Crabbok

I agree with this post. This is for SOME consolidation, but not all. I for one play a bruiser, and would like the idea of consolidating into a brawler. Maybe I"d get tsunami, plus higher bruiser mitigation and be able to actually tank if I wanted too, rather than each of the subclasses having 1 good tanking ability. Maybe monks coudl get the Knockout Combination, and higher CA damage and be able to DPS much higher if they wanted too.

Some consolidation, and ALOT more AA paths. AA's ftw

__________________

aduros

RoK was not a finished product, and was very much rushed out the gate. Ask anyone else who beta tested, and they will tell you the same thing. Why do you think it took so long for the NDA to be lifted? Hint: It's not because they were trying to surprise everyone with a truly polished expansion. Wether they were running on limited resources or not is debatable, since we'll never truly know, and I doubt they would tell us.

For the most part the dev team is pretty talented, and had been moving EQ2 in the right direction. I doubt this is the best they could have done, something/someone was holding them back. I'm not gonna argue anymore how it's incomplete since you've posted excuses (I know you can't really believe those) for everything, and you're just grabbing for straws at this point, not to mention its just derailing the thread.

__________________

Catseyes

I can understand someone that ask for some changes, even heavy, hoping to a better game, but i cannot understand someone who only compare then to another game.

Some creation for god sake. If you propose changes, dont propose to look at same than another one. Stay in the spirit of the game, in his lore and try to go this way further.

Something wonderful is the choice we have. You want to go back to 5 choices max each side ? and same with races/classes ? like WoW ? No way, it's EQ2, it's freedom of your choices, it's not a dictate.

Merge classes ? when i see someone wondering about inquies, i wonder if he even knows what is an inqui. It's because of ppl not knowing shit about the classes you end with ideas like that.

Good idea to refresh the game with a large change, but very stupid to dumb down it to WoW style. We are on EQ2 for something, else we would play on another game.

__________________
Shadeyes, 80 fae assassin
Fable , Splitpaw
Ymrir, 80 barb inquie ,Lunar Dawn, Befallen

Edwin Ahe

So? There will be no difference in terms of combat mechanics, only that some classes will simply die (because nobody will ever spec that way, everybody will spec cookie-cutter spec and forget about AAs forever.). Only difference I see here is that it will be easier for hard-core raiders to find new players.

QFT

Catseyes

yeah , many of the whines are about the desirability in raids.
I can understand that also (play an inquie aka meh MT heal)

But the problem is not as simple. It's both encounters design, and classes design who doesnt match.

for example, inquie and templar should each bring something important, and lack to another thing. But, each choice shouldnt decide on the result of the raid. Class spot in a raid should be only a strat one, one way to win, not the only one to win.

Actually, there is a need-for-win aspect, that impose to raid leaders what they have to choose and what not.

__________________
Shadeyes, 80 fae assassin
Fable , Splitpaw
Ymrir, 80 barb inquie ,Lunar Dawn, Befallen

Luceus

What do you mean scale of RoK? Aside how insanely massive the 4 overland zones are (which hasn't been really impressive so far, just tile the same texture over and over and call it a zone), what has blown you away by this expansion?

I've yet to encounter anything that seems new and well thought out. It's more of the same, and in many cases that's a good thing, but in some cases it's a bad thing... especially when you can't even ship a completed 'more of the same' project when you have a year to work on it.

__________________
Ocabs
Travian - servers 3 & 4
Pretty fun browser game, look me up!

Deludar

By allowing many AA paths, but keeping them restrictive. Take the brigand/swashy. These would be one class..the rogue. And items would be designed in a similar fashion for both "specs". It order to force diversity you have a limit on AAs. For example: The end ability of AA_Line_1 is dispatch. The end ability of AA_Line_3 is Traumatic swipe. Going down AA_Line_1 effectively locks you out of Line 3. Each of those lines add some sort of diveristy WHILE building down the the final ability. Each raid force is going to want 2 rogues at least, one with each ability.

__________________

Deludar

What class would die? You would still have people going defensive and offense for druids and clerics. There would still be mages going for AE dps and some going for single target. Encounters would need to require it. You obviously didn't read my post thoroughly enough if you think that a solution like this would lead to cookie cutter AAs, cause if anything it would prevent that and force people to go different specs based on their role in a raid. But allow them to change if their role needs to change.

__________________

kyros

of course, i don't expect to see these changes actually happen.
but let's say for the moment we are going to merge classes.
your ideas are good, but i feel that they're still a little too hung up on the current class system to experience the freedom that you hope to gain from changing the system.

first things first, i'd propose the following merges.

cleric - templar + inquisitor
shaman - mystic + defiler
druid - fury + warden

warrior - guardian, berserker
crusader - paladin, shadow knight
monk - monk, bruiser

summoner - necromancer, conjuror
wizard - wizard, warlock
enchanter - coercer, illusionist

bard - troubadour, dirge
rogue - assassin, brigand, swashbuckler
ranger - ranger

names are debatable, and you can stack the classes up different ways and create some interesting combinations for new class ideas, but these mergers stick with the general eq2 formula. assassin goes into rogue because assassins are very similar to rogues, and wouldn't really be different enough to justify having their own class in this system. also, paladins and shadow knights, while obviously having different mindsets, are still essentially the same thing, so they get put together.

ok, so how do you keep from losing the identity and strengths of the paly / SK and still merge them? well, you don't have to create a tree that locks you out of your other choices once you start down one... but, you do need to make a tree that weights the most important and powerful skills near the end. so since that might be one of the more controversial merges, let me see if i can go into some detail about how the tree might be set up.

first it doesn't need to be only a two-branch tree. since the roles of sk and paladin have some overlap, you merely need to break the tree into what role the character is going to specialize in. let's say you give them three trees: tanking, support, affliction. tanking tree obviously would work for either a paladin or shadow knight. this would have defensive skills, aggro skills, and some damage boosters. then, your support tree would deal in buffs and heals. this would be the path that would make you closer to the current paladin. finally, the affliction tree would enhance lifetap and other affliction abilities. obviously, there could be more options, but these would be expansive trees that would require a lot of points to make worthwhile, so the concept of a partial spec across all 3 for "min/max" is pretty much not going to happen. you end up watering down your character and having no true strengths. now you might say "well, then you could have affliction crusaders in qeynos and that would be like having an evil character there." in some ways, yes, that's true. but warlocks have been using poison and disease in the name of good in qeynos since launch, so making it viable for other classes really isn't going to hurt anyone any MORE than they're already hurt if their eyes have been open.

tree locking is kind of a silly idea. while i can see where you're coming from in wanting to prevent people from getting the uber cross-spec for dps, you should realize that if the trees are set up properly, that each will have its merits and raids will need all types of specialized players to be at their best. while currently, the most important thing is to simply maximize dps. in this system, you would need a buff/heal spec'd cleric for your mt group with your aggro/defense spec'd warrior. thus, instead of loss of definition and role, classes actually find themselves more specialized and better defined. your mt healers aren't dps spec'd because they had extra AA points due to the lack of viable buff/healing spec's. your tank actually has tanking spec's that effect his ability to hold aggro and take a hit.

do i think you should be able to use a bit of more than one tree? if you want to, sure. but it shouldn't be possible to get the best of both. that's what's important.

Caswydian

At that point, it simply becomes another way of expressing a class. Instead of earning levels, you earn AA points, which you then spend on one of a couple of AA lines. In the end, however, the result is the same.