Quote:
Originally Posted by gnomishfirework
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
@Zuranthium
A CH rotation is not the same as a WoW class skill rotation. It's ok to admit you confused a point.
|
I'm not confusing a point, as my point was the lack of skill involved. Both are bad game mechanics and are the result of the same problem - the respective games being setup in such a way that following mindless directives is what will make you most successful in combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnomishfirework
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Also, your class suggestions would make the game not EQ. Ability overlap is not an issue in EQ. Classes have defined roles even with overlap. By limiting abilities in such a way, you make groups even more restrictive.
|
Adding any new class to the game would make the game "not EQ" in the strictest sense, but that's not the point of the thread. My class changes would be very much in the spirit of EQ, of the RPG/D&D feel you would expect these classes to have, and in many cases how these classes were actually envisioned to be played. The
Rogue in current EQ is far less interesting than it really should be, for example, and is essentially just an "attack from behind" damage bot that also has a Sneak ability. There are other avenues of gameplay the Rogue should be excelling at.
Ability overlap is certainly an issue if you want classes to be more unique and offer very different playstyles. In addition, the overlap reduces abilities that are supposed to make a class attractive into things that don't differentiate them and are more often uselessly repetitive. Exactly what does a Ranger bring to the table when a group is looking for a 5th/6th, in current EQ, when the group already has snare/root taken care of? The Ranger is completely inferior to adding a Warrior, Monk, or Rogue to the group because all that a Ranger has is inferior melee abilities + ghetto Druid spells. Since so many classes have those specific movement-control abilities the Ranger gets (the only truly remarkable abilities out of a Ghetto spellset which is supposed to make up for their inferior physical combat abilities), the likelihood of those contributions from the Ranger being attractive to a group is decreased and thus the Ranger is currently one of the unfavored classes in the game.
That of course is not the only reason why Rangers suck right now, but even when all of the other problems with Rangers eventually get fixed (giving them a way to reduce aggro so they don't draw it away from Tanks who are usually doing more damage to begin with + increasing the damage they do so that it's more competitive + removing the huge exp penalty) -- these problems currently slot Rangers as perhaps the overall worst class in the game -- they essentially become just another melee DPS class who happens to be able to snare/root if isn't already taken care of and if it is even applicable (the resists that monsters have in Velious become even more ridiculous, making Root very bad). In effect, they will no longer completely suck, but they will still be inferior to adding a Monk or Rogue to the party and they won't have much of a unique playstyle.
Limiting abilities in the way I have proposed with my class changes doesn't make groups more restrictive at all. Less classes would have certain abilities but there would be so many different ways of approaching battles that it wouldn't matter. In EQ at the higher levels right now it's required that you have a Cleric, plain and simple. It's also required that you have a traditional Tank. And then on top of that you generally need an Enchanter. With the way I would restructure the classes, you would instead have 3 different "Priest" classes who would be able to provide sufficient healing for most of the game (Clerics would only be required for a select amount of content) and you often wouldn't
need a traditional tank. You sometimes wouldn't even
need any of the "Priest" classes at all for your group to function. A group would sometimes be able to get by on blowing things up quickly and using various crowd/movement control abilities to prevent most damage and then just needing a bit of downtime healing from a class that can provide such a thing.
Magic damage and resists and monster HP are so terribly skewed during the later levels of EQ that the ONLY viable way to play the game becomes having a traditional tank soak up the damage while a Cleric complete-heals and other melee classes pump out DPS, boosted by an Enchanter who creates a massive DPS increase via
Haste on those melee, gives the Cleric added mana regen, and provides what is sometimes the only reliable source of Crowd Control in the game. You can't make the game much more restrictive than it already is, which is specifically needing a Tank + Cleric + Enchanter + at least one other melee DPS. Therefore, I find your assertion nonsensical both because of the current state of the game and how my suggestions very clearly outlined that there would be many different tactical avenues present in the game and classes would be approximately equal in value, all while
increasing the amount of flavor and uniqueness the classes have
and increasing the amount of individual player choice with regards to the class they are playing.