They should never merge... - Page 2

LFG · 10-19-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keldo

While I think some classes lack direction, overall I feel it is possible for them to work. Min maxers are always going to min max, it doesn't matter how many classes there are, if one is worse than another, that class will not be welcome. Certain subclasses lack a definitive role that seperates them from their counterpart, this should be focused on rather than combining all the classes.

Min maxing is simply the most efficient and effective form of gameplay. :smiley-happy:

Alania · 10-19-2006, 03:37 PM

There are many classes that blend in with the rest.

Heck when I wanted to play a chanter, i picked coercer just because a chanter that couldn't charm felt incomplete.

Illuminator · 10-19-2006, 09:10 PM

Because some alignments of certain subclasses have more "fun factor" than others, people will flock to the one alignment even though raid setup and interclass balance is oriented around having at least one of the other alignment. This makes recruiting and turnover a nightmare.

kyros · 10-20-2006, 12:12 AM

the problem is that the game is too limited by its mechanics, and you get a lot of classes using skills that would normally belong to another class just to keep them separate from their class-mate. example: necros with FD, conjurors with heals.
if there were fewer classes overall, then the definitions of the classes would be stronger. this leads to a better-defined role and more useful classes for everyone. you wouldn't have a "most useless" class for a raid.
i guess the potential competition for spells was just too much to handle. personally, i find it stupid that my rogue upgrades his combat arts by reading books.

Pacc · 10-20-2006, 12:55 AM

For the person who started this post - there is literally no diversity between bards, chanters, shamans and others with the exception of a handful of spells.

I think the original classes from Eq1 were satisfactory. Things were simple then and each class had a unique purpose. If you try and tell me that giving bards the EXACT same spells shows diversity then you have left me at a total loss for words.

They even try to make it so that the dps of these classes are similar so there can be little to know complaints. - side note - that boils down to pure laziness and lack of thought.

What LFG posted above is totally true. The fact that we have 24 classes is not viable and that is why you see guild rosters with certain classes excluded.

Alania · 10-20-2006, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyros

the problem is that the game is too limited by its mechanics, and you get a lot of classes using skills that would normally belong to another class just to keep them separate from their class-mate. example: necros with FD, conjurors with heals.

Necro's could FD in EQ1. Its nothing new.

Conjy heal i believe is an AA line that necros can get as well. Otherwise conjys are not capable of healing others.

Taelana · 10-20-2006, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacc

For the person who started this post - there is literally no diversity between bards, chanters, shamans and others with the exception of a handful of spells.

I think the original classes from Eq1 were satisfactory. Things were simple then and each class had a unique purpose. If you try and tell me that giving bards the EXACT same spells shows diversity then you have left me at a total loss for words.

They even try to make it so that the dps of these classes are similar so there can be little to know complaints. - side note - that boils down to pure laziness and lack of thought.

What LFG posted above is totally true. The fact that we have 24 classes is not viable and that is why you see guild rosters with certain classes excluded.

I still like the diversity. Its small but its there. I can tell you one thing, no big change like that would ever come off smoothly. You might think...oh that's a good idea, SOE is gonna simplify the game more by merging the classes. But while that might worked with the subdivision (predator,shaman,summoner, etc) I dont think a change like that would make it any more fun. How can I say, "Stop comparing us to Assassins" if they dont have one? j/k. I dont have any confidence that what y'all might think is a minor change for major fun is gonna come off that way in the long run. But I'll drop it becuz I play a game for fun. I dont know any of the insides and outs of the game. I dont play to be able to wow people with my great knowledge of the ins and outs. I just enjoy playing...lol.

Oh and when you say guild are you talking raid guilds? Becuz why would regular non-raiding guild care what class they have in it? I'm just curious becuz when people from a raiding guild say guild, they really mean raiding guild like that's all there is. I dont raid and maybe that's why I like it the way it is.

P.S. That isnt sarcasm...that's just my curiosity poppin' in)

Illuminator · 10-20-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taelana

But I'll drop it becuz I play a game for fun. I dont know any of the insides and outs of the game.

