Cuz

I'd keep assassins / rangers, Paladin / SK and Necro / Conj seperate, but merge the other subclasses.

Talonis

Exactly.

The framework of that particular component of a fundamental change already exists. Maintain the current definitions of the 24 classes and allow for specialization through AA's from the old base subclass.

__________________
~.......This site is now FFA against SOE.......Since The Good Way is no longer an option, we now shift our format to The Bad Way.......

........let them know the meaning of dissatisfied customers.........~

-LFG

Shackleton1

I think this is a bad idea.
General points:
- I think it's easier to maintain the present system than to replace it with a better system. If development can't maintain the present system, I have doubts about their ability to implement a better system. I think NGE-esque would, in this case, become NGE-clone. Look at the imbalances in the racial traits. Think about how (relative to the sorts of changes we're talking about) small that project was.

- People have invested that much in their characters that fundamental changes are going to make people very unhappy.

Specific points:
- Class consolidation might be an aesthetic change. Class balance as an aesthetic change would be if you merged classes but left the class options open via new AAs. For example, instead of having ranger and assassin, you'd have predator, but you'd have AAs to make said predator more ranger-ish or assassin-ish. This would not fix anything. You'd still have to itemise for both rangers and assassins, even though the seperate classes do not technically exist, just like you have to itemise for melee shamans at present. So why bother? I have a feeling this is just people wistfully looking back at EQ1 classes with very rose tinted glasses.

- Class consolidation might be a bad change. The fundamentals of class balance rely on an availability and desirability of certain classes. If you merge all the healers and most of the fighters and scouts, but leave paladin, shadowknight, ranger and assassin unmerged then theoretically that will result in a shortage of healers. In practise its a little bit more complicated because of other factors, but in principle its a bad idea to mess with the ratios of tank to healer to dps.

- Revamping spells. Why? How hard is it to get the spell scaling right? And if they can't get the spell scaling right with the present spells, why would they be able to get it right with future spells? In general, the spell concepts for the various classes are okay. What exactly are you going to revamp?

I do support specific tweaking of the existing system, such as:

- limited spell and CA consolidation

- stuff like, off the top of my head, adjusting bow ratios so that melee and ranger crit bonuses can be merged

- merging duel wield and 1 hander weapons, which they recently did

Think about what's gone wrong. Is it really the system? Or is it just rushed expansion + new guy doing itemisation who's not so familiar with the game mechanics

Talonis

On the item of class consolidation, I contend itemization would be easier. Let the class define the equipment and what it can do instead of equipment defining the class. This is the primary roadblock in itemization and gear progression.

I disagree with leaving unmerged classeses. Period. No exceptions. Specialize through AA's.

__________________
~.......This site is now FFA against SOE.......Since The Good Way is no longer an option, we now shift our format to The Bad Way.......

........let them know the meaning of dissatisfied customers.........~

-LFG

Oakmiser

The only problem right now that I can see in this change, is that if you do this that would me the following situation could arise.

A crusader starts in Freeport, he is automatically cutoff from any AA choices that would allow him to be a paladin. This isn't a bad thing really, but it just shows that no matter your class title your choice of home is actually a bigger choice in terms of what AA your allowed to choose.

This gives certain advantages to being a druid, warrior, bard, or sorcerer. Your open to all of your options from the start no matter what city you live in.

In a way this is a good thing for the game, it gives the city you live in a bigger meaning in your game play. Before you could obviously choose good or evil without actually comparing in real time the effects it would have on your class, and seeing the restraints of your alignment. ( Like if your good aligned you would not be allowed to summon the undead as per a tag on the AA line stating that the laws of your current city forbid this. )

Prof

Regaining your abilities through aa's is a bad idea, and the essence of the NGE in SWG. They combined combat medic and doctor, and then gave you enough aa's too full spec one or the other, or gimp yourself in both. Any way you spec though, you are not as combat capable as the original subclass was. There becomes only one optimal aa spec to get the best abilities of both worlds... I'm thinking of the way they did jedi in the NGE on that point. They gave aa's to focus on either light or dark power, but if you want to survive in combat you had to mix half and half. You gave up the cool dark power for the lame but functional light power, removing the uniqueness of what the class once had. Everything feels hollow and all they do there is stack buffs to compensate for their consolidated class shortcomings. Jack of all trades, master of none... there are already classes complaining about that role, and this sort of consolidation would create more of the same.

