If you could make a new class for p99

[Aadill]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Warrior - Guild Wars

Paladin - Guild Wars

Shadowknight - Guild Wars

Brawler (formerly Monk) - EQ2

Rogue - EQ1 once poisons work

Ranger - Guild Wars

Bard - Basically late game EQ1

Cleric - Guild Wars

Shaman - WoW

Druid - Anarchy Online

Wizard - Anarchy Online

Summoner (formerly Magician) - ???

Enchanter - ???

Necromancer - Guild Wars

Elementalist - Guild Wars

I can see elements of every one of these characters that have made it into other games, and those are the only ones I've played. Some of them bear actual interest, but some of them seem overly complex, as was stated by others.

[Zuranthium]

Interesting correlations you drew, Aadill. There are certainly elements present from other games (with Warrior, Cleric, Ranger, and maybe Shadowknight being the most direct replicas from another game, Guild Wars) but I don't see anything wrong with drawing from good game mechanics either. Warriors, Clerics, and Rangers in Guild Wars are the most dynamic I have ever seen those classes in a game and there is little need to change them too much because they represent exciting, skillful gameplay at is best (not talking about PvE Guild Wars, which needed a lot of work, but rather what they represented from PvP).

Paladin isn't really comparable to anything in Guild Wars. Yes, that game has a multi-class system where you can go primary Warrior and secondary Cleric (they are actually called monks in that game), but it doesn't result in my vision of the class. There is no such thing as a Stun in Guild Wars and grafting the secondary healing/protection abilities onto a Warrior wasn't ever something that was very good, at least in spectrum I imagine with an actual Paladin (nor did it result in a class that was especially great against undead).

Elementalist only draws slightly from Guild Wars. It takes a few of the ideas from the ability lines but it also has similarities to the Geomancer in Final Fantasy Tactics and additionally takes inspiration from Avatar: The Last Airbender (not a game, but a great fantasy series). It's most definitely my own vision of a class, filtered through some outside influences in addition to my ideas, in an attempt to try and create something unique and flavorful (both in terms of the RPG aspect and how it operates in combat). Elementalists in Guild Wars are squishy casters and don't at all draw from the elements around them to influence what they can do (plus their "Water Magic" is almost exclusively Ice rather than actual liquid water). My vision of the Elementalist is something that would be physically more sturdy and have melee capability, constantly switching between melee attacking and distanced attacking depending on the situation at any given moment in time, as well as combining abilities in different ways at any given moment in time, and it would exist outside of the standard "magic" system.

I have not played Anarchy Online or even really looked at it, so I can't comment on if my Druid and Wizard are close similarities to anything in those games. I do know, however, that my Druid and Wizard draw pretty much entirely from abilities those classes already have in EQ, expanding/improving certain abilities and cutting out others, to create much more meaningful and relevant classes.

The thing I disagree with you most about is how you labelled my Rogue class. "EQ1 Rogues once poisons work" is a far, far cry from what the Rogue I propose would be. EQ Rogues with better poison are still just attack-from-behind DPS bots who have the ability to Sneak. There is not much dynamic gameplay to speak of. The Rogue that I envision would be more in line with a D&D Rogue and also much more in line with how the original EQ Rogue was envisioned. Giving Rogues exclusive access to Feign Death out of all the non-caster classes (and it's of course a better Feign Death than Necromancers get because of no cast time and a faster recharge time) is already big departure in and of itself. Making the Rogue's ability to sneak more useful, in addition to giving them relevant and useful abilities in the realm of theft/lock picking/trap disarming/climbing/safe fall, further differentiates the character from what it is now. The sustained DPS a Rogue could do would decrease dramatically, but that's a fair tradeoff for all of the other unique abilities and, more importantly, also much more in line with what a Rogue is actually supposed to be in most any robust fantasy envisioning of such a character.

[Hasbinbad]

Zuranthium, World of Warcraft is that way: ----->

[Stormhowl]

Zuranthium, World of Warcraft is that way: ----->

I feel the need to go off on a tangent on MMO design, or at least, an aspect of it that bothers me and is prevelent in every MMO since WoW came out (because every MMO since WoW has been a friggin' WoW clone):

People get way too bogged down on creating unique abilities for each class. Stances, Auras, knock downs, knock ups, stuns, CCs, heals, whether they are focused on DoTs or DDs, AoEs, etc... it's just getting way too cluttered. WoW, for instance, has gotten to the point where every class has TOO many abilities, so many you can barely fit them all on the screen at any one time, when you only use 4 or 5 abilities for any given role. That's too cluttered, and breaks one of the simplest design aspects for anything a person could be designing: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

EQ1 is a prime example of KISS in work. There isn't a huge list of abilities, there aren't any rotations, and there isn't a need for stances or any of that garbage. Every class has its own unique play style; it doesn't need to give 50 unique abilities to each of its classes to make them unique.

Is bloating the games with so many things really that fun? Forcing people to min/max rotations and patterns with RNG factored in (nearly every game, including WoW), or combos (Aion) really necessary? Some of the most memorable games like UO or EQ1 don't need that much bloat to be fun. If you want an action game, go play an action game; MMORPGs are RPGs, and should immerse you in the game world, it's people, and get you to play with other people who enjoy the same world. This is the reason Oblivion (and by extension, Skyrim) suck compared to Daggerfall and Morrowind: They turn the RPG into an action game and suck all the life out of it, and this is the reason there's people playing Project 1999 rather than some new-fangled RPG.

EverQuest 1 did it right. Could there be improvements? Sure, but the core of the game was, IMO, flawless, and that's why over a decade later, we're all playing a Classic experience and not one that's been tainted by WoW.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Zuranthium, World of Warcraft is that way: ----->

Oh please, the class balance I find best is nowhere near WoW.

Originally Posted by Stormhowl [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People get way too bogged down on creating unique abilities for each class. WoW, for instance, has gotten to the point where every class has TOO many abilities.

These are completely separate things. Every class having unique abilities and every class having too many abilities are not at all related.

I'm not advocating the EQ classes having more abilities. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Some classes in EQ already have too many abilities and there are too many shared abilities between classes. I'm advocating that many of the crappy abilities the classes have become viable and that the classes are more refined into distinctly different playstyles.

Originally Posted by Stormhowl [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EQ1 is a prime example of KISS in work. There isn't a huge list of abilities, there aren't any rotations, and there isn't a need for stances or any of that garbage.

LOL? There aren't any rotations? Hello C-heal chain. There isn't a need for stances? Hello disciplines.

Classic EQ is definitely better than WoW in terms of the "list of abilities" thing, as casters are restricted to equipping 8 at a time. This is surely how it should be; WoW casters are overwrought and if you don't force a restriction then you aren't letting the player make any choices, which is always what you want the player doing. The problem in EQ, though, is that there isn't really much competition for those 8 spell slots. Most spells just become trash as you level and move onto the next set of spells that do basically the exact same thing, just with a different name and bigger numbers that are needed to keep up with fighting the more powerful monsters you'll be moving on to.

Originally Posted by Stormhowl [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EverQuest 1 did it right. Every class has its own unique play style.

There isn't a big difference between playing any of the melee classes in EQ1, when it comes down to what you're actually doing in melee combat. There isn't even a big difference between playing some of the casters, at times. And then post-Original EQ, so many of the classes become crap that the "playstyle" is irrelevant because their contribution to the group doesn't really mean much anyway.

Moreover, there isn't hardly any customization when it comes to characters in EQ. A Cleric is a Cleric is a Cleric. A Warrior is a Warrior is a Warrior. The only thing that matters is getting the gear/level and then you're the exact same as everyone else of your class. There isn't much choice involved about which skills you'll put on your bar (despite the multitude of spells in the game) and how you want to focus your character. Granted, it's almost inevitable that certain skill/specialization choices would become rather standard for classes, but you want as many different choices to remain viable (within reason) as possible. The "ideal setup" would vary from area to area of the game anyway, meaning that there will hopefully always be an area for your level range that caters to how you prefer to play your class (although quests should be enticing players to move around and experience different areas, which then requires them to adapt and learn).

Look at how many classes get "Root" right now, including the Druid/Ranger version which is essentially the exact same thing - a total of 8. I would instead only have 3 classes get that specific ability (that's with an extra class in the game), and then Wizards would get a different style of root, and Rangers would get an even more different style of root. Less classes would get lulls. Less classes would get feign death. Less classes would get "buffs". Less classes would get generic damage spells. Less classes would get invisibility. AoE damage would actually be useful for something other than Quad-kiting, opening up an entire different strategy in playstyle. Every melee class would play much differently. Playing a healer would be far more dynamic and the differences between Cleric, Shaman, and Druid would be very significant. "Debuffing" would not involve simply throwing spells on a MOB at the beginning of a fight. Stripping protective abilities would be far more proactive and far less classes would get that ability (compared to how nearly every class in the game current gets "Cancel Magic").

There's so much room for making combat more exciting and skill-intensive (which is really what the game revolves around when you come down to it), as well as giving the classes more flavor and refinement while still keeping things balanced.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Zuranthium, World of Warcraft is that way: ----->

/
\
/
\
/
\
v

^^^^
H e l l
=====

[Kika Maslyaka]

a common trend for people in eq community to immediately scream "WoW!" anytime they don't like something, without any attempt at deeper understanding...

Unlike those people, I like to take thing apart piece by piece, until I extract just the specific feature I need, and NOT the whole thing.
For instance, I like how WoW set up class system - you have BASE class archetype, which allowed 3 customizable branches that determine its specialization.
This however doesn't mean that I actually like what they gave those classes in those 3 branches, and how they balanced the classes.
In eq1, I like how classes connected to magical lore (most of the time), but again I don't like how those classes actually set up.
In eq2 I like the combo-cycle based combat and spell-casting system, but i don't like pretty much anything else (other than absolutely marvelous zone of Antonika [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] and their Crafting system)

Since this is a "what if" thread, my perfect class system would based of parts extracted from all 3 games:
-wow like archetype + branches spec system (but no swappable dual-specing)
-eq2 approach to combat combos
-eq1 lore-to-classes perspective (what classes actually do)

I would also put greater emphasis on DEITIES of the game, which would heavily influence your class. For example Mage who worships Ro (fire), should have a significantly different set of spells than a mage who worships E'Ci (Ice), and similarly for other classes.

[Stormhowl]

Moreover, there isn't hardly any customization when it comes to characters in EQ.

Just like how there's hardly any customization in WoW, or any other MMO for that matter? All choices are stream-lined and simplified (for prime examples, compare WoW to both its Pre- and Post-Cataclysm talent setups; for a single player version, compare how robust the skill system is in Daggerfall/Morrowind to that of Oblivion's). Everyone strives for the same gear setup, because that is what is optimal / best, and that is what the community forces upon everyone at any given time. Not to mention the fact that gear choices are super simplified (all gear has stamina and one of your primary stats for your spec; your choices boil down to whether you want more haste or more mastery or more critical strike chance. OH WOW! CUSTOMIZATION!)

WoW and WoW-clones give you "false choice" / "false customization": the appearance of having control and customization, when in fact only one setup is dominant and powerful at any given time.

LOL? There aren't any rotations? Hello C-heal chain. There isn't a need for stances? Hello disciplines.

I wasn't aware CH Chains synchronized between multiple Clerics in a raid was comparable to a rotation of "Flame Shock -> Lava Burst -> Lightning Bolt -> Lightning Bolt -> Lightning Bolt -> Lava Burst" that Shaman had in WotLK. That's a rotation; CHChains are not the ability rotations I was referring to in the sense of current gen MMOs and was heavily implied by your original post in this thread.

I also wasn't aware that a long cooldown ability like a Discipline could be compared to Battle Stance / Defensive Stance / Berserker Stance that WArriors swapped between in WoW multiple times in a single PvP battle (or sat in one at all times for PvE grinding). Maybe if you were comparing Disciplines to Shield Wall or Evasion or Elemental Mastery; you know, 3 or 5-minute cooldowns....

I'll be more inclined to actually discuss the topic with you if you weren't twisting the definitions of what Stances / Rotations are in every other MMO into what you WANT them to be to support your argument. But, I also know from your "Let's talk CLASS BALANCE" thread, that any discussion with you would be riddled with fallacies anyways so... Good day, sir.

[Zuranthium]

Thanks, Spud. That is indeed what I was attempting in my recreation of the Paladin and Shadowknight (well, all of the classes for that matter). They should have their own abilities and functions, not just copy-cat, ghetto Cleric and Necromancer spells that are pasted onto a weaker Warrior frame and then Lay Hands / Harm Touch added on top.

Originally Posted by Stormhowl [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll be more inclined to actually discuss the topic with you if you weren't twisting the definitions of what Stances / Rotations are in every other MMO.

It will likely be more difficult for people in this thread to really understand where I'm coming from if they didn't play Guild Wars in its prime, which had by far the best combat system I've seen in an MMO. You are correct about WoW but that is beside the point. I'm not arguing anything should be like WoW. You are also laboring under the false assumption that the only possibilities for game design are "EQ" and "WoW and WoW-like clones". You prefer EQ because that is the best out of what you've experienced and thus you disregard the possibility of something better.

CH Chains synchronized between multiple Clerics is certainly comparable to the rotation you describe in WoW. You are pressing a button at a specific time and not deviating at all from an exact spoon-fed plan. If any deviation happens then it usually means something else went wrong and a wipe may or may not be imminent, independent of anything you do. There is little skill involved. The only difference in comparison to WoW is that, instead of pressing buttons constantly, you are sitting on your ass medding (or not, depending on aggro) when not hitting your button exactly when you have been told to. You might throw a couple patch heals but usually nothing very dynamic.

The main difference between the two is that your fingers get less tired in EQ and your screen is less cluttered with skill icons. While this is preferable in that it's a bit less irritating, it isn't much better. EQ does not have a great combat system. What EQ has going for it is the feeling of existing within an interesting fantasy World . It is designed far better than WoW in this regard (or at least the vision behind Classic EQ is far better than that of WoW).

In terms of your argument RE: WoW, regarding the stance mechanic on physical characters, you have not provided any points as to why stances are bad. Stances are not bad. If the game is designed correctly, then stances require skill (as in Guild Wars). Stances in WoW are not designed the best, from what I know, but they do require a bit more skill than Disciplines in EQ. In many fights the player is making an active choice to swap between stances, even if it's not nearly as active or crucial of a decision as in Guild Wars. Disciplines in EQ will often be used in a specific order against bosses with no real skill involved. They are simply a superficial layer, another button to press, as the stances in WoW can be.

[Spud]

Interesting stuff guys! Zuranthium I like how you re-made the classes so each one is actually totally unique instead of, for example, just splicing warrior abilities with cleric spells to make a paladin.

I agree it's a little silly how many classes get root. Why should a holy warrior guy be able to cast a spell that magically "roots" a monster to the ground? A paladin's spells should be simple and focused on healing and blessing, not fancy-shmancey root spells.

Vossiewulf, i like your Orangutan Mage Class idea

Originally Posted by vossiewulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd make the Orangutan Mage class. They can only move by swinging from magic trees they cast for themselves, and can only use nukes and ranged weapons. However, mobs target their magic trees which are really fragile, and if their current tree dies and the Orangutan Mage hits the ground, they can't move and lose half their mana. Yep, tree-kiting Orangutan Mages would really spice this game up.