A Large-Scale Fundamental Change to EQ2 - Page 23

sig1043 · 12-07-2007, 12:57 PM

A large overhaul of the game is generally means you have more dissatisfied players than content players, which I don't think is the case. And anyway, rehauls generally don't bring in new players. I agree that the game should change based on player feedback, but gradual changes are 100x better than a rehaul that pretty much reverts the game back to beta with all the bugs and glitches to go with it.

As for class consolidation, I'd be willing to bet it would cause more problems than it "fixes" and would piss off more people than it would make happy. As far as I can tell about the only thing it would "fix" is some peoples' opinion that there are too many classes. Also, everyone seems to have a different idea of how the classes should be consolidated and the benefits thereof.

If you consolidate and choose the subclasses through AA lines...why bother consolidating, you've only added an unnecessary step. It also make the game generic...Oh you need a brig not a swash? Gimme 2 seconds to change clothes...err classes.

If you consolidate and let people pick and choose skills and bonuses of the subclasses, you end up with optimal builds and leave open the possibility of noob/uninformed players gimping their character (unless you plan on letting them have unlimited respecification of thier AAs, which would be stupid and generic). You've also created an issue with good vs evil skills and classes. You've made spell choosing more complex and despite some people saying it would save them 100's of plat in masters...how?! You'd still have the same number of spells/skills to deal with.

If you consolidate and make 12 or 15 new distict classes that are a combination of the similar subclasses, you've got a whole new game and all the new game bugs, glitches, and balancing issues to go with it. Not to mention you'd need basically 12 to 15 new spell lines to tweak, combine, and balance. What are you going to do with players' existing masters and adepts?

How any class consolidation would solve itemization or make the game more character focused (in a good way) is beyond me. Probably 90% of the items are already designed to be used by archetype or genre. Sure its about impossible to design class specific for 24 classes for everyone who plays the game, but SOE doesn't need to do that because almost any casual player can give 2 shits if an item was designed specifically for thier class or if it was designed for a scout or rogue. So they only need to focus on the raiding population to design for each endgame class, which is alot more manageable peice of pie.

Cuz · 12-07-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caswydian

I'd say that RoK was easily 90%+ complete - there's only a few things that didn't make it in, like epic weapons. The majority of the issues people have with the expansion is not with the completeness or lack there of, but with design philosophy concerning itemization and solo vs. heroic content. Now, these areas may need to be adjusted, but it is not accurate to say the expansion is incomplete because you disagree with their itemization approach.

01- Big zones
02- Different looking mobs
03- Increase mob auto attack DPS
04- Make caster mobs not charge the player thus making the auto attack boost useless on them.
05- 1 new spell per character. (Lowest increase in an expansion yet)
06- Quests.
07- More quests.
08- Pet dragon griffon thing.
09- Change the tint on the griffins.
10- Epic weapons.

Yeah I guess that's 10%. Too bad the other 90% is rather bland.

Luceus · 12-07-2007, 06:05 PM

Ohh, don't forget Raid progression! Although the way they did it, they should have called it 'Linear Raiding'.

Gunthore · 12-09-2007, 06:28 AM

I feel that changes are needed in this game, that's just me though. Major changes, I don't know. I don't think a LU13 style revamp is in order, but they could progressively make it better with small changes in the game updates and with the expansions slowly but surely warp the game to where it should be. In an expansion or two we could be playing a much different (read better) game.

Naar · 12-10-2007, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caswydian

I'd say that RoK was easily 90%+ complete - there's only a few things that didn't make it in, like epic weapons. The majority of the issues people have with the expansion is not with the completeness or lack there of, but with design philosophy concerning itemization and solo vs. heroic content. Now, these areas may need to be adjusted, but it is not accurate to say the expansion is incomplete because you disagree with their itemization approach.

Itemization approach? They have already admitted that many treasured items were populated with stats pulled from the legendary tables, in addition many quests are bugged and don't offer you the reward that matches your class (lots of reports from people who duo that they get offered each others reward, not helpful when the reward is no-trade).

This isn't an 'itemization approach' it's a buggy release.

Caswydian · 12-10-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naar

Itemization approach? They have already admitted that many treasured items were populated with stats pulled from the legendary tables, in addition many quests are bugged and don't offer you the reward that matches your class (lots of reports from people who duo that they get offered each others reward, not helpful when the reward is no-trade).

This isn't an 'itemization approach' it's a buggy release.

A bug is a flaw with the code - if an quest is supposed to offer rewards X, Y and Z, but only rewards X and Y show up, that's a bug. If the quest only offers rewards X and Y, and both show up, but people think there should be more rewards for different classes, that's a design decision that needs to be changed.

Overpowered procs - did the dev specifically say they were pulling them from the wrong DB table, or are you reading that into what the devs said?

Flipmode · 12-10-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caswydian

A bug is a flaw with the code - if an quest is supposed to offer rewards X, Y and Z, but only rewards X and Y show up, that's a bug. If the quest only offers rewards X and Y, and both show up, but people think there should be more rewards for different classes, that's a design decision that needs to be changed.

Overpowered procs - did the dev specifically say they were pulling them from the wrong DB table, or are you reading that into what the devs said?

Sony must pay you. Seriously. Do they ever make mistakes in your little world? You are constantly on these forums and the official ones being the ultimate sony fanboy and even defending boneheaded decisions these guys make.

Now I am not for or against class mergers and havent given my opinion on this topic but I cant help but notice you seem very eager to rush to SOE's defense on EVERYTHING. Seriously, put the kool-aid down. They do fuck up and they have fucked up on a lot of things even if you cant see it.

Caswydian · 12-10-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flipmode

Sony must pay you. Seriously. Do they ever make mistakes in your little world? You are constantly on these forums and the official ones being the ultimate sony fanboy and even defending boneheaded decisions these guys make.

Now I am not for or against class mergers and havent given my opinion on this topic but I cant help but notice you seem very eager to rush to SOE's defense on EVERYTHING. Seriously, put the kool-aid down. They do fuck up and they have fucked up on a lot of things even if you cant see it.

I am simply trying to separate fact from opinion, so one can make accurate criticism. Calling a choice about itemization methods a bug is simply incorrect, it is not a bug, it is a design mistake.

Cuz · 12-10-2007, 10:43 AM

He's just trying to seperate your mouth from sony's cocks.

Flipmode · 12-10-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuz

He's just trying to seperate your mouth from sony's cocks.

Accurate summary.