definition of a class

kques · 05-18-2006, 12:59 AM

This is a part of a post by Moorgard, the entire post can be found here.

Whenever we make some sort of balance change to a class, invariably someone posts that "you changed the definition of my class." Yet the closest thing to a definitions we've made are the class descriptions in the manual and on the website, all of which were written in deliberately general terms for exactly this reason. We don't want to impose arbitrary limits on what a class should be, so long as the tools available to that class function within the boundaries of an overall healthy game world. When they don't, we make changes to them.
What players react to is not that we changed the definition of a class, but rather that we changed the tools through which players have made up their own definitions. A subtle point, perhaps, but one to consider.

Seeing as how Troubadours definition has bin changed on the web site I don’t see how this can hold true for us.

Jeger_Wulf · 05-18-2006, 01:42 AM

True enough.

thorvang · 05-18-2006, 01:43 AM

the description has been changed to "troubadours are the caster's buff bots."maybe this is how SOE has seen them all the time?

Myk · 05-18-2006, 02:20 AM

This is precisely why I stated in another thread that the proposed changes will break the class. CC is a class-defining attribute of troubs, and if this attribute becomes practically unusable, our original class description will no longer apply. For this reason, there is no way to mitigate the CC changes without dramatically redefining the role of the class.

If troubs were overpowered versus other classes, I'd understand.

If troubs were overplayed, I'd understand.

If troubs made other classes obsolete, I'd understand.

We're left guessing as to why we're being redefined. Some say PvP. Some say class balancing with regard to chanters. Some say it stems from a lack of troub advocates within SoE. Some say it's part of an SOE pattern of destroying games.

We may be a relatively small community, but I would genuinely appreciate if a Dev would share the vision of the troub and why these changes were deemed vital to the game. As it stands now, many troubs are left scratching their collective heads pondering our future. The longer it takes for a Dev to address our concerns, the more frustrated many troubs will become. SoE must know what frustrated subscribers eventually do.

Jeger_Wulf · 05-18-2006, 02:32 AM

> If troubs were overplayed, I'd understand.

Haven't you seen to roving bands of troubadours camping the popular spawns? Sheesh!! Where have you been?

Haven't you seen the ooc chat?

Jeger says: "Troubadour group forming up for CT. We have five - just need one more."

It's about time Sony reined us in a little bit, ot the entire game would be only troubadours.

.....

Wait - maybe that was just a dream I had.

Shiloh · 05-18-2006, 05:41 AM

From my post in Jaimster's thread. Maybe they haven't "redefined" our class, but they've certainly not improved it after 2 years, based on what it was like at release:

I've played a bard in 3 of the 4 MMORPGs I've played. (Our SWG guild needed a merchant.) I've lasted 2 years here, but I must say, after our first big nerf 5 months (?) into the game, I've enjoyed EQ2 the least. Possibly because that nerf coincided with me hitting level 30 or so, I just found that I couldn't solo very well anymore and by the time I learned crowd control, we'd been smacked again.

I stayed a bard and hardly played other classes at all because I love my guild and feel *far* more attuned to my bard than other "more rewarding to play" classes. But I've only played one weekend in the past 6 weeks or so. I've never been uber and I won't even touch white-cons solo but that was ok. I think what finally got me was the change they made that let low-con mobs see through our stealth. I'd gotten used to being invited less and less to groups. But suddenly getting smacked by greens I'd walked past the day before really got to me. It was one thing to have "combat stuff" nerfed in the interests of balance - after all, the devs have far more data than I do - but quite another to have a basic scout ability like stealth suddenly cheapened.

Sorry to sound like a whiner, but I very probably won't renew when this subscription period runs out, and this seemed as good a place as any to let SOE know why a troub who only plays one game at a time, doesn't have another game lined up and loves his guild is leaving. It just seems that as time goes by the class is getting less fun to play . . . not because of ennui or "game fatigue," but because SOE ignores past concerns AND introduces new gripes. Honestly, it got to the point where - when they released notes for the live updates - I would hope NOT to see Troubador in the list of affected classes. . . it was NEVER good news!

