If you could make a new class for p99

[Jigga]

If rogean/niblog came to you and wanted your help making a new class some what unique for p99 emu what would you call it, what kind of role in groups and/or raids would it have. What are its shining abilities. What races could play it. Plate/chain/leather/silk? ect

[Kika Maslyaka]

I would remove all existing classes and make new ones :D

[Stormhowl]

I have a soft spot for Psionics, so....

Class Name: Psion

Armor: Cloth

Role: Melee DPS, Support (A variation of Monk but with a mana pool and support spells, and less melee focused than the monk).

Weapons: 1HB, 2HB, HTH

Skills: Double Attack around Level 22, Dodge Lv. 15, Block Lv. 19, but at lower skill caps than a pure melee, Tracking Lv. 30 (e.g., sensing presence of nearby living beings, rather than tracking like a Ranger / Druid / Bard does)

Spell Selection:
-Mind altering spells (e.g., Lull, Short mesmerize lasting two or three ticks)
-Utility and Buff spells (e.g., Levitation, Damage Absorbs, AC Buffs, and Damage Mitigation (e.g., -flat number damage on every hit), resist buffs)
-Force-based Direct Damage spells with slight knockback (akin to Whirling Wind)
-Debuffs (e.g., Mana drain, Fear)

Would share some spells with the enchanter, and would receive spells at Level 9 and draw from lower level Enchanter spells, like any hybrid would (e.g., Paladins get Transal @ 30, a lvl 14 Cleric spell. Psions would get Rune I at level 30, a lvl 16 Enchanter spell). Gains @ high levels the ability to self-buff own weapons with magical effects (extra magic based damage, for example) and, at higher levels, the ability to grant a similar but less powerful effect to a single target but with a long cooldown / duration (think like the Avatar line of spells)

Granted, had I designed my own MMO and wasn't constrained to what EQ could do, I would take it much further. /shrug.

I like thought exercises though. :3

[Fourthmeal]

I'd make a druid, but make it a shape shifting class that could tank, nuke, or heal based on the form its in

[Trademaster]

You need a 4th shape that would be your crowd control form, and you'd need a pet, and can wear any armor, use any weapon, equip any accessory. Oh, and backstabfor like 8x dmg but no aggro increase.

[Doors]

I would rather the current ones that are in were just balanced better.

[Iksur]

Ive always thought there should a class for Witch but I guess some might think thats to similar to Necro. Pretty much just make their dots more effective than shamans/necros I.E. (Wizards of the DoT classes) after that just give them a few other benefits.

Race: Dark Elf, Iksar, Ogre, Troll

[Ostros]

I'd make a druid, but make it a shape shifting class that could tank, nuke, or heal based on the form its in

Obvious WoW jokes in this thread.

I wouldn't make any new classes because it really doesn't need it. If there were going to be any changes I'd just tweak little things here and there about the current classes to un-sonyize or otherwise fix them, but leave most of it alone. It's fine like it is.

The core mechanics of the game were really good all the way up to and including Omens imo. I have a special fondness for the "New Trilogy" era of EQ if you will.

[vossiewulf]

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.

[Seeatee]

Berserker, I seriously miss my zerker more than anything on live.

[loopholbrook]

A warrior/wiz hybrid would be cool. Similar to the thing in Dragon Age, Spirit Warden or something like that.

[gnomishfirework]

A melee class that can activate different procs on their weapons. One for each hand. They can also use different stances. One increases their attack speed and dex and the other increases their dodge/parry/riposte chances to obscene levels. The procs can be added to their range weapons as well.

Their procs are complete heal, which they get at level 5, a DD line that is equal to wizard nukes 5 levels higher than them, a snare line (reduces attack speed as well), and a pbaoe line.

They get sneak at level 1. They can crit on spells and melee at level 2. They can wear plate armor.

I don't know about a name. They would have an exp penalty of 10000%.

