Sheya

Class differences are artificial as they can be when compared between the same subclass set, because the difference between the 2 opposite classes in each subset are often minimal compared to the similarities, especially seeing which is the true role of said classes have in raids (and even in groups).

With this I mean that the 2 classes will share a common role: assassin-ranger = dps, zerk-guardian = tanking, monk-bruiser = sitting on the bench, etc.

Take the 2 bards and see how (imo) they could have been done:
Someone decided Cacophony buffed melees and PotM buffed casters, but what if 3 years ago (and there lies the rub) a single song would have buffed both styles?
A song that says melee attacks get this proc and hostile spells get this proc would have solved every problem (adjusting values accordingly).

I hate to take it as an example, but in EQ1 bards had a song that was 1: Increase Spell Damage by 15% and 2: Increase Haste (melee) by 30%. Different game yes, the principle still applies.

Buffs you say? Who cares, they are buffs, fire and forget, they are always up (concentration slots problem aside), so if you are buffing melees you pull up current dirge buffs, for casters you'd pick troub buffs.

The role you choose to cover in a given situation would be at the base of your choice, not a choice done 3 years ago at the char select screen.
2 sets of pre-saved AA would be handy (as they'll be in Kunark) to enhance this or the other role according to the raid needs, in this hypothetical situation.

The real problem is that after 3 years and after several adjustments done to the combat system (LU 13 on top) etc. people are used to this system, so all you can read is very likely speculation and armchair designing.
It doesn't mean it won't be noted by those in charge and maybe applied in a future title, be it EQ3 or whatever else.

One thing above all that SoE should do, at the risk of repeating myself, is get rid officially of the notion of "all classes in a given archetype will perform their role equally well in any situation", because it's not just a bullshit, it's a blatant lie and it's never been true for a single minute since November 2004.

Sure it's be nice to have new classes in the game, but it'll never happen, so finding a role for classes who lack one, tossing them a bone and going on with 24 is probably the best choice, but I'll still support my hypothetical view of 12-15 classes with the possibility to add new ones not archetype related.


In the end, EQ2 is facing since 3 years a serious retention problem, people move away from the game and the reasons are pretty much always combat related more than class related, hence the spell consolidation stuff that will maybe happen.


I wonder how the population would respond to a poll made by SoE, i.e.: would you like to be a cleric instead of a templar gaining new abilities and losing none

Do you really think anyone would complain?
Big rework? Yeah definitely. Worth it? No clue, I'd say possibly yes. EQ2 is their best title, attempts to improve it are not a waste of time.

Illuminator

As hilarious as this may sound, EQ2 has no competition for its niche. It's hard to quit because there is nowhere else to go; you have to quit the genre if you plan to quit the game. It's not an exaggeration to say that almost everyone I knew who quit has returned.

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Sheya

In my personal experience I saw lots returning, only to quit again, few stayed to play. They were either not attracted by the combat system or by the levelling, or they were having more fun elsewhere.

I'm having fun only sometimes and if this is not changing soon, I'll probably, as you said, quit the genre completely.

TANGARTH

is that why every incomplete expantion that comes out I lose about 5-10 people I know to other games. I know this is too hard to ask for, but I'd rather wait a month for stuff to get done than for an expansion to get rushed out, they'd probably make more in the long term by not bringing out so much unfinished content.

But thanks to the FOH forums and dev's listening to the wrong people, changed like spell consolidation WERE going to go in, which made a massive number of players get really really pissed. Advertise the game more since word of mouth isn't going to be that helpful with >500k people playing. If everquest has such a nice little niche then they should be doing what they can to add new content rather than constantly changing older tiers, or revamp everything over and over. (outside of balance issues)

hcre

Some sub-classes are fairly similar while other sub-classes are completely different than their counterpart.

Sure you could combine the bards with little or no problem, you could also combine the three healer classes. But take for example the assassin and the ranger, they both are meant to be max melee dps true, but the hows are so completely different that combining them makes little sense.

In my opinion the classes that are fairly different are as follows:

Guardian and Berzerker
Sk and Paladin
Assassin and Ranger

Classes that could stand some more differences but are somewhat different are as follows:

Necro and Magician
Swashy and brigand
Wizard and Warlock

Interestingly enough the above classes are mostly the ones where I have played one of each to fairly high levels.

The rest, from what I know seem like they are not that different, but I bet if I played them both to max I would see serious differences.

I will agree that I liked the class system in EQ1 better than EQ2s. I also like how in EQ1 each class felt really unique when compared to the other classes. But changing it now is not a good ideal.

Changing the class system is not going to draw any new players in, but it will chase more than a few away. Some who went through it with SWG will leave as soon as it is even hinted at. I feel a connection to each one of my characters. If I find myself with two tanks, crusaders, preditors, and summoners and I could not say ok one of each of you has to go to the SE server for being sold off. I honestly would probably quit the game feeling like I wasted half my time playing it only to end up with a bunch of pairs of the same characters.

Great ideal for EQ3, bad ideal for EQ2!

Illuminator

Then do the merges that work and avoid the merges that don't work.

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Tak

Or, the effort can be put in to further differentiate the classes instead of doing large universal nerfs to the class type. That can be done only taking in mind balance overall and the new content (in this case, 71-80 and associated spells), instead of the slew of issues that would come to a head from class mergers.

And, for the long-term, it's a much better plan. People will eventually get to the 70s and 80s. Once there that's where they'll spend the bulk of their time. So why not work to make each class as unique as possible even if it is only 60+ that you really start to see it? Raid-guild recruitment is NOT a valid argument, given that the majority of the consumer base could care less about a handful of guild's recruitment.

Pinski

That still leaves us back to the ol' there's 24 classes and 24 raid slots, who do we get to dick around because of how useful they are on a raid compared to others?

__________________
How many times do you hear it? It goes on all day long
Everyone knows everything And no one's ever wrong
Until later...
Who can you believe? It's hard to play it safe
But apart from a few good friends We don't take anything on faith
Until later..

Laodaron

Without a doubt, for a 24 person raid, it should have been a 12 or 16 class game because people are going to discover ways to make a class incredibly useful in a raid. Look at Brigands during the great over-powerment of AR.

There's no reason that they couldn't merge certain classes. It would benefit the game in the fact that armor/weapon/item design time would be reduced, raid strategies would mean something, and there wouldn't be as many resources used up. There isn't a logical argument against merging the classes, except the one that states it won't happen. However, only positives would come from it.

hcre

All the warrior classes except guardians, duh!

Cut the classes to 12 and you will still only have 1 useful warrior class for raids, so you can still dick members of the other two around. By combining the classes the only classes you are making more desirable for raids are predators and pure castor DPS.