the classes that continue to have some balance issues and perhaps some new classes/class options.  I dunno.  I realize I'm so very into the "beating a dead horse" category here with the beastlords.  Just seems that no good reason has been given why they weren't originally included with EQ2 or why they cant appear in a future expansion.  "Till hell freezes over" is a condescending dismissal to a legitimate question.</blockquote><p>The key factor here being that LoN is profitable.Yes, I know new expansions are profitable, but that doesn;t mean they have to add new classes to make expansions.I'd like some new classes to, but it's probably not going to happen for quite some time, and the game is already aging a bit.</p>

Strade
03-14-2008, 03:01 AM
<cite>TheLopper wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dakryss wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Oh, and about the LoN, unlike adding a new class LoN took NO dev time from other aspects of EQ2, it was developed by a differant development group, so bringing that game into this argument does not hold water. That said, while yes there was no "outcry" for a TCG game there was an outcry for a deversion game that people could play (like Gems) while waiting on raids and such, LoN was that deversion game, and it came with the added benifit of not costing the EQ2 devs any dev time.</p></blockquote>My overall point with bringing up the LoN was that they sought out and then had the resources to make it.  Whether it was in house or not, they had them.  Perhaps SOE should outsource the classes in a similar fashion? Have them look into the classes that continue to have some balance issues and perhaps some new classes/class options.  I dunno.  I realize I'm so very into the "beating a dead horse" category here with the beastlords.  Just seems that no good reason has been given why they weren't originally included with EQ2 or why they cant appear in a future expansion.  "Till hell freezes over" is a condescending dismissal to a legitimate question.</blockquote><p>The key factor here being that LoN is profitable.Yes, I know new expansions are profitable, but that doesn;t mean they have to add new classes to make expansions.I'd like some new classes to, but it's probably not going to happen for quite some time, <b>and the game is already aging a bit</b>.</p></blockquote>Exactly, this is the time to put something new in gameplay wise. It's called Beastlord. No ... not another useless race >< but beastlord.

ke'la
03-14-2008, 07:41 AM
<cite>shadowscale wrote:</cite><blockquote>ah dident see it was a necro post, just saw beastlord and went oh not this agen. </blockquote>Better a necro post of a BL thread then a new one though. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

ke'la
03-14-2008, 07:49 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>They need to put beastlord in if they want people frome eq1 to migrate more to eq2.</p><p>the whole argument about balance dosent make any sens. bringing back besastlord cant unbalance a game that is not balanced. and if it's impossible to balance the classes, then why not bring beastlord then? you see how it spin on itself? no sens.</p><p>remove sarnak (god they are ugly) and transform gorowyn into cabillis 2, put Iksar in it and bring back beastlords <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /> ok this may be over the top ... but still ...</p><p>WE WANT BEASTLORD BACK!</p></blockquote><p>Accually the argument has nothing to do with Balance, other then a cute way of saying NO WAY IN HELL, EVER!!</p><p>It comes down to the fact that a) we already have 24 classes that fill every roll out there, b) it would require a HUGE amount of time and labor to put in the 2 classes required for Beastlord, c) even if it was put in just like every other class ported from EQ1 it would bare little resemblance to what it was in EQ1.</p><p>As for Migrating people from EQ1, um, its not going to happen EQ1 is a FAR differant game then EQ2, as such the people that still like EQ1 will not want to move to EQ2, infact its more likly they would move to VG as that game is far closer to EQ1 in gameplay style.</p>

Captain_Xpendab
03-14-2008, 07:57 AM
<cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>c) even if it was put in just like every other class ported from EQ1 it would bare little resemblance to what it was in EQ1.</blockquote>In fact, since Beastlords were part Shaman, I wonder if they would end up being too much like the Melee Mystic with their pet achievement, making them a bit redundant.