[Eppion]

Artificer:

An Intelligence caster with some rogue abilities and a focus on using a mixture of tradeskills and magic to construct things like pets and wands/staves with which to fight.

They would have access to tinkering like gnomes, and lockpick like rogues, and would have an innate ability to identify items (like the spell but acts as an ability, the difference between feign death in monks and necros).

They would need to craft items and then enchant them, similar to an enchanter. However, unlike an enchanter, ALL of the artificers abilities require both a crafted item and an accompanying spell to give it arcane life. An artificer cant simply nuke a target. they must first construct the wand that allows them to do so, and even then it has only a limited amount of charges.

The artificers role in a group would be CC/buffer, but unlike the enchanter class, can be a viable source of DPS when the artificer configures his equipment as such.

The class would have a definite Steampunky kind of feel, and would be available to humans, dark elves, gnomes, and erudites.

[jerok88]

I would make a leather or chain class wizard/thief build. They could imbue their weapons with their spells to gain extra attack/damage and have various effects such as slow, snare, haste to imbue their weapons or simply extra damage. They could imbue the whole party's weapons with certain benefits as well.

They would primarily do damage from backstabbing and doing area-of-affect nukes when needed, which would be their primary damage nukes. They could hide/sneak to get rid of aggro.

Class name: Striker.

[Akim]

A Giant douche.

[Daywolf]

Arcane Archer, for certain. Best class ever! DDO did a good job of the class, though the game sux ;) Better overall in NWN2. But a classic AA in a real mmo like EQ would be priceless.

Other than that, Dark Ranger. Hybrid Archer + Necro. Mostly pet, but multi role to be either dps or tank but not both. Add some stealth + dps bowshots from stealth. Pet regen from health pool, not mana. Not much for dots, aoe or nukes, but root, snare and a few various drui like utility spells.

[astuce999]

Hypnotist:

Leather Caster, Int based, cannot melee at all.

Has Dire Charm; 30 mins recast, can be a creature up to LVL+1, but creature is halved in power (atk,AC, hp).

Has special abilities but can only have one active at any given time, and they have a 10 minute cool down each.

Super-Slow: 75% slow. If another slow is in effect, it halves the amount of attacks the target can make (quad becomes double, double becomes single) as well as removing the ability to kick/bash.

Super-Haste: 60% haste. If another spell-haste is in effect, it grants 30% overhaste, 5% chance to melee crit (by any class) and adds an extra attack per round.

Silence: Removes the ability from the target to cast spells, sing songs, or proc weapons.

Super-Mez: Mesmerizes + mem blur. When mez is broken, target is stunned for up to 6 seconds.

Super-Focus: Clarity, 10% chance to spell-crit (beneficial or detrimental). If any other mana regen spell is in effect, chance to spell-crit becomes 20%.



cheers!

[falkun]

Before I think about a new class, I'd like to do some fixing on the current game (most of which was added by EQ devs themselves).

Make ranger archery viable DPS (trueshot, endless quiver, etc.).

Destroy CHeal. Complete heal ruined Everquest, as CH rotations made most mobs trivial as long as you could make your rotation tight enough. It gets to the point where mobs have to have a chance to hit harder than the MT's max hps, which turns the game from a game of skill (healing appropriately), to a game of luck (does the tank get 1-shot?). I'm glad future games neglected adding this spell.

Make druids and shamans capable group healers. Clerics are all alone on the healing pedestal, especially towards end-game.

Caster DPS in general is inferior to melee DPS until they receive foci and AA, which won't be seen on this server. Make caster DPS viable.

Remove class/race EXP penalties, or at least rebalance them. Knights generally do not solo well enough to warrant their exp penalty. If anything, add a penalty to the solo classes (yes, that means as a bard I have to live with mine). Also, do not make groups share the exp penalty. On this server everyone has a hard-on for classes that don't "lower my exp gain". End the debate by having them not have to deal with it (although this could be viewed as giving in to the whiners).