I know there are troubs out there who solo and group well and love the class. And I don't begrudge SOE a cent they've made off of me. They've created a wonderful game. But getting the same spell set every 14 levels, and finding that a level 68 fight against a blue-con played out almost exactly like a level 54 and level 40 fight just got old. Added content via the expansions was fine (and expensive) but I just didn't feel like my character was actually *growing.* The additions of charm and mez were more than offset by nerfs. From level 20 to 70 there was never anything else that felt "new" or made me feel more expansive. Spells and CAs seemed to get proportionally *weaker* as they upgraded. That is, if the difference between the level 20 spell and it's level 34 counterpart was - for example - 50 average damage, the difference between the level 34 and 48 spells was maybe only 35. . . AND the difference between Adept1, A3, and M1 got less as well (and VERY expensive - not just in simply higher costs, but as a percentage of my income.)

I'll miss the game but I haven't seen a dev post to troubs in ages and I see nothing on the horizon that even HINTS that anything will change for the better in the next 6 months. In fact, the net effect of the LU24 troub changes on test strike me as negative for the class. (AGAIN!) I truly wish you all - and SOE - the best of ingame and RL experiences.

Kwee - 70 troub - Crushbone

P.S. Oh! Yes, the achievement additions made me "feel more expansive." But those were almost a given with the expansion, following on the EQ1 tradition. And they certainly weren't a sign that the devs were trying to redress anything bard-specific.

Killerbee3000 · 05-20-2006, 12:50 AM

kquest2 wrote:

This is a part of a post by Moorgard, the entire post can be found here.

Whenever we make some sort of balance change to a class, invariably someone posts that "you changed the definition of my class." Yet the closest thing to a definitions we've made are the class descriptions in the manual and on the website, all of which were written in deliberately general terms for exactly this reason. We don't want to impose arbitrary limits on what a class should be, so long as the tools available to that class function within the boundaries of an overall healthy game world. When they don't, we make changes to them.
What players react to is not that we changed the definition of a class, but rather that we changed the tools through which players have made up their own definitions. A subtle point, perhaps, but one to consider.

Seeing as how Troubadours definition has bin changed on the web site I don’t see how this can hold true for us.

i would prefer it if the dev's would say what their vision is for a class when the game comes out, then we could decide based on that vision what class we play, so we would know that the upcoming changes would get the class closer to the dev's vision of what the class should be. then we could know what our role should be according to what the dev's want the game to be.

this would allow us to make our decision on what class to play based on how the class should be and not how it is.

as an example, if the dev's would have said right away that troubadours are mostly for supporting caster's then only the one's who want to do that would play a troubadour, but as it is now, we also have buffs that are for non casters, we have crowd control. but crowd control will be nerfed.

as it looks now the dev's are trying to get the troubadours to be the following:

1. Medium Dps and defense

2. Support Class for raids and groups

3. Above Average support for casting classes

but that does not match what they told us at the start what our class should be. This gets lots of people to be unlucky with the class troubadour.

In my opinion if they would have defined the classes as they once should be, then people would accept changes without quiting the game because the changes would get the class closer to what it should be and what people expect from their class.

Message Edited by Killerbee3000 on 05-19-2006 02:00 PM

Message Edited by Killerbee3000 on 05-19-2006 02:02 PM

Nevari · 05-20-2006, 05:22 AM

That's the point.

reaper_m · 05-20-2006, 11:16 AM

What a load of BS.

It just sounds like someone's trying to weasel their way out of some responsibility and maneuver their way into a position where they can make further changes to the core characteristics of a class without needing any justification.

ssumthing · 05-20-2006, 04:18 PM

Thats the whole reason I STARTED a troubador was for the charm and mez... If it wasn't for those 2 things I would have rolled a dirge, at least I could be a buff bot with the ability to rez /sigh... I'll give it the old college try when LU24 does come out, but its looking more and more like I will be betraying to dirge if things stay like they are. But yes, I agree, SOE should give an accurate description of what they think a class should be, and not rip the rug out from under you later on saying "Oops! Thats not what we wanted..." ... *nerf* It's just saddening ... Hate to see anything happen to the character I love so much... :smileysad:

05-18-2006, 12:59 AM	#1
kques Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3	This is a part of a post by Moorgard, the entire post can be found here. Whenever we make some sort of balance change to a class, invariably someone posts that "you changed the definition of my class." Yet the closest thing to a definitions we've made are the class descriptions in the manual and on the website, all of which were written in deliberately general terms for exactly this reason. We don't want to impose arbitrary limits on what a class should be, so long as the tools available to that class function within the boundaries of an overall healthy game world. When they don't, we make changes to them. What players react to is not that we changed the definition of a class, but rather that we changed the tools through which players have made up their own definitions. A subtle point, perhaps, but one to consider. Seeing as how Troubadours definition has bin changed on the web site I don’t see how this can hold true for us.