__________________

Shackleton1

So take the problem with ranged crit vs. melee crit on gear.

Instead of having ranger and assassin, you just have predator.

One predator takes the "ranger" AA line. He need ranged crit. Another takes the "assassin" AA line. He needs melee crit.

Back where you started.

And for those who say the really different classes wouldn't be merged, just the similar ones... what does that solve? Itemisation problems are the product of those differences. Swashbuckler and brigand don't really have problems with items being itemised for a brigand and not for a swashbuckler. If you're presently having to itemise for bards, rogues, assassins and ranger; then you merge the two bards and the two rogues; you still have to itemise for bards, rogues, assassins and rangers.

Talonis

I think the introduction of alternate [neutral?] cities eliminates the restrictions.

That is just a function of how many AA's are available. Yeah, it's that simple.

You're still thinking small, no offense. Ok, for your case, combat enhancement stats could be slightly more universal. Why couldn't that be just +crit and applied to the weapon in use? Allow for specialized bonuses through AA? or whatever. These are the smaller details that have solutions, but aren't large enough in of themselves to condemn the entire idea.

__________________
~.......This site is now FFA against SOE.......Since The Good Way is no longer an option, we now shift our format to The Bad Way.......

........let them know the meaning of dissatisfied customers.........~

-LFG

Osime

Plain and simple no matter how you slice it... if you do something as drastic as the NGE to this game (many of us having bolted due to that debacle) you will end up with the same results in the long run. It will kill the game and we will sit here ruing the day that NGEQ2 (tm) went live and wondering when EQ2010 (tm) finally goes into open Beta.

Are there things I'd like to see changed, sure do I want to see them F this game up beyond belief for an NGEQ2 (tm) type of "FIX" not even in the slightest.

And as a follow up (thus the edit) as a Monk I'm feeling the laziness of the Loot DB distro in ROK, how many fucking belts can I actually wear? otherwise I have yet to see anything that's worth dropping my T7 gear for so far. (almost 73 so to be fair haven't seen much but rings/belts and braclets in KP has been it for me) Lots of healer gear and chain though.

Shackleton1

I see what you're saying with the think bigger thing. I think, however, in thinking bigger what you're actually doing is attaching good improvements to class consolidation when those improvements are unrelated to class consolidation. For example:

"Why couldn't that be just +crit and applied to the weapon in use? Allow for specialized bonuses through AA? or whatever."

Applying +crit to the weapon in use is pretty much identical to merging melee and ranged crit. So what you're saying is you merge melee and ranged crit, and have bows and weapons be pretty much same ratio so crit affects them the same, and have the things which define which weapon you use be what you choose in your AA tree.

(Which seems pretty sensible to me)

Breakdown of this paragraph:

Applying +crit to the weapon in use is pretty much identical to merging melee and ranged crit. So what you're saying is you merge melee and ranged crit, and have bows and weapons be pretty much same ratio so crit affects them the same, <--- tweaking game mechanics

and have the things which define which weapon you use be what you choose in your AA tree. <--- class conslidation

So, you see, class consolidation doesn't actually solve anything. Tweaking game mechanics, yes. Class consolidation, no.

In fact, you can do the same thing without class consolidation thus:

Applying +crit to the weapon in use is pretty much identical to merging melee and ranged crit. So what you're saying is you merge melee and ranged crit, and have bows and weapons be pretty much same ratio so crit affects them the same, and have the things which define which weapon you use be what you spells, AAs and enhancements are granted by your class.

You can also take this paragraph and do the class conslidation bit without the mechanics tweaking thus:

Have the things which define which weapon you use be what you choose in your AA tree.

And all that would do is shift the problem from "class" to "AA". It doesn't really solve anything.