Now that we've fixed some glaring imbalances in EQ (not all, so don't flame me for "obvious" omissions), let's talk adding a new class:

I have always liked the idea of a "combat healer". The Allods Savant was something like this. To cast heals, the savant needed to gather blood orbs by casting DPS/debuffs on enemies. The savant then used these blood orbs to heal allies. I like this idea of doing damage to be able to heal, as great planning must be involved to balance your DPS and healing. The problem is balancing this from a developer POV. If it could be done right, it would be a phenomenal thing to watch an experienced savant in EQ. I like the classes where its easy to tell a good one from a mediocre one, and I feel this type of healer would allow the greats to shine.

[Gustahn]

Before I think about a new class, I'd like to do some fixing on the current game (most of which was added by EQ devs themselves).

Make ranger archery viable DPS (trueshot, endless quiver, etc.).

Destroy CHeal. Complete heal ruined Everquest, as CH rotations made most mobs trivial as long as you could make your rotation tight enough. It gets to the point where mobs have to have a chance to hit harder than the MT's max hps, which turns the game from a game of skill (healing appropriately), to a game of luck (does the tank get 1-shot?). I'm glad future games neglected adding this spell.

Make druids and shamans capable group healers. Clerics are all alone on the healing pedestal, especially towards end-game.

Caster DPS in general is inferior to melee DPS until they receive foci and AA, which won't be seen on this server. Make caster DPS viable.

Remove class/race EXP penalties, or at least rebalance them. Knights generally do not solo well enough to warrant their exp penalty. If anything, add a penalty to the solo classes (yes, that means as a bard I have to live with mine). Also, do not make groups share the exp penalty. On this server everyone has a hard-on for classes that don't "lower my exp gain". End the debate by having them not have to deal with it (although this could be viewed as giving in to the whiners).

Now that we've fixed some glaring imbalances in EQ (not all, so don't flame me for "obvious" omissions), let's talk adding a new class:

I have always liked the idea of a "combat healer". The Allods Savant was something like this. To cast heals, the savant needed to gather blood orbs by casting DPS/debuffs on enemies. The savant then used these blood orbs to heal allies. I like this idea of doing damage to be able to heal, as great planning must be involved to balance your DPS and healing. The problem is balancing this from a developer POV. If it could be done right, it would be a phenomenal thing to watch an experienced savant in EQ. I like the classes where its easy to tell a good one from a mediocre one, and I feel this type of healer would allow the greats to shine.

Yeah, how classes that can kite zones, can wear plate or not have severe xp penalties or tweaks to their ability set up years after the fact is a bit messed up.

As for combat healer, the Bloodmage from Vanguard worked the same way, they used parasites to buff...sorta like taking necro healing aspects and making a healing class.

[YendorLootmonkey]

A class that could forage any loot that drops off any mob in that zone. And only I could play that class. :)

[lanystvyl]

a dark elf ranger would be cool.

[Polixenes]

My new class: Demonic Possessor (ok it needs a catchier name)

Can take direct take possession of a mob, so a charm-like function, except that the player takes control of the creature like in Project M.

Whilst in Possession of the mob, the PC's body is helpless with severe AC/resist/dodge/parry nerfage to basically make it very risky process in the presence of adds.

If the Possessed mob dies (leaving no corpse) the player returns to his own body. The duration is variable and the spell could end before going full length. Perhaps mana is expended over time in maintenance of the spell, and the amount of mana expended depends on mob level.

Spell breakage would come with a heal on the mob to its pre-possessed state, and a no-fail memblur just so the PC is not ganked instantly upon breakage, that way you don't need to give the class enchanter tools like stun/mez/blur.

Allow the PC to summon pets which are instantly possessed, for those occasions when you are fighting things that are immune to possession.

Available to Dark Elves, Humans, Gnomes, Erudites, Iksars. If we are inventing a new class lets go the whole hog and allow evil High Elves, and give it to them too.

