Xanoth

Surely that's a flaw with the AA design not the players.

E.g.

they merge troubs and dirges into one class : Troubadirge!

If they then split what made these two classes different in the first place and expand them down separate AA trees. you'd end up with 1 melee/agro buff kinda line. and another spell/deagro kinda line. note: its not a great example as i don't play either class.

Surely given that example raid guilds would still want both, but rather than only recruiting a dirge or a troub to fill a given group space they could just recruit a troubadirge and ask them to spec a certain way that your raid was missing. especially with the more flexible AA system that RoK offers.

Personally i just don't think the EQ2 Dev's have the creativity to fully flesh out and make 24 classes feel unique and desirable. few classes really stand out from their counterpart that isn't due to an AA that their class gets and the other doesn't (or is superficial in nature to start with).

__________________

Illuminator

The best argument for merging classes is that raid guild recruitment and roster management becomes that much easier. You won't need an entire fringe class, just a common class willing to fill the fringe role.

The second best argument is that it's that much less work for the devs to itemize those classes and develop combat abilities for them, thus higher quality and quicker development/balance time.

All in the long run.

__________________


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

Tak

I'm not saying that you guys don't have some good reasons for why a more 'generic class - heavy AA' approach wouldn't work. What I am saying though is to suggest that such an approach would work in EQ2 as it currently stands is absolutely foolish. You're not talking about a minor rewrite or redesign. You're talking about scrapping the foundation for the game. That is doable when you're in alpha or early betas, and when it's all in the design phases. But to change that now would require:

- Re-itemization of every sub-class specific item and a healthy chunk of the class specific items, including revising old loot and creating new loot to benefit certain builds of a given class. That's 70 (soon to be 80) levels worth.

- Balancing every single zone/instance/encounter against the possible combinations of these new classes. From the newbie questing areas to the Emerald Halls.

- Reviewing every skill/spell/AA line currently in game and deciding what to keep, what to toss, what to adjust.

- Require re-learning of every class, by everyone. No matter how 'good' you are, suddenly finding yourself a 'priest' or a 'scout' or a 'mage' with heavily altered spells, skills, AA lines, gear, etc. is an adjustment. Even the raid-core guilds would grind to a halt until it was all sorted out and in some semblance of balance. So much for enjoying the new expansion pack.

- Outright halting or at least greatly cutting back other bug/exploit fixing, balancing, revamps, and general game updating (simply due to the manhours required)

I'm not going to argue against the system for an EQIII or the likes. I think it would be a unique (and certainly challenging from a design standpoint) idea. But to advocate putting something like this in EQII is lunacy. Especially if the best reason for it is 'raiding guilds will have an easier time filling slots'

Illuminator

I think I can say I've grinded up enough characters to know that despite their differences they all share a common flow. It's been said that if you're very good at one class, you will probably be good at all of them.

As far as discussing how to change this very EQ2 game, if we plot a far point for wherever we feel EQ2 needs to end up, and the game meets us anywhere in the middle, then we've already benefited. Without a grand vision to steer towards, we'd be halfassing it. Being silent and hoping for the best will absolutely get us nowhere.

__________________


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

Tak

I must say I respectfully disagree with your last point. We are the consumers of a product and a service. While we all should give feedback and our opinions, the ultimate direction of the game lies with the creative director and/or the EQII development staff. Their direction, right now, involves 24 classes (and as far as I can see that's not likely to change at any point). If it gets to a point where so many people are unhappy that the game can't stay afloat, they'll change then, or scrap it and move to a new project (ideally incorporating feedback from the players). But for this current project, the path is pretty set. We're just along for the ride, and can tell them we don't like it by leaving if it irks us bad enough.

Class mergers are simply out of the question for a game this far along without basically re-launching after another three to four years (or more) of dev time. We all know no company is going to do that.

What is a more realistic approach would be if there is a large outcry that something is wrong and the team shares that view, they could start combining some of the abilities of the classes.

