A Large-Scale Fundamental Change to EQ2 - Page 16

Deludar · 12-04-2007, 01:39 PM

I didn't mean try locking in the sense the tree actually gets locked, but that it is impossible to get ability_x if you are going to get ability_y.

As for SK/pally...they need to be seperate classes totally, if for nothing else then a roleplay standpoint. Same with Necro and Conj.

Talonis · 12-04-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

There ya go! Somebody that gets it. Imagine that, a player that was once a dime-a-dozen class is now a respec away rom being whatever the raid force needs. Sounds like a great way to open up content to those that may have made an unlucky choice at the character creation screen.

Class consolidation is only one aspect of the overall change though. It's good however, to see some folks recognize the positive potential of change rather than embrace the afraid, glass-half-empty crowd.

kyros · 12-04-2007, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deludar

I didn't mean try locking in the sense the tree actually gets locked, but that it is impossible to get ability_x if you are going to get ability_y.

As for SK/pally...they need to be seperate classes totally, if for nothing else then a roleplay standpoint. Same with Necro and Conj.

fair enough.

and i think we're kind of beyond the original concept of good vs. evil.
1. we've always been able to cross-faction group. (except on pvp, which is newer anyway)
2. aside from aggro guards, there's no real conflict.
3. in the swords of destiny questline, even "good" players worked for the overlord.

we're far beyond any hope of a "good" v "evil" battle. the storyline is too distorted at this point. might as well knock that classification off and just call it a freeport v qeynos struggle for power or something... with neriak allying (and the sarnak city?) allying with freeport and kelethin allying with qeynos.

Edwin Ahe · 12-04-2007, 01:48 PM

What I don`t understand: Why are you still here playing if this game is so fucked up in your opinion? Maybe it is time to move on?

Cuz · 12-04-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caswydian

Do you seriously believe this? The scale of RoK is beyond anything SOE has thus far attempted, and while some things remain to be added or could be improved upon, to claim this is an incomplete expansion due to lack of resources is laughably ignorant.

Really? All I see is more dialog, and they apparently learned how to occlude properly. Less new spells per class, no new AAs really, no combat change à la LU13. So maybe the writter had to come up with more reasons to go kill 'x' number of mob 'y' than usual, and that the level designers / artists learned how resource streaming can be handled better, I can't really see how the "scale is beyond anything SOE has blablabla".

To me RoK is a poor man's DoF. And DoF was the worst expansion to date.

kyros · 12-04-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin Ahe

What I don`t understand: Why are you still here playing if this game is so fucked up in your opinion? Maybe it is time to move on?

only thing that brought me back is the player community.
but i guess you're right.

Deludar · 12-04-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin Ahe

What I don`t understand: Why are you still here playing if this game is so fucked up in your opinion? Maybe it is time to move on?

Just because people think the game can be changed to make it better doesnt mean they don't currently enjoy it. The fact is, if I thought the game was that horrible I wouldn't play it. Since I do enjoy the game I would rather see it get better then quit.

Caswydian · 12-04-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

A fighter would have no reason to use any tree other than the defensive one, since their entire role in a group or raid is to hold agro while staying alive. Unless a DPS specced fighter is capable of doing damage on par with a DPS-specced DPS class, that tree is functionally useless. Of course, if a fighter and DPS class can both do comprable DPS when specced for DPS, then you might as well get rid of that class distinction entirely. So, I see this sort of a system either moving towards an entirely classless approach, which is fine, or towards creating 'mandatory' trees, thus removing any real distinction between members of the same class, and leaving us in the same place we are now.

Ravanos · 12-04-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illuminator

Funny, I keep hearing that the wider rollout of the unbalanced Jedi class is what actually killed SWG. But I didn't play the game so I have to rely on what I'm told. I'm not being lied to, am I?

lol yeah pretty much you were lied too. not only were you lied to but the people that have told you that are pretty much idiots. I mean sure people complained about balance, people complained about Jedi's but you have that in any game. heck you could make 3 classes and just call them simply "DPS" .. "Healer" and "Tank" and people will complain about them. you will also probably have some fucktard talk about consolidating them as well.

at the time before the NGE the SWG population was pretty stable, sure people left but others joined/rejoined. if i remember the numbers correctly after the NGE was implemented the subscriber base went from around 250k to 50k (go look up the numbers yourself).

like ive said before I don't see the point even with some of the "proposals" of the new consolidated classes. All i see is "your a rogue but if you want to be a swashy you go down this AA Line, if you want to be a brigand, you go down the other". So basically were going to waste developement time to implement a system of AAs that will bring us pretty much back to where we are now.

Yes there are some "red headed step child" classes out there I don't see why we can't just revamp them. heck revamp many of the classes that need help.

I think if you want to help classes on raids you need to revamp raids do off the wall things like tacticians armor (resistant to fighter taunts). maybe make a raid that has a lot of "rust monsters" that if you fight it with a plate tank, it ignores thier plate and hits them as if they don't have any armor ... making monks/bruisers the preferred tank for that raid.

I don't see this game as dying, i don't see RoK as a bad expansion. Heck i haven't seen my server this full in years. this will probably slow down sure as the "newness" wears off but for every 5 people that came back or are playing for the first time ... if you just get 1 person to stay Kunark wins.

Deludar · 12-04-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caswydian

A fighter would have no reason to use any tree other than the defensive one, since their entire role in a group or raid is to hold agro while staying alive. Unless a DPS specced fighter is capable of doing damage on par with a DPS-specced DPS class, that tree is functionally useless. Of course, if a fighter and DPS class can both do comprable DPS when specced for DPS, then you might as well get rid of that class distinction entirely. So, I see this sort of a system either moving towards an entirely classless approach, which is fine, or towards creating 'mandatory' trees, thus removing any real distinction between members of the same class, and leaving us in the same place we are now.

Very Very untrue. For instance, an off tank. Our off tank can hold adds perfectly fine with an offensive set up. He doesnt need a defensive one. This allows him to parse decently while filling in a tanking roll. DM is nice for his groups DPS. Despoil is a big mit debuff on the mob. So saying all tank needs to go defensive specced is dumb.

Plus, you can add unique abilities to the other fights that make them a big benefit in certain encounters. For instance, Monk's recently got Peel and their haste buff made raid wide....So you take a monk on your raids cause you want Peel and the raidwide casting speed....but obviously you dont want him to be tanking all the time, so an offensive spec is what they need to do.