Flipmode

Sorry Bro. Having Played on your server for awhile, I disagree. As much as you think you bring to the table, the fact is a well played Illusionist will out DPS you and bring better buffs. That was his point. And incase you dont remember, I do have them both. I know what I am talking about. Its people like you that think Coercers are fine that keep the class from being fixed. It does need some love in the reactive DPS and buff department. That would go a long way in helping the raid problems.

Should they make both classes one? I dont think so but then again it feels like we have 85% of the same spells now.

Deson

Thanks. And the reason it feels like you have 85% the same spells is because you effectively do. In a lot of cases, the subclass spells are almost exactly the same minus one being DD and the other being a dot or some other relatively minor difference concocted to keep all 24 classes post LU-13. It wasn't even until EoF that they even seemed to have a firm idea where they wanted some classes to go- fury/warden is a good proof for that.

From launch until now just about every complaint about the game can be traced to a crap core design decision. Most of those have at least been addressed giving us an overall better game. As I said though, itemization woes and lackluster classes stem from having to divide a limited pie too many ways. For the scope of the game it's just prohibitively difficult to support all 24 subclasses and keep them feeling useful and "special".

While there is a citing of potential mass exodus, there is also slow bleed occurring right now.A large number of players are already effectively whittling down classes from zerkers swapping to guards, bruisers to monks, coercers to illusionists,etc. There is also the issue of uneven class gain every expansion making it really hard to attach yourself to your char because next expansion you don't know if you are going to get relatively boned or not or if your class will fundamentally change; how many caster wardens loved their EoF AP? Why have separate classes that do essentially the exact same job but one is clearly better than the other on balance? Would I like a better solution than class reduction? Yes. Is there a better one? Show me. Saying fix itemization doesn't remove the time it takes to make items or the manpower needed to implement and test gear. Saying fix spells may help but it doesn't fix the lack of room for expansion.How many more templar wards are coming? Would shammy's even care if they had more room to grow into?

Right now the choices look to me like trying to keep your head above water vs. getting to shore. Treading water may keep you afloat but it doesn't get you out of the water. They addressed almost every other crap core design decision, this one needs another pass.

__________________

Firesys

there are a few issues with spells, and Im goig to avoid the coercer being useless arguement for a more appropriate forum (NUB).

As for class design, I feel like its not HORRID and definately fixable. The idea's floating around as to how to fix them seem a little to extreme. Im at a loss for definite answers,but class consolidation is definately NOT one of them. itemization seems the most realistic.

I look at it this way, SoE is lazy. But they are aiming to keep what they have left of a customer base. So making items would for sure be the most cost effective way to do things. changing classes so they play nothing like they did prior would for SURE demolish what few subscribers SoE has left.

__________________

Wormy

I agree, the class design isn’t horrid, it’s the implementation. There are plenty of ways to make the subclasses distinct, but really, the evil/good split on 2/3rds of them means that they don’t NEED to make them very different; the alignment split allows them to simply use flavor changes to give the subclass a feel of being different. Sure, the number crunchers are doing to know that the subclasses are basically clones, but why is that a problem?

And, of course, the answer to the above is the reason people are asking for consolidation. Why have two subclasses that are basically the same? To that I ask, why not? Does it really create more work for the devs? If so, then that is the problem, not the fact that two subclasses exist. The major change needed to solve the subclass duplication issue should be a solution which is transparent to the players. Are there design roadblocks that make it easier to create content for 12 classes than for 24 classes? If so, then that is the large-scale fundamental BACKEND change that needs to be implemented! Change the blackend tools so creating content for 24 classes is about as easy as creating content for 12.

Illuminator

Itemization is absolutely the least realistic answer. Especially when the RNG is not on your side.

__________________


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

Firesys

Give me an example. or another alternative.

__________________

Illuminator

It becomes clear after much thought that most of these classes aren't faring as poorly as we think, as long as we realize that (a) only raiders really complain, and (b) they only notice because raid encounters aren't correctly scaled up from heroic encounters in any similar dimension to the way a raid size is scaled up from a group size. There's a right way to do raiding and EQ2 ain't it.

For example, people say resist debuffs are worthless to pursue beyond what you already have. That's because the monolithic raid mob isn't given 4 times the resist amounts to compensate for the number of players. And rather than 4 times the crowd control in a raid compared to a heroic encounter, there's borderline jack shit.

And because you're dealing with 1 gigantic mob almost all the time instead of several lesser mobs acting in concert, group oriented classes like SK's and zerkers and warlocks and chanters fumble around until the egg timer goes off and it's time for the patronizing heroic adds. Time to make the donuts. Where's the dignity in that? That's why you have the ludicrous situation of enchanters discussing dps instead of crowd control strategies. Because you're against one ga ga named at a time, one crowd control spell will control 100% of the encounter if it lands, so the devs come up with all kinds of immunity bullshit to keep you at bay.

To hell with all of that.

__________________


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

Deson

You know, if they really were just clones with all the exact same spells minus a flavor spell here or there I would just accept that and let it go( and I did when it was that way). Problem is they aren't though and post EoF it's pretty clear they want 24 distinct subclasses. Based on both itemization and lackluster spells, it's seems to me they are also tapped on how to accomplish this without virtually obsoleting other subclasses. Their problem doesn't seem backend at all, it seems to lie in fatally flawed intent.

They either want 24 distinct subclasses or they want clones. If the former they need to do a lot more work everywhere from base mechanics to itemization. If the latter then they need to stop pushing the subclasses to be radically divergent from their class partners( most seen with priests).

To me the problems are as bad as laid out;the catch is that non-raiders don't smash into them because the non-raid content doesn't really demand anything from players. Even if you are the "lesser" class in a role, you can still perform well enough that no one cares. EQ2 broke EQ1's rigid class building but, was the cost that people in general just don't care about where they stand? I welcomed the deaths of the the "holy trinity", the Warrior vs SK/Pally, and Cleric vs Druid/Shammy battles but did we lose too much?

__________________

Wormy

Deson, I agree with your post. They're doing a poor job of giving the alignment split classes identical roles. That could be handled during the spell consolidation that has been talked about. I doubt they'll do it correctly, but they have a better chance of getting it right than they have of class consolidation, and it's likely to piss off less of the playerbase.

In the end, I'm really only concerned about the playerbase.

Illuminator is also dead on the nose in his post. A reworking of raid mobs would be a positive for the game... I just fear the devs may have lost the ability to see what Illuminator is talking about. Or maybe lost isn't the right word; did they ever have it?

Deson

Given SOE's track record, they have an equal chance of royally fubaring whatever they choose; may as well go for the gusto. The game is incredibly well balanced and defined once you drop some classes. I've been looking at classes and how to preserve playstyles and I can really say that the class system completely hides just how good this team is. The need to stretch and contrive to accommodate so much just diminishes all the really good class work they have in place.

As for the spell consolidation, it had promise but was poorly announced and from what little blurbs we've seen, ill-conceived.Beyond that, they still have to clearly answer the fundamental question of where they want to go with classes. If 3 priests are to be melee now, why are they boned with having to be casters most of their careers then swapping to melee? The AP makes it pretty clear where SOE wants them to go so why don't those classes just get redone?Why should your counterpart get to improve on the role they've been playing since creation while you have to regear ( with the crap itemization) and completely change your playstyle if you want to make the most of your given options?

Illuminator may have a point but I don't raid so I can't speak to it. What I can ask though is just how much scaling can really be done. Since so many classes perform the same roles but some bring more to the table, how would the raid redesign affect those classes already outshined without resorting to gimmicks?

__________________