Give Inqs some better, more templar-like heals and defensive buffing. Give Templars some Inq-like offensive buffing. Give zerks some more defensive abilities, and give guardians some more offensive ones, and so on down the line. You'll still have 24 classes, but the end-game of those classes some of (not all) of the 'class defining' attributes are water down or shared. A Templar is still the better defensive buff and main healer, and an Inq is still an offensive group pumper with strong healing. But because of shared skill lines an inq can come closer to a temp than now, or vice versus. That's how you guys should go about the argument if you actually think there is enough of a problem to warrant a change. Arguing for full-out class mergers is just being willfully ignorant to what all that entails.

Illuminator

One of these days (maybe after we hit 80, maybe never) we're going to make time to do a case study on this site, and we're going to start a thread mentioning two classes we think should be merged, and we are going to discuss every single spell, find its counterpart, and debate what it would look like in the merged class. As if we had the ability to change the original code itself. It will scare a bunch of people and draw mobs of hecklers, but tough shit, we're in the business of ideas here.

__________________


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

Kobalt

Must be nice being able to say wow fanboi over and over instead of responding intelligently.

24 classes are fucking stupid, being at a disadvantage if you don't have 18 separate classes is insane for a game with raiding. It's even more ridiculous when you realize that theres only a few buffs difference that people want 2 different bards and enchanters. Whats the fucking point of separate classes then?

At least if soe had any sense at all they would just give all the important raid buffs to all the subclasses. But wait who would play coercers and troubs then? Exactly.

Flaming Homo

Jesus you're a fucking moron.

The best argument for merging the classes is the fact that your fellow asshats at SOE fucked up the classes at launch!

hcre

I think it is a flaw with the human design. Most humans want to be the best (well Americans anyways), so when a bunch of hardcore raiders considered the best of their class say that doing your AA’s this way is going to make you the best, most humans will do their AA’s that way, many won’t even look at the others and wonder if there really is better. A few will take in the big picture and decide for themselves what is best, but they will still be heavily skewed by what everyone else in the class considers the best. Further, they may be mocked and ridiculed for not going with the best. Think I am kidding ask any pali that chose to go down the line with all the group buffs how many times they have been called morons. Is that line really that bad? Honestly in some situations I think it would be preferable, but personal DPS would be heavily sacrificed.

Ok, I agree it would make recruiting easier. But it would introduce a whole slew of new nightmares. For example some dirges want to be dirges and that’s that. Ask them to betray to troub and they would rather leave the guild. Not so much because betraying is a pain, but because they are a dirge and they chose dirge because it matches their play style. Make the change you are suggesting and all of a sudden it becomes easier for this dirge to play troub for a raid or two. This looks on the surface like a good thing, but is it? That dirge is now playing outside his style and is not going to be as effective at being a troub as someone who wants to be a troub.

Further, you will actually make it harder for people to make it into an uber raid guild. If you combine dirges and troubs and a guild needs a dirge, someone who likes playing a dirge now has twice the competition for getting that dirge spot in that hardcore raid guild. And worse, half of his competition is more interested in being a troub than a dirge.

How many classes of the same archetype have you played? It is true they are the same for the first 30 levels, almost identical even, this is because of the way classes were first implemented in this game. Up to 50 they are even pretty similar, again due to the way they were originally created. Moving towards 60 you start to notice some fairly heavy differences in most of them that have not already shown the differences. By the time you hit 70 there are numerous differences, and reports smuggled from the beta say that getting to 80 will make the classes even more different than their counterparts.

If they combine the classes I will have two tanks, two crusaders, two predators, and two summoners. I bet there are more than a few others that would also be in my predicament, how fun would it be to know that you now have two of the same toon after spending many hours making two different toons.

Illuminator

And I will have two enchanters. One can continue to behave like an illusionist and the other a coercer, or I can sell one on SE, but either way I will have lost nothing. So be it.

__________________


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