Solaran_X
03-14-2008, 08:46 AM
If they bring back Beastlords...I will cry. Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EverQuest. Hybrid classes were fine...as long as they remained just a hybrid of two classes.Shadowknight. Part-Warrior, part-Necromancer.Paladin. Part-Warrior, part-Cleric.But Beastlords...they were a hybrid of FOUR classes. Their utility was WAY too high for the DPS they put out, or their DPS was WAY too high for the utility they had. Their melee DPS was along the lines of Monks. Their pet DPS was along the lines of Magicians and Necromancers. They could buff and debuff like a mini-Shaman. And they had mind candy like an Enchanter...which also STACKED with Enchanter's mind candy.If Beastlords were brought into EQ2...they'd have to be nerfed harder in the transistion than Necromancers were. And then we'd hear no end to the "OMG!!one!1 They nerfed Beastlords!!one1!" threads.Leave Beastlords dead. If you want to be a Beastlord, become a Mystic and go down the Chieftain AA line. Or become a Ranger and go down the Survival line. Our classes are already unbalanced enough as it is...bringing in the Beastlords, a class way more OP'd than Necromancers in EQ simply because of how much DPS and utility a single body can bring to a group/raid, will just further damage our current 24 classes.

Mychel
03-14-2008, 10:33 AM
<p>Poor poor horsey, even in death he's still getting beaten..</p><p>Let it go.. <strike>Cheatlords</strike> Beastlords are not coming back... </p><p>so either start speccing your Mystic / Warden and dreaming or move on..</p>

Embret
03-14-2008, 02:22 PM
<cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shadowscale wrote:</cite><blockquote>inc locked post in 3,2,1.9,1.8...what? it happens to all the others beastlord threds, why would this one be any different.</blockquote><p>Because they all devolved into name calling and Troll bait posts, once that happens they lock the thread. If you notice this particular thread was Dead(without <span style="color: #cc0000;">alock</span>) on 10/05/2007 until it was <span style="color: #cc3300;">recontly </span>revived, why did it not get a lock, because people <span style="color: #cc3300;">remaind </span>civil and did not let the post devolve into Troll Bait/Name calling. As long as this one does not either I don't see why it can't continue.</p><p>That said, this question has been asked at least once a month <span style="color: #cc3300;">sence </span>launch, the game has been out over 3 years, that means that <span style="color: #cc3300;">atleast </span>36 times in <span style="color: #cc0000;">posts(way </span>more then that <span style="color: #cc0000;">accually </span>as there are usually 2 going at once), and <span style="color: #cc0000;">alot </span>more times in interviews and such, people have asked when will they add <span style="color: #cc0000;">beastloards</span>, or the more general when will they add another class. The answer has always been the MMO <span style="color: #cc0000;">equivilant </span>of "When heck freezes over". Yet that does not seem to be good enough and the question <span style="color: #cc0000;">contnues </span>to be asked.</p><p>Oh, and about the LoN, unlike adding a new class LoN took NO dev time from other aspects of EQ2, it was developed by a <span style="color: #cc0000;">differant </span>development group, so bringing that game into this argument does not hold water. That said, while yes there was no "outcry" for a TCG game there was an outcry for a <span style="color: #cc0000;">deversion </span>game that people could play (like Gems) while waiting on raids and such, LoN was that <span style="color: #cc0000;">deversion </span>game, and it came with the added <span style="color: #cc0000;">benifit </span>of not costing the EQ2 devs any dev time.</p></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but this answer is 100% false and makes me think you are a shill.  This is not an ad hominem attack, go look up the word as your grammar and sentence structure would indicate to me that you might take this as an attack without understanding the word I used.</p><p> EDIT: I missed a misspelled word...sorry.</p>

Wildmage
03-14-2008, 03:14 PM
<cite>Captain_Xpendable wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>c) even if it was put in just like every other class ported from EQ1 it would bare little resemblance to what it was in EQ1.</blockquote>In fact, since Beastlords were part Shaman, I wonder if they would end up being too much like the Melee Mystic with their pet achievement, making them a bit redundant.</blockquote>Exactly people need to wake up and see that Shamans absorbed all that was balanced in beastlords.

Amphibia
03-14-2008, 04:13 PM
To the OP:1. Never2. Never3. Never4. In EQ3My bet is on one of the first 3 alternatives.

Nebulous
03-14-2008, 04:22 PM
For all the Beastlord lovers , like my self . The close we are going to get to a Beastlord class in any other game is the Hunter Class in World of Warcraft which is a Ranger/Beast mix, I have a level 70 Hunter and love it ,but i still miss my EQ1 BeastLord. It seems SOE and a lot of people don`t want the BeastLord back , so give the Hunter in World OF Warcraft  a try you guys may like it . <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

ke'la
03-14-2008, 05:05 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ke'la wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>shadowscale wrote:</cite><blockquote>inc locked post in 3,2,1.9,1.8...what? it happens to all the others beastlord threds, why would this one be any different.</blockquote><p>Because they all devolved into name calling and Troll bait posts, once that happens they lock the thread. If you notice this particular thread was Dead(without <span style="color: #cc0000;">alock</span>) on 10/05/2007 until it was <span style="color: #cc3300;">recontly </span>revived, why did it not get a lock, because people <span style="color: #cc3300;">remaind </span>civil and did not let the post devolve into Troll Bait/Name calling. As long as this one does not either I don't see why it can't continue.</p><p>That said, this question has been asked at least once a month <span style="color: #cc3300;">sence </span>launch, the game has been out over 3 years, that means that <span style="color: #cc3300;">atleast </span>36 times in <span style="color: #cc0000;">posts(way </span>more then that <span style="color: #cc0000;">accually </span>as there are usually 2 going at once), and <span style="color: #cc0000;">alot </span>more times in interviews and such, people have asked when will they add <span style="color: #cc0000;">beastloards</span>, or the more general when will they add another class. The answer has always been the MMO <span style="color: #cc0000;">equivilant </span>of "When heck freezes over". Yet that does not seem to be good enough and the question <span style="color: #cc0000;">contnues </span>to be asked.</p><p>Oh, and about the LoN, unlike adding a new class LoN took NO dev time from other aspects of EQ2, it was developed by a <span style="color: #cc0000;">differant </span>development group, so bringing that game into this argument does not hold water. That said, while yes there was no "outcry" for a TCG game there was an outcry for a <span style="color: #cc0000;">deversion </span>game that people could play (like Gems) while waiting on raids and such, LoN was that <span style="color: #cc0000;">deversion </span>game, and it came with the added <span style="color: #cc0000;">benifit </span>of not costing the EQ2 devs any dev time.</p></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but this answer is 100% false and makes me think you are a shill.  This is not an ad hominem attack, go look up the word as your grammar and sentence structure would indicate to me that you might take this as an attack without understanding the word I used.</p><p> EDIT: I missed a misspelled word...sorry.</p></blockquote><p>You picking out spelling mistakes what makes my statment false. I was not saying a thing about your post. I was specificly refuring to the other posts that devolved into name calling and troll bait posts. Wich by the way they did. This thread was NEVER locked yet it was about beastloards, the differance between those threads and this one was that the people that supported beastloards and those that do not support beastloards remained civil to eachother. I am sorry when people post links to pics of a guy beating a horse. Threads get locked that just how it works. </p><p>As to my being a shill, well first don't you think SoE would imploy a shill that could accually spell over one that can't? Second, why would SoE need a shill on a board they run, if they don't like something they can just delete it, besides they can shill for them self as Red names. And just to be clearer no I am not a Shill, I am however an SoE fanboy and I freely admit that... that said I do take SoE to task when they do things I don't like as well, but thats another story.</p>