05-18-2006, 01:42 AM	#2
Jeger_Wulf Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 505	True enough. __________________ Karc Shadowwalker 80 Illusionist, Najena Jeger Wulf 80 Troubadour, Najena Foster Suncaller 7x Warlock, Najena

05-18-2006, 01:43 AM	#3
thorvang Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 862	the description has been changed to "troubadours are the caster's buff bots."maybe this is how SOE has seen them all the time? __________________

05-18-2006, 02:32 AM	#5
Jeger_Wulf Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 505	> If troubs were overplayed, I'd understand. Haven't you seen to roving bands of troubadours camping the popular spawns? Sheesh!! Where have you been? Haven't you seen the ooc chat? Jeger says: "Troubadour group forming up for CT. We have five - just need one more." It's about time Sony reined us in a little bit, ot the entire game would be only troubadours. ..... Wait - maybe that was just a dream I had. __________________ Karc Shadowwalker 80 Illusionist, Najena Jeger Wulf 80 Troubadour, Najena Foster Suncaller 7x Warlock, Najena

05-20-2006, 12:50 AM	#7
Killerbee3000 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: right behind you Posts: 1,802	kquest2 wrote: This is a part of a post by Moorgard, the entire post can be found here. Whenever we make some sort of balance change to a class, invariably someone posts that "you changed the definition of my class." Yet the closest thing to a definitions we've made are the class descriptions in the manual and on the website, all of which were written in deliberately general terms for exactly this reason. We don't want to impose arbitrary limits on what a class should be, so long as the tools available to that class function within the boundaries of an overall healthy game world. When they don't, we make changes to them. What players react to is not that we changed the definition of a class, but rather that we changed the tools through which players have made up their own definitions. A subtle point, perhaps, but one to consider. Seeing as how Troubadours definition has bin changed on the web site I don’t see how this can hold true for us. i would prefer it if the dev's would say what their vision is for a class when the game comes out, then we could decide based on that vision what class we play, so we would know that the upcoming changes would get the class closer to the dev's vision of what the class should be. then we could know what our role should be according to what the dev's want the game to be. this would allow us to make our decision on what class to play based on how the class should be and not how it is. as an example, if the dev's would have said right away that troubadours are mostly for supporting caster's then only the one's who want to do that would play a troubadour, but as it is now, we also have buffs that are for non casters, we have crowd control. but crowd control will be nerfed. as it looks now the dev's are trying to get the troubadours to be the following: 1. Medium Dps and defense 2. Support Class for raids and groups 3. Above Average support for casting classes but that does not match what they told us at the start what our class should be. This gets lots of people to be unlucky with the class troubadour. In my opinion if they would have defined the classes as they once should be, then people would accept changes without quiting the game because the changes would get the class closer to what it should be and what people expect from their class. Message Edited by Killerbee3000 on 05-19-2006 02:00 PM Message Edited by Killerbee3000 on 05-19-2006 02:02 PM __________________ Whiskers without loosing Eyes in '08!

05-18-2006, 02:20 AM	#4
Myk General Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 65	This is precisely why I stated in another thread that the proposed changes will break the class. CC is a class-defining attribute of troubs, and if this attribute becomes practically unusable, our original class description will no longer apply. For this reason, there is no way to mitigate the CC changes without dramatically redefining the role of the class. If troubs were overpowered versus other classes, I'd understand. If troubs were overplayed, I'd understand. If troubs made other classes obsolete, I'd understand. We're left guessing as to why we're being redefined. Some say PvP. Some say class balancing with regard to chanters. Some say it stems from a lack of troub advocates within SoE. Some say it's part of an SOE pattern of destroying games. We may be a relatively small community, but I would genuinely appreciate if a Dev would share the vision of the troub and why these changes were deemed vital to the game. As it stands now, many troubs are left scratching their collective heads pondering our future. The longer it takes for a Dev to address our concerns, the more frustrated many troubs will become. SoE must know what frustrated subscribers eventually do.

