If you could make a new class for p99

[odizzido]

If I could make any class I would have one that could be anything.

Like lets say you get 10 points at level 1, 20 at 2, 30 at 3, etc. You can buy any ability/spell/skill in the game at any time as long as you have enough points.

Spell lines would have to be purchased in sequence starting at their lowest level to keep people from getting ice comet at level 20. Others spells would need prerequisites, like the enchanter AE mez would need the first two single target ones to be purchasable for example.

skill points(like parry/defense) could cost 1 point for the first +5, 2 for the next 5, etc.

abilities like feign death or 2hs would have to be really expensive to get because they are extremely good. To allow players to actually be able to play at the start though they should be able to pick 1-2 weapons to be able to use for free.

This would probably take forever to make and be really hard to balance out, but if I could make any class for P99 this would be it.

[Zuranthium]

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.

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.

[Maelstrom]

Class: Warlock

Race: All except Trolls.

Armor: None. Armor is for Homuncules Losers.

Role: To provide Winning and Gnarlyisms. Duh!

Weapons: Frickin' Bayonets, Fire-breathing Fists, an F-18, Poetry.

Spells:

-Tigerblood: Superior to Clarity II.
-The Goddesses: Summons two Goddesses whom provide stamina/shield/str buffs.
-4th Dimensional Aspect: The only way to reach this dimension is to take a boat to the middle of ocean of tears while watching the movie "Jaws".
-Vatican Assassins: Can turn a maximum of four mobs into a gang of warriors who win by embarrassing people.
-Charlie Sheen: Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body.

Warlock's coda: "Love with violence and hate with violence."

[Kika Maslyaka]

ehem new class - Mystical Poet

mean to be a counter part to a bard. Where bard is melee-singer, Poet is a caster-speaker

Unique thing about Poet that he uses actual chatbox text to cast his spells - he simply speaks them out. The catch is, that it must rhyme to take effect.

For exmaple:

A spell to open locked door: "If you see your way is blocked, all you have to do is knock!" - will open a locked door in front of you.

A low level DD nuke - "You don't look so old, taste this lighting bolt!" - hits your target for 56 magical damage

Of course anyone could copy anyone else rhymes, but there are tricks - first of all - other player cannot understand what you saying , except other poets, who, as their skill in rhyming increases, will understand each other better.
Second, the game will rank certain words at certain difficulty levels - the more complex your sentence, the higher level it is (you won't be able to cast it if you don't meet min level/rhyme skill req), the more powerful effect it will have
And finally, the game keeps tracks of all the rhymes that have been already used, and the less often rhyme used, the more power it caries - so each Poet will struggle to continuously come up with their own unique rhymes, no other Poet can know, to be on top of their game.

Poets also get a bonus of knowing other races languages. For example knowing Dragon language greatly enhances power of their fire and magical nukes, while knowing Elder Tier'dal increases power of curses and poisons.

[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.

[Daywolf]

Actually I think the holy trinity was the best thing EQ ever had going for it. When they broke that (yes I know most hated the HT), it broke the game and everyone left. I mean fine, lots of ideas for classes, but to keep EQ working they would basically need to be just more variations of DPS like every other class, it doesn't matter in what flavor. Of course once they start to solo too well, it starts to unhinge things. And once you start doing the jobs of the HT too well, even with vials of crack, they pull the plug and shut off the lights at the datacenter. But yeah, it was a major complaint, people didn't like the HT, and people don't like to eat their vegetables either which is why you get dead morbidly obese people..

Otherwise, you just get every class doing the same thing, making it anti-social, solo RPG'ish, or choosing based on favoritism or the sound of a characters name, twinkage or OOC trolling abilities. But need a Cleric??? You will settle for almost anyone. Need an enc? their on the way. Need a warrior? break out the smithing hammer! Balance to the force.

[Kika Maslyaka]

holy trinity, would not be an issue, if it wasn't limited to 3 specific classes.

tank+healer+cc should not always equal to war+cleric+chanter, otherwise rest of classes just irrelevant. What I mean, is that all tank arch-types should be able to efficiently tank, not just warrior. And all priests should be good healer, not just the cleric.
This doesn't mean that druid, shaman and cleric suddenly become identical to each other, it means they are all different, but they all capable healers, they just do it differently - see eq2 priests for example.
For game that meant to be group/raid oriented, eq has way to many classes that either contribute to little of something unique and NEEDED to a group, or easily replaceable with a holy trinity class who does it a lot better, and have a bonus on top of that.

[Daywolf]

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

holy trinity, would not be an issue, if it wasn't limited to 3 specific classes.

tank+healer+cc should not always equal to war+cleric+chanter, otherwise rest of classes just irrelevant. What I mean, is that all tank arch-types should be able to efficiently tank, not just warrior. And all priests should be good healer, not just the cleric.
This doesn't mean that druid, shaman and cleric suddenly become identical to each other, it means they are all different, but they all capable healers, they just do it differently - see eq2 priests for example.
For game that meant to be group/raid oriented, eq has way to many classes that either contribute to little of something unique and NEEDED to a group, or easily replaceable with a holy trinity class who does it a lot better, and have a bonus on top of that.

Nope, it's clearly defined. Holy Trinity is Cleric, Enchanter and Warrior. I didn't define it. The other classes you mentioned are hybrid multi-roll. They don't replace clr/enc/war, only fill in to a limited degree. Three slots full, then three slots open for the hybrids. Always the strongest groups are composed in that way. It's by design, and works.

As for EQ2, it's pretty solo oriented to a good degree(and easy as hell), which adds to my original point. EQ2 is only fun because they pretty much ruined EQ almost intentionally it seems, so EQ2 is the only real choice through SOE at present.

Oh and hybrids do bring something (as I mentioned) that the HT cannot do well, DPS. Hybrids are always needed, having those 3/6 group slots, byo-dps of course.

So imo to design a class that fits EQ classic, it's primary is DPS, and then it has some limited augmentation to fill one or two rolls of the HT, but not fully. That seems to be the typical hybrid which makes the gears of the system go round... when it did.

[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.

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

Nope, it's clearly defined. Holy Trinity is Cleric, Enchanter and Warrior. I didn't define it. The other classes you mentioned are hybrid multi-roll. They don't replace clr/enc/war, only fill in to a limited degree. Three slots full, then three slots open for the hybrids. Always the strongest groups are composed in that way. It's by design, and works.

that's the problem with the game. You have classes who make up the base of group/raid, and can't solo worth a shit, and all other classes that given utility abilities of varying degree, have next to 0 group usage.
And no - it doesn't work [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]