Dakryss
03-14-2008, 09:20 PM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they bring back Beastlords...I will cry. Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EverQuest. Hybrid classes were fine...as long as they remained just a hybrid of two classes.Shadowknight. Part-Warrior, part-Necromancer.Paladin. Part-Warrior, part-Cleric.But Beastlords...they were a hybrid of FOUR classes. Their utility was WAY too high for the DPS they put out, or their DPS was WAY too high for the utility they had. Their melee DPS was along the lines of Monks. Their pet DPS was along the lines of Magicians and Necromancers. They could buff and debuff like a mini-Shaman. And they had mind candy like an Enchanter...which also STACKED with Enchanter's mind candy.If Beastlords were brought into EQ2...they'd have to be nerfed harder in the transistion than Necromancers were. And then we'd hear no end to the "OMG!!one!1 They nerfed Beastlords!!one1!" threads.Leave Beastlords dead. If you want to be a Beastlord, become a Mystic and go down the Chieftain AA line. Or become a Ranger and go down the Survival line. Our classes are already unbalanced enough as it is...bringing in the Beastlords, a class way more OP'd than Necromancers in EQ simply because of how much DPS and utility a single body can bring to a group/raid, will just further damage our current 24 classes.</blockquote>That's amazing.  Just assuming it'd be a broken class from the get-go.  If the current classes are already all broken, why do you even play?I would hope, as I've stated before, that the fact they have already made 24 classes, or 2 sides to 12 classes, would give them a bit of insight on how to make a 25th.It's probably easier to balance it at creation than ninja tweaks and updates now n then. Also, I wouldnt expect an EQ1 BL in EQ2...it would be considerably different. SO the whole "In EQ1 they were teh suxxorz!!" argument doesn't hold any water imho.I would expect them to be better than the EQ1 class.  So, still haven't heard a good reason why no BL in EQ2, especially not from a dev, who ultimately is the only one or ones that matter.

Wildmage
03-15-2008, 12:55 AM
<cite>Dakryss wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they bring back Beastlords...I will cry. Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EverQuest. Hybrid classes were fine...as long as they remained just a hybrid of two classes.Shadowknight. Part-Warrior, part-Necromancer.Paladin. Part-Warrior, part-Cleric.But Beastlords...they were a hybrid of FOUR classes. Their utility was WAY too high for the DPS they put out, or their DPS was WAY too high for the utility they had. Their melee DPS was along the lines of Monks. Their pet DPS was along the lines of Magicians and Necromancers. They could buff and debuff like a mini-Shaman. And they had mind candy like an Enchanter...which also STACKED with Enchanter's mind candy.If Beastlords were brought into EQ2...they'd have to be nerfed harder in the transistion than Necromancers were. And then we'd hear no end to the "OMG!!one!1 They nerfed Beastlords!!one1!" threads.Leave Beastlords dead. If you want to be a Beastlord, become a Mystic and go down the Chieftain AA line. Or become a Ranger and go down the Survival line. Our classes are already unbalanced enough as it is...bringing in the Beastlords, a class way more OP'd than Necromancers in EQ simply because of how much DPS and utility a single body can bring to a group/raid, will just further damage our current 24 classes.</blockquote>That's amazing.  Just assuming it'd be a broken class from the get-go.  If the current classes are already all broken, why do you even play?I would hope, as I've stated before, that the fact they have already made 24 classes, or 2 sides to 12 classes, would give them a bit of insight on how to make a 25th.It's probably easier to balance it at creation than ninja tweaks and updates now n then. Also, I wouldnt expect an EQ1 BL in EQ2...it would be considerably different. SO the whole "In EQ1 they were teh suxxorz!!" argument doesn't hold any water imho.I would expect them to be better than the EQ1 class.  So, still haven't heard a good reason why no BL in EQ2, especially not from a dev, who ultimately is the only one or ones that matter.</blockquote>The fact they have all but explicitly said no repeatedly isn't good enough for you...well if you stick your fingers in your ears and go nananana yeah...your not going to hear a good reason.

Solaran_X
03-15-2008, 01:06 AM
<cite>Dakryss wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they bring back Beastlords...I will cry. Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EverQuest. Hybrid classes were fine...as long as they remained just a hybrid of two classes.Shadowknight. Part-Warrior, part-Necromancer.Paladin. Part-Warrior, part-Cleric.But Beastlords...they were a hybrid of FOUR classes. Their utility was WAY too high for the DPS they put out, or their DPS was WAY too high for the utility they had. Their melee DPS was along the lines of Monks. Their pet DPS was along the lines of Magicians and Necromancers. They could buff and debuff like a mini-Shaman. And they had mind candy like an Enchanter...which also STACKED with Enchanter's mind candy.If Beastlords were brought into EQ2...they'd have to be nerfed harder in the transistion than Necromancers were. And then we'd hear no end to the "OMG!!one!1 They nerfed Beastlords!!one1!" threads.Leave Beastlords dead. If you want to be a Beastlord, become a Mystic and go down the Chieftain AA line. Or become a Ranger and go down the Survival line. Our classes are already unbalanced enough as it is...bringing in the Beastlords, a class way more OP'd than Necromancers in EQ simply because of how much DPS and utility a single body can bring to a group/raid, will just further damage our current 24 classes.</blockquote>That's amazing.  Just assuming it'd be a broken class from the get-go.  If the current classes are already all broken, why do you even play?I would hope, as I've stated before, that the fact they have already made 24 classes, or 2 sides to 12 classes, would give them a bit of insight on how to make a 25th.It's probably easier to balance it at creation than ninja tweaks and updates now n then. Also, I wouldnt expect an EQ1 BL in EQ2...it would be considerably different. SO the whole "In EQ1 they were teh suxxorz!!" argument doesn't hold any water imho.<b>I would expect them to be better than the EQ1 class.</b>  So, still haven't heard a good reason why no BL in EQ2, especially not from a dev, who ultimately is the only one or ones that matter.</blockquote>You would expect EQ2 Beastlords to be <b>BETTER</b> than what was the best hybrid class ever conceived in EverQuest? Beastlords didn't suck in EQ. They were seriously overpowered for what a hybrid class was. Instead of being about half as good as two separate classes...Beastlords were half as good as four separate classes, putting them head and shoulders above the other hybrids of EQ.And actually, there are 24 classes true. But there are two sides of 16 classes - not two sides of 12. Each city has the option of 4 Fighters, 4 Priests, 4 Mages, and 4 Scouts.And no one is looking at the rest of the picture. They got tunnel vision on just one thing: The class itself. There are many other ramifications you have to consider, not the least of which being it's impact on the Artisan side of the game with who would make it's Adept IIIs? Sages? No...they already get Priest and Mage spells (2 items). Jewelers? No...they already get Scout spells and jeweler (2 items). Alchemists? No...they already get Fighter spells and poisons/potions (2 items).In all honesty...Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EQ. People blame the Planes of Power expansion...but honestly, it was Beastlords. They were so ridiculously easy to play and brought entirely too much DPS and utility to any group raid for any one body to have. When you have one character packing 1/2 to 3/4s of the melee DPS of a Monk, 1/2 to 3/4s the pet DPS of a Necromancer or Magician, about 1/2 the buffs and debuffs of a Shaman, and a mind candy that is 1/2 as good as Enchanter's KEI <b>AND</b> stacks with KEI...that is just too much goodness in one body. And even the EQ devs recognized that, because some time after Luclin was released, a dev had commented on a forum (this was years and years ago) that the Beastlords were a mistake the (EQ) devs would never make again.Let's hope the EQ2 devs don't make the same mistake.But if you insist on Beastlords...fine. Just as long as they get <b>NO</b> mana regeneration and <b>NO</b> buffs or debuffs. And they better be noticably worse at DPS by themselves than a Monk or Bruiser and their pet better be noticably worse at DPS by itself than a Conjurer or Necromancer pet.

Dakryss
03-15-2008, 02:32 AM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dakryss wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they bring back Beastlords...I will cry. Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EverQuest. Hybrid classes were fine...as long as they remained just a hybrid of two classes.Shadowknight. Part-Warrior, part-Necromancer.Paladin. Part-Warrior, part-Cleric.But Beastlords...they were a hybrid of FOUR classes. Their utility was WAY too high for the DPS they put out, or their DPS was WAY too high for the utility they had. Their melee DPS was along the lines of Monks. Their pet DPS was along the lines of Magicians and Necromancers. They could buff and debuff like a mini-Shaman. And they had mind candy like an Enchanter...which also STACKED with Enchanter's mind candy.If Beastlords were brought into EQ2...they'd have to be nerfed harder in the transistion than Necromancers were. And then we'd hear no end to the "OMG!!one!1 They nerfed Beastlords!!one1!" threads.Leave Beastlords dead. If you want to be a Beastlord, become a Mystic and go down the Chieftain AA line. Or become a Ranger and go down the Survival line. Our classes are already unbalanced enough as it is...bringing in the Beastlords, a class way more OP'd than Necromancers in EQ simply because of how much DPS and utility a single body can bring to a group/raid, will just further damage our current 24 classes.</blockquote>That's amazing.  Just assuming it'd be a broken class from the get-go.  If the current classes are already all broken, why do you even play?I would hope, as I've stated before, that the fact they have already made 24 classes, or 2 sides to 12 classes, would give them a bit of insight on how to make a 25th.It's probably easier to balance it at creation than ninja tweaks and updates now n then. Also, I wouldnt expect an EQ1 BL in EQ2...it would be considerably different. SO the whole "In EQ1 they were teh suxxorz!!" argument doesn't hold any water imho.<b>I would expect them to be better than the EQ1 class.</b>  So, still haven't heard a good reason why no BL in EQ2, especially not from a dev, who ultimately is the only one or ones that matter.</blockquote>You would expect EQ2 Beastlords to be <b>BETTER</b> than what was the best hybrid class ever conceived in EverQuest? Beastlords didn't suck in EQ. They were seriously overpowered for what a hybrid class was. Instead of being about half as good as two separate classes...Beastlords were half as good as four separate classes, putting them head and shoulders above the other hybrids of EQ.And actually, there are 24 classes true. But there are two sides of 16 classes - not two sides of 12. Each city has the option of 4 Fighters, 4 Priests, 4 Mages, and 4 Scouts.And no one is looking at the rest of the picture. They got tunnel vision on just one thing: The class itself. There are many other ramifications you have to consider, not the least of which being it's impact on the Artisan side of the game with who would make it's Adept IIIs? Sages? No...they already get Priest and Mage spells (2 items). Jewelers? No...they already get Scout spells and jeweler (2 items). Alchemists? No...they already get Fighter spells and poisons/potions (2 items).In all honesty...Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EQ. People blame the Planes of Power expansion...but honestly, it was Beastlords. They were so ridiculously easy to play and brought entirely too much DPS and utility to any group raid for any one body to have. When you have one character packing 1/2 to 3/4s of the melee DPS of a Monk, 1/2 to 3/4s the pet DPS of a Necromancer or Magician, about 1/2 the buffs and debuffs of a Shaman, and a mind candy that is 1/2 as good as Enchanter's KEI <b>AND</b> stacks with KEI...that is just too much goodness in one body. And even the EQ devs recognized that, because some time after Luclin was released, a dev had commented on a forum (this was years and years ago) that the Beastlords were a mistake the (EQ) devs would never make again.Let's hope the EQ2 devs don't make the same mistake.But if you insist on Beastlords...fine. Just as long as they get <b>NO</b> mana regeneration and <b>NO</b> buffs or debuffs. And they better be noticably worse at DPS by themselves than a Monk or Bruiser and their pet better be noticably worse at DPS by itself than a Conjurer or Necromancer pet.</blockquote>Yeah..BETTER.  Not broken.  Not a master of all trades, but one that fits better in a group.  Not one that runs the gambit of key roles, but compliments the other classes.That's what I mean by better.  The suggestions you make at the end of your post are completely acceptable.  They don't HAVE to do everything, and if they did have their old abilities, then they should only effect themselves and/or their pets and not steal roles from other toons.  Like I said I don't want an eq1 BL.  I want an eq2 BL.It can be done.