05-18-2006, 05:41 AM	#6
Shiloh Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 16	From my post in Jaimster's thread. Maybe they haven't "redefined" our class, but they've certainly not improved it after 2 years, based on what it was like at release: I've played a bard in 3 of the 4 MMORPGs I've played. (Our SWG guild needed a merchant.) I've lasted 2 years here, but I must say, after our first big nerf 5 months (?) into the game, I've enjoyed EQ2 the least. Possibly because that nerf coincided with me hitting level 30 or so, I just found that I couldn't solo very well anymore and by the time I learned crowd control, we'd been smacked again. I stayed a bard and hardly played other classes at all because I love my guild and feel far more attuned to my bard than other "more rewarding to play" classes. But I've only played one weekend in the past 6 weeks or so. I've never been uber and I won't even touch white-cons solo but that was ok. I think what finally got me was the change they made that let low-con mobs see through our stealth. I'd gotten used to being invited less and less to groups. But suddenly getting smacked by greens I'd walked past the day before really got to me. It was one thing to have "combat stuff" nerfed in the interests of balance - after all, the devs have far more data than I do - but quite another to have a basic scout ability like stealth suddenly cheapened. Sorry to sound like a whiner, but I very probably won't renew when this subscription period runs out, and this seemed as good a place as any to let SOE know why a troub who only plays one game at a time, doesn't have another game lined up and loves his guild is leaving. It just seems that as time goes by the class is getting less fun to play . . . not because of ennui or "game fatigue," but because SOE ignores past concerns AND introduces new gripes. Honestly, it got to the point where - when they released notes for the live updates - I would hope NOT to see Troubador in the list of affected classes. . . it was NEVER good news! I know there are troubs out there who solo and group well and love the class. And I don't begrudge SOE a cent they've made off of me. They've created a wonderful game. But getting the same spell set every 14 levels, and finding that a level 68 fight against a blue-con played out almost exactly like a level 54 and level 40 fight just got old. Added content via the expansions was fine (and expensive) but I just didn't feel like my character was actually growing. The additions of charm and mez were more than offset by nerfs. From level 20 to 70 there was never anything else that felt "new" or made me feel more expansive. Spells and CAs seemed to get proportionally weaker as they upgraded. That is, if the difference between the level 20 spell and it's level 34 counterpart was - for example - 50 average damage, the difference between the level 34 and 48 spells was maybe only 35. . . AND the difference between Adept1, A3, and M1 got less as well (and VERY expensive - not just in simply higher costs, but as a percentage of my income.) I'll miss the game but I haven't seen a dev post to troubs in ages and I see nothing on the horizon that even HINTS that anything will change for the better in the next 6 months. In fact, the net effect of the LU24 troub changes on test strike me as negative for the class. (AGAIN!) I truly wish you all - and SOE - the best of ingame and RL experiences. Kwee - 70 troub - Crushbone P.S. Oh! Yes, the achievement additions made me "feel more expansive." But those were almost a given with the expansion, following on the EQ1 tradition. And they certainly weren't a sign that the devs were trying to redress anything bard-specific.

05-20-2006, 05:22 AM	#8
Nevari Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 92	That's the point. __________________

05-20-2006, 11:16 AM	#9
reaper_m Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 13	What a load of BS. It just sounds like someone's trying to weasel their way out of some responsibility and maneuver their way into a position where they can make further changes to the core characteristics of a class without needing any justification.

05-20-2006, 04:18 PM	#10
ssumthing Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 145	Thats the whole reason I STARTED a troubador was for the charm and mez... If it wasn't for those 2 things I would have rolled a dirge, at least I could be a buff bot with the ability to rez /sigh... I'll give it the old college try when LU24 does come out, but its looking more and more like I will be betraying to dirge if things stay like they are. But yes, I agree, SOE should give an accurate description of what they think a class should be, and not rip the rug out from under you later on saying "Oops! Thats not what we wanted..." ... nerf It's just saddening ... Hate to see anything happen to the character I love so much... :smileysad: