Well Sony shot themselves in the foot with game descriptions on the box for RoK.  "Balanced gameplay world for everyone-guild raiding, pvp, pve and role-playing".  I read that and the first thing I though of was how many people are going to go "Classes balanced! Give us a new class next time!", because part of balanced gameplay would mean classes are balanced out to other wise the gameplay isn't balance.  But then of course I always wondered what people meant by balancing the classes, I mean its natural that one type of class would be better at taking out a mob then another one.  I usually play a caster like a wizard so I don't expect to take out a mob a fighter can, especially if my root keeps breaking, I can't take the dmg, but that fighter sure can.  I also expect a healer type to do somewhat better then me as long as they can get their heal spells off.  Casters and healers are great as long as we can get our spells off or to hold. hehe.  So what defines balanced classes?

I have yet to encounter any mob that could be soloed by a fighter that couldn't be soloed by a wizard.  The key to soloing tough mobs is not to get hit.  Fighter's don't really get those kind of tools.

They did not say classes were balanced.They said the expansion was balanced toward different play styles.Grats for reading words that arent there <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

<cite>Rattface@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>They did not say classes were balanced.They said the expansion was balanced toward different play styles.Grats for reading words that arent there <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>lol reading comprehension ftw!

<p>Speaking of not reading, notice that I asked what constitues balanced gameplay and that people can and will want to consider balanced gameplay includes balanced classe.  Read a whole post before you comment Rattface, by the way that is a great name for you. : p</p>

I believe they ment balanced gameplay in that there is gameplay to accommodate all playstyles.  The concept of class balance is a myth.  It doesn't truly exist in reality.  Show me a game with class balance and I'll show you a game with only one class.  I think SOE just uses the class balance line to avoid the headache of adding more classes to their archtype system.

Some people are never satisfied i'm more than happy to be truthfull though my wizzy and conj can solo normal mobs as per pre RoK and for me at least thats enough

everything looks fine to me =)

<cite>LordPazuzu wrote:</cite><blockquote>I believe they ment balanced gameplay in that there is gameplay to accommodate all playstyles.  The concept of class balance is a myth.  It doesn't truly exist in reality.  Show me a game with class balance and I'll show you a game with only one class.  I think SOE just uses the class balance line to avoid the headache of adding more classes to their archtype system.</blockquote><p>I think saying that only one class is the only way to get class ballance is a bit harsh. Yes, if you only had one class all classes by definition would be ballanced. The whole concept behind class ballance is a two fold concept. First that no single class (or set of classes) dominates the game. The second concept is that all classes are welcome by players. (i.e. no useless classes.) As long as you can say yes to both concepts you have class ballance.</p><p>For the most part I believe that EQ2 is fairly well ballanced. I do believe that the brawler classes need some adjustment. They arn't welcome as tanks for most groups. They arn't considered to be a DPS class either. Most brawlers think of themselves more as DPS than tanks. The 4 plate class tanks are fairly well ballanced. Again some fine adjustment to make non-guardians better raid tanks and give guardians a little more solo-ability and they would be ballanced. The 6 types of healers are universally welcome. If its the kind of encounter that requires one healer any are welcome. A few of the priest classes have some trouble soloing, but I think that is acceptable as they excell in other areas. As for mages, the enchanters need a little more to do. Or should I say that they really should nuke a little harder and still be able to keep a monster or two busy. Otherwise they arn't generally as useful as a straight DPS type mage. There are certain zones in which you really want an enchanter or you don't really want to go so they definately have a place. Just a slightly under-valued place. </p><p>As for new classes...why? Introducing a new class would seriously compramise the class ballance as it is OR it wouldn't introduce anything new. I remember beastmasters. I think they proved in EQ1 how they could unballance the game. I think bezerkers also proved how you could go the other way and just waste people's time by introducing a class that has no purpose or real role into a game. </p><p>If they are thinking about adding beastmaster to the game, I'd suggest just adding an AA line to ranger or druid or mystic (or either summoner) to mimic the beastmaster. </p>

<cite>Rattface@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>They did not say classes were balanced.They said the expansion was balanced toward different play styles.Grats for reading words that arent there <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" /></blockquote>If they did'nt read out of context, or insert meanings that were never there, they'd have precious little to whine about.

let me ask you  .. if you want them to balance all the classes so that they are all the same - meaning every class can solo, group, raid equally the same  .. then why the hell even have different classes??