Beastlords: Q&A with Akil Hooper

[Isulith]

Beastlords: Q&A with Akil Hooper

 

 

Learn all about beastlords - the newest class in EverQuest II available exclusively with the new expansion: "Age of Discovery." Click the "Read More" button below for the full story.

[Xalmat]

"Q. What archetype does the beastlord belong to? Fighter, scout, mage, priest?

A. "Beastlords are scouts, and as such they can wear chain armor.""

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? !

[Cyliena]

Minor point but the picture isn't working on this post nor at the end of the article.

[Lodrelhai]

Xalmat wrote:

"Q. What archetype does the beastlord belong to? Fighter, scout, mage, priest?

A. "Beastlords are scouts, and as such they can wear chain armor.""

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? !

Agreed - what?  We were told they'd be leather.

edit: Ah, this later

Q. At Fan Faire it was mentioned beastlords may wear leather armor. Is that still the plan?

A. "Beastlords are scouts now, so it made the most sense for them to wear chain like the rest of the scouts."

Except we were told they'd be scouts at FanFaire too.  I get it, someone decided that making agi leather at all tiers was going to be too much work (even though all 3 sets of crafted leather have the exact same stats, and there's plenty of agi leather left over that was originally intended for brawlers and never updated).  But saying they're going to be chain because they're scouts makes no sense, unless you're also going to move brawlers to Plate class and move the clerics and shamans to leather with the druids.

[Rainmare]

well. I guess I have absolutely NO REASON to tame all 50 warder mobs, since only the most recent one gives me nothing but an appearance.

all I need to do is tame 1 from each 'family' that has a look I like and screw the rest of them.

*EDIT*

So what's the point of putting in 50 tamable creatures when prolly 40 or more will never be bothered with?

[Zabjade]

I've hated the Scout idea for a while since they are based off of Monks and Shamans (Priest or Fighter I can see but not Scouts-Always disliked the Flanking etc maneuvers) The only good thing about it being a scout at all is that my main is a 90 Jeweler.

[Xalmat]

Beastlords went from being brawlers with pets, to bards or melee rangers with pets.

Might as well call them Hunters at this point, and get it over with.

[Brigh]

I don't play my swash that much due to hating having to: 1. solo up a positional class to 90 just to group 2. solo. I hate it. Unfortunately I am getting the feeling we have to go to EverQuest to play a real Beastlord with slows, mana regen buff, etc.

[Rocc]

I agree, beastlord is a FIGHTER, not a scout! Oh well too late. I'm sure it's going to be one small factor of a whole list of things thats going to force me to stop playing this game anyway. We'll see how much it costs and how much epic fail is involved first. I"m not waiting another year for more content. Screw that.

[Cratoh]

Hunter.

[kdmorse]

Xalmat wrote:

"Q. What archetype does the beastlord belong to? Fighter, scout, mage, priest?

A. "Beastlords are scouts, and as such they can wear chain armor.""

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? !

Wait...  so you're saying all those folks looting, needing, buying, SLRing, and generally squirreling away leather raid armor for the past three months so they can create a beastlord, PL it to 90, and *poof* have a raid geared beastlord on launch week - have had their plans foiled?

Somehow, this amuses me...

[Zabjade]

Ynnek@Kithicor wrote:

Xalmat wrote:

"Q. What archetype does the beastlord belong to? Fighter, scout, mage, priest?

A. "Beastlords are scouts, and as such they can wear chain armor.""

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? !

Wait...  so you're saying all those folks looting, needing, buying, SLRing, and generally squirreling away leather raid armor for the past three months so they can create a beastlord, PL it to 90, and *poof* have a raid geared beastlord on launch week - have had their plans foiled?

Somehow, this amuses me...

Yeah, held off on building up myself while things where up in the air. Still I was okay either way, my main is a Jeweler so I will be able to make all of the Beastlord Spells and Combat arts. if they ended up either a fighter or a Priest I have an Alchemist and Sage who could at least help part way.

My real Kvetch with them being scouts is the lore perspective.

[Rijacki]

Lodrelhai wrote:

Xalmat wrote:

"Q. What archetype does the beastlord belong to? Fighter, scout, mage, priest?

A. "Beastlords are scouts, and as such they can wear chain armor.""

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? !