Thank you.

kyros · 10-20-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taelana

I still like the diversity. Its small but its there. I can tell you one thing, no big change like that would ever come off smoothly. You might think...oh that's a good idea, SOE is gonna simplify the game more by merging the classes. But while that might worked with the subdivision (predator,shaman,summoner, etc) I dont think a change like that would make it any more fun. How can I say, "Stop comparing us to Assassins" if they dont have one? j/k. I dont have any confidence that what y'all might think is a minor change for major fun is gonna come off that way in the long run. But I'll drop it becuz I play a game for fun. I dont know any of the insides and outs of the game. I dont play to be able to wow people with my great knowledge of the ins and outs. I just enjoy playing...lol.

Oh and when you say guild are you talking raid guilds? Becuz why would regular non-raiding guild care what class they have in it? I'm just curious becuz when people from a raiding guild say guild, they really mean raiding guild like that's all there is. I dont raid and maybe that's why I like it the way it is.

P.S. That isnt sarcasm...that's just my curiosity poppin' in)

hey man, i used to not care about the details either, just played for fun - so to speak. but after playing for a while, i figured if i'm going to enjoy it, why not understand what is actually going on. i may still not be the best player, and i don't expect to be, after all the reason i play is because it's fun and not to be the best. however, i think that learning a little bit more of the workings of the game makes the it more enjoyable, and i do want to play my classes to the best of my ability. learning about other classes lets you know what they can and can't do when you're building a group or looking for help. while it's a lot of fun to see what you can do with crazy group set-ups, you'll usually want an effective group that can go and get things accomplished.

i'm sure he meant raiding guild, specifically. we're not always just talking about raiding guilds when we say guild. there are obviously more. but, he also didn't say all guilds have certain classes excluded, he said some. so it's a little silly for you to be jumping on him, when what he said was true. unless as a non-raiding player, guild only means non-raiding guild to you. if raiding guilds count as a guild and some raiding guilds exclude classes, then some guilds exclude classes. also, it's not uncommon for smaller non-raiding guilds to not have every class simply because they don't have people playing all of them, in which case the statement is true again. :smiley-tongue:

Taelana · 10-20-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyros

hey man, i used to not care about the details either, just played for fun - so to speak. but after playing for a while, i figured if i'm going to enjoy it, why not understand what is actually going on. i may still not be the best player, and i don't expect to be, after all the reason i play is because it's fun and not to be the best. however, i think that learning a little bit more of the workings of the game makes the it more enjoyable, and i do want to play my classes to the best of my ability. learning about other classes lets you know what they can and can't do when you're building a group or looking for help. while it's a lot of fun to see what you can do with crazy group set-ups, you'll usually want an effective group that can go and get things accomplished.

i'm sure he meant raiding guild, specifically. we're not always just talking about raiding guilds when we say guild. there are obviously more. but, he also didn't say all guilds have certain classes excluded, he said some. so it's a little silly for you to be jumping on him, when what he said was true. unless as a non-raiding player, guild only means non-raiding guild to you. if raiding guilds count as a guild and some raiding guilds exclude classes, then some guilds exclude classes. also, it's not uncommon for smaller non-raiding guilds to not have every class simply because they don't have people playing all of them, in which case the statement is true again. :smiley-tongue:

Ok, a couple things...lol.

1. I'm not a guy. Women do play games too.../hug.

2. I agree that a well maintained, thought out group is cool, but pick up groups are the best and most fun I've seen (this is a single, non-raiding group just getting some xp). Who cares really who's in it? I've been in groups where the pally was tanking and healing. I've been in groups with 2 rangers and healer. I've been in groups with just a tank and healer. I've been in groups with a conj, another ranger and no healer or tank. The basic group doesnt have to be well thought out, especially if all you're doin is grouping for fun or questing. I'm not gonna go into why grouping is better raiding. Becuz I dont really think one is better than the other. It depends on what youre doin and who you're doin it with. I dont raid so I dont really have a raiding opinion.

3. He did say some guilds, but I was wondering if those "some guilds" were raiding guilds. I also said I was just curious not being sarcastic. If he was making a statement based on raiding guilds, then sure it matters who and what class they have in their guild, but how does that matter for the average joe guild that doesnt raid. Most guilds are not raiding guilds. I wasnt trying to put down what he said. I was just curious.

4. And please I had logic classes before and the whole some A is some B, but not some C is still arguable...lol

5. Hey!!! You were on my side...