Agreed - what?  We were told they'd be leather.

edit: Ah, this later

Q. At Fan Faire it was mentioned beastlords may wear leather armor. Is that still the plan?

A. "Beastlords are scouts now, so it made the most sense for them to wear chain like the rest of the scouts."

Except we were told they'd be scouts at FanFaire too.  I get it, someone decided that making agi leather at all tiers was going to be too much work (even though all 3 sets of crafted leather have the exact same stats, and there's plenty of agi leather left over that was originally intended for brawlers and never updated).  But saying they're going to be chain because they're scouts makes no sense, unless you're also going to move brawlers to Plate class and move the clerics and shamans to leather with the druids.

Now is probably referring to the "now" of "in EQ2" vs the "then" of EQ1. They weren't scouts in EQ1, they will be scouts, now, in EQ2.

[Brigh]

I think it is more of a current game mechanics issue and itemization as previously mentioned; a result of dumbing down stats.

[Bremer]

Will any of these new gameplay elements of Beastlords (limit breaks, pet training, seperat AAs for pet) be also applied to existing classes?

[Shanak85]

Q. What is the coolest thing about beastlords? A. "Personally my favorite thing about beastlords is the variety of warder appearances available /sigh. Really? That's the coolest thing about them? Figures.

[Rainmare]

My guess is going to be a no.

the beastlord isn't going to have near the spells like conjy/necro have, instead getting pet aa/limit break stuff to make up for it...which also seems to mean that if the pet dies, your BL is worthless until he summons a new one.

and it seems like instead of like necros and conjys getting new pet 'looks' as they upgrade thier pet spells, BLs will have to 'tame' monsters for the look they want within certain restrictions. ie no named monsters, no insects. of course once you find the look you want in the 'class' of animal, you may as well not bother taming anything else...and the taming thing according to that answer is entirely for looks. no special abilities or anything for having a white lion from Frostfang over having a regular lion from commonlands, for example.

which means prolly 90% of the mobs they are making tamable will never be tamed or used. why would you tame any crocodile if you can tame a raptor? why take any lion when you can have a displacer beast looking prowler? how many people are going to pick a regular wolf, when you can have a scaled wolf. why choose a regular bear, if they can have an owlbear.

unless they are going to be adding a bunch of new impressive looking models to 'common' mobs. if I pick a crocodile as a warder, it better look like the Jaws of crocodiles. something that coudl eat a raptor. if I pick a common wolf, it better be closer in appearance to some Cujo-ish direwolf rip your face off with it's wagging tail beast. I better get a lion large enough to use it like a horse, with a bloodred mane and a look like everything before it is nothing but walking meatracks.

otherwise, the only ones that'll get tamed will be the animals with the most 'exotic' or 'bada$$' looks.

[vexrm]

Rainmare@Oasis wrote:

My guess is going to be a no.

the beastlord isn't going to have near the spells like conjy/necro have, instead getting pet aa/limit break stuff to make up for it...which also seems to mean that if the pet dies, your BL is worthless until he summons a new one.

and it seems like instead of like necros and conjys getting new pet 'looks' as they upgrade thier pet spells, BLs will have to 'tame' monsters for the look they want within certain restrictions. ie no named monsters, no insects. of course once you find the look you want in the 'class' of animal, you may as well not bother taming anything else...and the taming thing according to that answer is entirely for looks. no special abilities or anything for having a white lion from Frostfang over having a regular lion from commonlands, for example.

which means prolly 90% of the mobs they are making tamable will never be tamed or used. why would you tame any crocodile if you can tame a raptor? why take any lion when you can have a displacer beast looking prowler? how many people are going to pick a regular wolf, when you can have a scaled wolf. why choose a regular bear, if they can have an owlbear.

unless they are going to be adding a bunch of new impressive looking models to 'common' mobs. if I pick a crocodile as a warder, it better look like the Jaws of crocodiles. something that coudl eat a raptor. if I pick a common wolf, it better be closer in appearance to some Cujo-ish direwolf rip your face off with it's wagging tail beast. I better get a lion large enough to use it like a horse, with a bloodred mane and a look like everything before it is nothing but walking meatracks.

otherwise, the only ones that'll get tamed will be the animals with the most 'exotic' or 'bada$$' looks.

Tame one of the giant wolves in a KD zone......

[Lempo]

Rainmare@Oasis wrote:

well. I guess I have absolutely NO REASON to tame all 50 warder mobs, since only the most recent one gives me nothing but an appearance.

all I need to do is tame 1 from each 'family' that has a look I like and screw the rest of them.

*EDIT*

So what's the point of putting in 50 tamable creatures when prolly 40 or more will never be bothered with?

2 words.

Station Cash

[Lempo]

Shanak85 wrote:

Q. What is the coolest thing about beastlords? A. "Personally my favorite thing about beastlords is the variety of warder appearances available /sigh. Really? That's the coolest thing about them? Figures.

One needs to look no further to see why this game is becoming "Barbie and Ken's Online Adventures"

[feldon30]

Cyliena wrote:

Minor point but the picture isn't working on this post nor at the end of the article.

Gotta doctor up the URL.

http://everquest2.com/images/en/fea...astlord_001.jpg

[Lempo]

Is this the "EXCITING NEWS" that SJ promised would be released today?

[Nrgy]

So, it was leather and now chain ..... any word on the Brawler weapons moving to staby-stabers?

[Kamimura]

Rainmare@Oasis wrote:

which means prolly 90% of the mobs they are making tamable will never be tamed or used. why would you tame any crocodile if you can tame a raptor? why take any lion when you can have a displacer beast looking prowler? how many people are going to pick a regular wolf, when you can have a scaled wolf. why choose a regular bear, if they can have an owlbear.

Well, different people do have different tastes in pet looks. As an example... I'd rather have the crocodile, regular lion (my conj already has the prowler, no thanks), and the regular bear... and number one on that, the regular wolf. No scaled wolves, no dire wolves, just regular old wolf. It would be nice to be able to have more than one in each family (I probably would grab an owlbear in addition to regular bear), but I would expect to see different people grabbing a mix of warders, rather than everyone having the same set.

[Rainmare]

Isilya@Crushbone wrote:

Rainmare@Oasis wrote:

which means prolly 90% of the mobs they are making tamable will never be tamed or used. why would you tame any crocodile if you can tame a raptor? why take any lion when you can have a displacer beast looking prowler? how many people are going to pick a regular wolf, when you can have a scaled wolf. why choose a regular bear, if they can have an owlbear.

Well, different people do have different tastes in pet looks. As an example... I'd rather have the crocodile, regular lion (my conj already has the prowler, no thanks), and the regular bear... and number one on that, the regular wolf. No scaled wolves, no dire wolves, just regular old wolf. It would be nice to be able to have more than one in each family (I probably would grab an owlbear in addition to regular bear), but I would expect to see different people grabbing a mix of warders, rather than everyone having the same set.

but that's what going to happen. see in EQ1, only certain races couodl be beastlords. so giving them a 'generic' pet was alright. Trolls had gators, Ogres had bears, Barbs had wolves, Vah Shir had tigers, Iksar had scaled wolves. wanna know the most common bls I saw? Vah Shir and Iksar.

why is that? becuase the Tiger pet and the Scaled Wolf were the most impressive looking ones.wolves, crocs and bears were common mobs all over. if you wanted an impressive looking pairing, tigers were only found in a few spots. scaled wolves were only on kunark. so the most impressive looking pets were those two.

My original hope was that the tamable animals might have different 'archtypes' or maybe 'procs' based on where they were from. like a frostfang sea lion might be more scout like..fast and hitting harder then say a Commonland lion that might be tank like, bigger, sturdier. that way you might want to get all teh different animals. some might be better tanks, some might do elemental/noxious/arcane damage (molten and ice mobs from everfrost/lavastorm, animals from teh feerott/moors, creatures from Odus as examples of each) or the like. something that would give me a reason to want to find and tame as many as I could.

but if it's just appearance, and the only appearance I have is the most recently tamed, then once I find a look I like..there's no reason for me to tame anything else. and most people want to find the most powerful looking beast they can. lets take a real world example in this context. if you could have a pet bear, and no matter what it'd be loyal and faithful and obediant, woudl you pick the small black bear, the slightly larger panda bear, or would you pick the giant grizzly bear? most people would pick the grizzly.

it's the same reason why everyone's ideal dog is a wolf. it's the most impressive looking canine, if you owned a wolf it's an instant status symbol.

which is why I'm fairly certain once peopel figure out what can be tamed, the most powerful looking of the 'family' is going to be everyone's default pet. adn with no other reason to tame anything else..a bunch of the time spent making tameable pets is just being wasted. Or...lets say I play a Kerran BL, and I LOVE the look of the tiger pet. then I might not tame anything AT ALL. becuase if the look is one I like, I got absolutely no reason to tame anything else.

[Kamimura]

Rainmare@Oasis wrote:

but that's what going to happen. see in EQ1, only certain races couodl be beastlords. so giving them a 'generic' pet was alright. Trolls had gators, Ogres had bears, Barbs had wolves, Vah Shir had tigers, Iksar had scaled wolves. wanna know the most common bls I saw? Vah Shir and Iksar.

why is that? becuase the Tiger pet and the Scaled Wolf were the most impressive looking ones.wolves, crocs and bears were common mobs all over. if you wanted an impressive looking pairing, tigers were only found in a few spots. scaled wolves were only on kunark. so the most impressive looking pets were those two.

Yeah, I remember EQ1 (I had a barbarian beastlord, myself). I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. Vah Shir were popular because they're the race that launched with Beastlords. Trolls and Ogres weren't ever all that popular, so it's not surprising that there weren't many of those around. Yes, some of it probably had to do with the cool factor... a cat with a cat, a lizard with a lizard, but I can't imagine that was the only factor. Again, would be it be nice to be able to tame more animals? Yes, it would. If they don't put in that ability, does that mean every beastlord is going to be a clone of the next? I doubt it. Different races might want different "mains" to match, and again, people have different ideas of what is best looking. Guess we'll see soon enough, either way.

[SisterTheresa]

Rainmare@Oasis wrote:

Isilya@Crushbone wrote:

Rainmare@Oasis wrote:

which means prolly 90% of the mobs they are making tamable will never be tamed or used. why would you tame any crocodile if you can tame a raptor? why take any lion when you can have a displacer beast looking prowler? how many people are going to pick a regular wolf, when you can have a scaled wolf. why choose a regular bear, if they can have an owlbear.

Well, different people do have different tastes in pet looks. As an example... I'd rather have the crocodile, regular lion (my conj already has the prowler, no thanks), and the regular bear... and number one on that, the regular wolf. No scaled wolves, no dire wolves, just regular old wolf. It would be nice to be able to have more than one in each family (I probably would grab an owlbear in addition to regular bear), but I would expect to see different people grabbing a mix of warders, rather than everyone having the same set.

but that's what going to happen. see in EQ1, only certain races couodl be beastlords. so giving them a 'generic' pet was alright. Trolls had gators, Ogres had bears, Barbs had wolves, Vah Shir had tigers, Iksar had scaled wolves. wanna know the most common bls I saw? Vah Shir and Iksar.

why is that? becuase the Tiger pet and the Scaled Wolf were the most impressive looking ones.wolves, crocs and bears were common mobs all over. if you wanted an impressive looking pairing, tigers were only found in a few spots. scaled wolves were only on kunark. so the most impressive looking pets were those two.

My original hope was that the tamable animals might have different 'archtypes' or maybe 'procs' based on where they were from. like a frostfang sea lion might be more scout like..fast and hitting harder then say a Commonland lion that might be tank like, bigger, sturdier. that way you might want to get all teh different animals. some might be better tanks, some might do elemental/noxious/arcane damage (molten and ice mobs from everfrost/lavastorm, animals from teh feerott/moors, creatures from Odus as examples of each) or the like. something that would give me a reason to want to find and tame as many as I could.

but if it's just appearance, and the only appearance I have is the most recently tamed, then once I find a look I like..there's no reason for me to tame anything else. and most people want to find the most powerful looking beast they can. lets take a real world example in this context. if you could have a pet bear, and no matter what it'd be loyal and faithful and obediant, woudl you pick the small black bear, the slightly larger panda bear, or would you pick the giant grizzly bear? most people would pick the grizzly.

it's the same reason why everyone's ideal dog is a wolf. it's the most impressive looking canine, if you owned a wolf it's an instant status symbol.

which is why I'm fairly certain once peopel figure out what can be tamed, the most powerful looking of the 'family' is going to be everyone's default pet. adn with no other reason to tame anything else..a bunch of the time spent making tameable pets is just being wasted. Or...lets say I play a Kerran BL, and I LOVE the look of the tiger pet. then I might not tame anything AT ALL. becuase if the look is one I like, I got absolutely no reason to tame anything else. 

The red section in the above post is what I am curious about as well.  Will taming a creature in a family just be appearance changing only?  Or does a lion have different skills than a tiger?  If so then I can see taming many creatures ala WoW's hunter class.  If not ... disappoint.

[Zabjade]

I wonder if you can tame a certain Named Tiger in Sinking sands...

[Rainmare]

Nope. no named creatures. or insects.

and if you like the look of a tiger, then once you get the tiger look, no taming any other feline if you want to keep that look.