[Hottbiscuits Dreadmuffin]

Polixenes: I had started writing my post and when I finished it yours was before mine, it sounds like we have almost the same idea :P

Necro/Enchanter Hybrid

Their main ability would be able to possess a mob and while they're possessing it, it drains the mob health and transfers it to your character, and allows you to play as the mob and attack anything you want. While you're possessing something you have NO control over your actual character, but your character takes 70% incoming damage.

It's a much longer lasting and more durable charm, that lasts longer than any other charm.

Other skills include lulling, life taps (though much less powerful than Necromancers), fears and snares. They also have an invis that works as a regular AND undead invis at the same time, but it's self only.

They can't FD, but have a fast-casting unlimited AoE mesmerize/mem blur that lasts for up to 10 seconds so they can get away.

[Tiggles]

Cloth class that uses a 2 handed weapon has super high DPS fire/magic based abilities but no defensive stats to speak of and has a cool down that turns him into Cthulhu like monster and reduces all the damage he takes and increased his DPS for short time as well as a high fire based DS.


As a caster who melees he should have some abilities to close the gap on the target like a quick casting stun but no nukes to speak of.

[Zeelot]

I'd make a class called Zeelot


It'd be a shadowknight with the innate ability to death touch any player named Sodapop, Tralina, or Chtulu.

[Tiggles]

I'd make a class called Zeelot


It'd be a shadowknight with the innate ability to death touch any player named Sodapop, Tralina, or Chtulu.

dumb

[Zeelot]

dumb

No way... I can envision it now:
/target quickfingers, /doability 420, 'This spell cannot be cast on players with this name'

:(

[Kanz]

Bards have the hybrid exp penalty being an enchanter/warrior. The ranger and caster dps issue was addressed on live with foci and AAs, guess you'll have to live with them here until we see what the plans are post Velious. And druids and shaman were given the ability to main heal in groups with the Renewal line around LDoN.

As a game that is heavily based on D&D it seems like most classes are represented though some (like the berserker) won't ever be on p99. I put the beastlord as both a magician and a shaman/warrior hybrid. So of all the hybrids, the only one not represented is a wizard/warrior which could fill the role of those warriors who love to dps in berserker rage instead of tank.

Though if you want to make a class to fill voids necessary, a blood mage or other class that could heal through doing damage would also be nice.

[snwbrdr642]

enchanters that were worth a shit.

[jrwriter]

My idea is a cloth mage that duel wields around 20 and he procs lower lvl nukes off his wpns his utility is lower lvl ds At 50 he gets lvl 12 pet and at 60 get 19 20 pet his ancient spell at 60 would be 20% haste to pet 50 ap but even at 60 there procs are minimal. DMg so they online with ranger dps xp penalty. Gnome delf woodelf half elf. Disc 55 increased proc rate 60 disc increased damage shield buff makes any DMg shield 25% better casts on group also lowest hps class of all hybrids

Now for a non hybrid class barbarian rage is bonus DMg no rage hit like war so leather in hightest hps just below warrior also have 10% movement speed at lvl 1. 2 hand wpns only.rage is acquired by attacking or being attacked. At 55 disc increased rage per hit 60 8 second of 50% parry races barbarian ogre. Troll and human. I wanted to make more reasonable classes everyone. Pick op classes rather suggest regular classes

[Dravingar]

Now for a non hybrid class barbarian rage is bonus DMg no rage hit like war so leather in hightest hps just below warrior also have 10% movement speed at lvl 1. 2 hand wpns only.rage is acquired by attacking or being attacked. At 55 disc increased rage per hit 60 8 second of 50% parry races barbarian ogre. Troll and human. I wanted to make more reasonable classes everyone. Pick op classes rather suggest regular classes

So a berserker?

[Polixenes]

@Hottbiscuits: Highfive!

Here's another one:

Elementalist
= mage/warrior hybrid

Essentially a melee character with innate ability to illusion as one of the elemental forms, earth, air, water, fire. The character can melee as well as buff or debuff, and when he chooses a particular form he gets a substantial boost to tanking (earth) or melee dps (air), casting dps (fire) or buffs/debuffs (water). So he chooses his form based on the needs of the group. He has no healing ability other than perhaps a regen buff in water form.

[Dantes]

Yeah, Fighter/Mage! They were so overpowered in Baldur's Gate. Not even a challenge. You could beat the crap out of multiple mobs with a 2H sword all while spamming AE spells.

[Kika Maslyaka]

Before I think about a new class, I'd like to do some fixing on the current game (most of which was added by EQ devs themselves).

Make ranger archery viable DPS (trueshot, endless quiver, etc.).

Destroy CHeal. Complete heal ruined Everquest, as CH rotations made most mobs trivial as long as you could make your rotation tight enough. It gets to the point where mobs have to have a chance to hit harder than the MT's max hps, which turns the game from a game of skill (healing appropriately), to a game of luck (does the tank get 1-shot?). I'm glad future games neglected adding this spell.

Make druids and shamans capable group healers. Clerics are all alone on the healing pedestal, especially towards end-game.

Caster DPS in general is inferior to melee DPS until they receive foci and AA, which won't be seen on this server. Make caster DPS viable.

Remove class/race EXP penalties, or at least rebalance them. Knights generally do not solo well enough to warrant their exp penalty. If anything, add a penalty to the solo classes (yes, that means as a bard I have to live with mine). Also, do not make groups share the exp penalty. On this server everyone has a hard-on for classes that don't "lower my exp gain". End the debate by having them not have to deal with it (although this could be viewed as giving in to the whiners).

Now that we've fixed some glaring imbalances in EQ (not all, so don't flame me for "obvious" omissions), let's talk adding a new class:

I have always liked the idea of a "combat healer". The Allods Savant was something like this. To cast heals, the savant needed to gather blood orbs by casting DPS/debuffs on enemies. The savant then used these blood orbs to heal allies. I like this idea of doing damage to be able to heal, as great planning must be involved to balance your DPS and healing. The problem is balancing this from a developer POV. If it could be done right, it would be a phenomenal thing to watch an experienced savant in EQ. I like the classes where its easy to tell a good one from a mediocre one, and I feel this type of healer would allow the greats to shine.

while I agree on all counts, specially that CH is #1 broken overpowered spell in game (and even on Live today 11 years later it still is, as there is no upgrades to it), it will be easier (and faster) to make your own server, that convince the devs to change anything :D:D:D

[Tewaz]

Add beast lords. Make all ranger gear beast lord also. Done.

[Knuckle]

A doowap,
plays sound that make you clap.

special attack - bard music.

[Taslion]

Fucking Ninja.

Thats one thing ffxi got right

[Messianic]

Warrior/Wizard hybrids would suck. Anything else is probably ok - but just no. Crappy nukes and crappy tanking?

[Ihealyou]

while I agree on all counts, specially that CH is #1 broken overpowered spell in game (and even on Live today 11 years later it still is, as there is no upgrades to it), it will be easier (and faster) to make your own server, that convince the devs to change anything :D:D:D

They kinda fixed CH on live by making it irrelevant. Somewhere around lvl 70, clerics get a spell which can heal for over 14k with focuses and AA's and has a 3 or 4 second cast time. On the tanks I was healing, it healed about 50% of their health, and was a lot more fun than CHing :)

[Excision Rottun]

Riftstalker.

[Hijynx]

Beastlord was my favorite class! So overpowered and awesome!

[Swish]

I think you could work another class into the same category as monks/rogues...

Make it a "Nightblade" (or something else Oblivion-esque), no pickpocket, reduced damage on backstabs but adds a lot of utility such as different poisons such as snare, shaman/enc low level slow, malo (sort of borrowing from WoW there), or even some DDs - like gnomish fireworks but that will cause damage that would put them on par with rogues, or increase their damage potential and give them leather armor but not mail.

...that's what I'd add, think it would be a lot of fun :)

[Daywolf]

Make ranger archery viable DPS (trueshot, endless quiver, etc.).
I agree with this, but I don't see how endless quiver is in any way making them viable in dps...??? Open your fletching kit for god sake! Fletching is actually pretty damn good in EQ, where you can craft bows and arrows with some dps, at least more than those crummy summoned arrows.

But yeah, Ranger is one or the classes that really need AA, unless you focus on melee alone. This I would suggest Arcane Archer or Dark Ranger since EQ never really had an archer until later by use of AA.

[username17]

I'd balance all classes.
Make druid and shaman viable healers.
Add berserkers.

[Hasbinbad]

This thread was already started by Guinea..
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11950

My ideas on that thread:

Class: Sorcerer
Races: Human, Erudite, High Elf, Dark Elf, Gnome
Armor: Cloth chest only, some plate pieces for other-than-chest slots like SSB, etc, no suits like FS, but rather individual pieces (no chain or leather). Planes cloth suit, with high int stats relative to other classes, as a tradeoff for not using the plate armors available to them.
Weapons: 1hs
Mana or Stamina: Both
Stat Focus: Int and Sta
Staple Abilities:
Wizard Spell Lines - less powerful variations of many popular wizard spells. Roots, dd nukes, AE nukes, teleport self (not group teleports), MAYBE an evac (chance to fail) at level 49, invis.

Mage Spell Lines - less powerful variations of many popular mage spells. Pets (not elementals, more like summoned creatures, no wielding, but at higher levels powerful natural attacks), summoned utility items, self/pet-DS.

Enchanter Spell Lines - less powerful variations of many popular enchanter spells. Self-augmentation, AE mes (but not single target), AE stun, self-crack at 49. No illusions!

Dual Wield, Double Attack, Riposte, Dodge, Parry.

The Sorcerer is limited to using a small selection of 1hs weapons, all of which are "long swords" as opposed to axe or scimitar type 1hs weapons. Short Sword of the Ykesha for instance, would not be available to the Sorcerer.

This class gives up a hybrid special ability (track, lay on hands, harm touch) in order to be more useful as a melee class while having a wide variety of spells at it's disposal. That being said, the Sorcerer's mana pool is extremely limited, and this class is far from an effective buffing class.

This class can be thought of as a medium/high melee/pet DPS class with the ability to back out of combat to nuke when the hps run low. The Sorcerer has moderate ability to solo by carefully using a variety of spells, it's pet, and the judicious use of melee combat.

While never able to truly tank, pet-tank, or nuke with the big boys, this jack of many trades can certainly produce results in a raid situation by using many of his or her abilities in a consistent manner. The Sorcerer in high int-gear is able to out-dps paladins, sk's, and rangers, but unable to tank like sk's and paladins, even in partial plate armor. That being said, solo, a Sorcerer in partial plate armor may in fact be tough enough to partially tank a mob or two when his pet gets low on life and he is out of mana.. ..likewise in a group situation with the proper buffs, a Sorcerer may indeed prove a viable tank, with the ability to keep aggro fairly well with low-mana high aggro spells like ae stun, but would not be able to concurrently produce the DPS available to the high int Sorcerer with more mana to cast more nukes.

Also, the Sorcerer dual-wields swords with a robe on. So fuck you.

--

Class: Trickster
Races: Human, Gnome, Dark Elf
Armor: Cloth, Leather
Weapons: Piercing, 1hs, 1hb
Mana or Stamina: Both
Stat Focus: Str, Int, Sta
Staple Abilities:
Enchanter Spell Lines - less powerful variations of many popular enchanter spells, with a few notable exceptions (i.e., the Trickster is not able to cast clarity or any of the non-melee stat-buff enchanter spells [brilliance, insight, adorning grace]). The trickster focuses on mes, haste, stuns, faction spells, illusions, and mem-blurs.

Dual-wield, double attack, riposte, parry, dodge.

Sneak is often used in conjunction with invisibility with the trickster, who is unable to hide like a rogue. This mimics the hide/sneak ability of the rogue, but has the annoying side effect of breaking at random times, making the combination far more useful than invisibility alone (sneaking behind see-invis mobs), but not as useful as hide/sneak. However, due to the Trickster's ability to stun, mes, and memblur, if careful, he is often able to compensate for the tendancy of invis to break.

Kick - as per warriors, this skill has proven invaluable to the Trickster who likes to stay alive when battling casters.

Pick Locks is another skill from the Trickster's rogue heritage which he puts to good use.

From studying the rogue's mastery with piercing weapons, Tricksters have learned that Critical Strikes with piercing weapons, while behind a mob, help compensate for their lack of a backstab skill. This would not equal the damage output of the rogue by any means, but does add a bit of melee viability to this hybrid class.

Basically a rogue/enchanter hybrid, this class is a medium melee dps class (ranger deeps + crits every once in a while), that can use a myriad of mostly evasive enchanter spells to help himself and his party stay alive and do more damage. Unable to utilize chain or the rogue evade ability, the Trickster MUST rely on these spells in order to evade damage more often, as the critical hits do tend to build up quite a bit of aggro (although not as much as backstabbing).

Also, Tricksters may often be found dual-wielding with a robe on. So fuck you.

[Tiggles]

lets just release luclin

[Hasbinbad]

lets just release luclin
http://images.wikia.com/reddeadredemption/images/c/c2/Noose2.jpg

[Kika Maslyaka]

http://images.wikia.com/reddeadredemption/images/c/c2/Noose2.jpg

we'll miss you Hasbinbad, best luck in the next live :D

[Messianic]

we'll miss you Hasbinbad, best luck in the next live :D

I think he was insinuating that we should hang tiggles for making such an assertion...but I think it could have been interpreted either way

[Zuranthium]

Fun thread, thanks for making it. Similar to what Kika (and many others) said, though, I would want to modify all of the classes. Not only to set them further apart from each other, but also because the combat system of Everquest is greatly inferior to what an ideal MMORPG should have. Within each class there would be a wide range of different ways to play the character as well; every class would have 4 skill lines and the amount of points you put into the skill lines would determine how powerful those skills are (and, of course, you'd only ever be able to max out 2 of those lines at the same time, or max out 1 and be pretty good at 2 others, or just be pretty good at all of them, etc). You would be able to change these allocated points by going to the class-appropriate skill trainers in cities, although every time you change your point allocation the trainer will tell you that you must venture to a trainer in another city to change it again (this makes all of the cities more well-traveled rather than certain ones being ghost towns all the time).

CLASSES:

Warrior - The standard all-around melee character. Would be able to do excellent melee burst damage against single targets and tank very well. Would be able to wield all kinds of different equipment set-ups: a Two-handed weapon, or dual-wielding one-handed weapons, or a one-handed weapon + shield. Every weapon type would offer different attack skills. Their combat skills would include more knock-downs (a mechanic not currently in Everquest...these would essentially be stuns except the target would still be able to use stances, another mechanic not really in classic EQ, while knocked down and of course the visual would be different) than any other class and would be the most powered by adrenaline (another new mechanic - you gain it by hitting and taking damage).

Paladin - Would do the lowest damage of the melee-oriented characters (except against undead) but would be the best tanks in the game. Would always use a one-handed Sword or Hammer/Mace along with a Shield. Attack skills would be the most focused on stunning opponents out of all the melee classes. Would have spells that heal, cure conditions and hexes, provide temporary immunities, do great damage against undead (in addition to other undead-related abilities), and cause PBAoE stuns. They would not get ressurects or lulls or roots.

Shadowknight - A tank class that is excellent at doing damage to more than one target at a time. Would wield two-handed Axes or Scythes only. Attack skills would be the most focused on inflicting conditions out of all the classes. Would have spells that snare, lifetap (not only direct single-target lifetaps but also AoE lifetaps-over-time), spread Disease, cause Fear, and self-only damage shields that stack with all the others in the game. Would not get Feign Death or Pets.

Brawler (formerly Monk) - A melee class that can do immense damage to single targets by chaining attacks together, wherein each attack becomes more powerful than the previous one (until you reach the end of the chain). Uses their body as a weapon rather than wielding material weapons. Has low HP and AC (Leather would be the highest armor they can use), but high avoidance in a pinch, and also a multitude of attack skills that interrupt the target's action and the ability to disarm opponents (would be more useful than it currently is in EQ). Definitely much less of a tank than the plate-wearing classes but can hold their own against physical threats for short periods of time and pump out amazing DPS. Would not get Feign Death.

Rogue - Would be similar to how they already are but would do less damage (and would use daggers exclusively for their weapons). Their pure melee attacking (this doesn't include Backstab) would especially be far weaker than it currently is, but they would instead have more powerful poison abilities to compensate somewhat. As a tradeoff to their reduced damage capability, Lock Picking and Disarming Traps and Stealing and Sneaking (and even Safe Fall, in addition to being able to climb walls) would be more useful than they currently are. They would also get the Feign Death ability that was formerly given to Monks. This would set Rogues up as being amazing pullers and amazing at navigating and allowing groups to get to an area and fight in an area, especially in dungeon situations. They would also be far better at soloing than they currently are, because of being able to keep a monster's health degenerating with a strong Posion, and then cycling Backstab + Feign Death until the monster dies.

Ranger - Instead of being primarily a melee class, they would be more focused on using Bows and Traps. When wielding a bow, they would be the best class in the game at interrupting actions - both because of the range that the Bow provides and the abilities themselves. A large degree of skill would be involved in scanning the battlefield and trying to interrupt opponents at the most useful times. They would not have any spells, but they would still be able to snare and root targets via their Bow attacks and Traps and they would still be able to provide downtime healing for themselves and others via non-spell abilities. Bows would not work in melee range; at that point the Ranger would then switch to dual-wielding one-handed swords (and they wouldn't have special melee attacks with those weapons, this weapon set would only be used when the Ranger is forced into melee). As an alternative to specializing in Bows, the Ranger could instead focus on having an animal companion (something they can still do while using a bow, the pet just won't be nearly as strong) and wielding some combination of whips/claws - ie, being a "Beast Master". Using a Bow would more frequently be the better choice but in some situations this specialization would work just as well or even be superior (and thus allow for a different style of game play). Would use Chain Armor and would be a sturdy class, especially if specializing in the evasive abilities they would allow them to more effectively set traps while being attacked, but wouldn't be able to serve as a "tank" in most cases as a result of not generating much aggro.

Bard - They wouldn't have songs that directly do damage and their Charm song also wouldn't turn the target into a commandable pet, but rather just a reactionary pet (like an Enchanter animation). However, they would be the best crowd control class in the game (better than Enchanters) and they would still be a jack-of-all-trades, with better raw melee/tanking capabilities than any casting-oriented class and a vast range of offensive/defensive/utility abilities that require a unique playstyle and are especially great for full groups.

Cleric - Would wear cloth armor (as do all of the non-"Priest" casters), not plate, and wield one-hand blunt weapons along with a shield or secondary held object. Wouldn't have stuns or roots, but would be able to pacify (target can't attack or use offensive spells while this is in effect; effect ends prematurely if they get hit). Would have more powerful undead-damaging spells. In terms of acting as a defensive character they would still be the best in the game but playing them would be far different. It would be far more about actively watching the battlefield to heal and remove conditions/hexes and using protection spells that block attacks and prevent damage. There would be no "buffs" in the game where you just throw +HP/AC spells on people that last for an hour. Would be the only class that can resurrect.

Shaman - Would wear armor up through Chain and always wield a two-handed Staff. Would not be able to directly protect and heal targets nearly as well as a Cleric, and their condition and hex removal would be weaker as well, but they would get Curses that, in addition to providing some offensive capability, allow them to prevent damage by blinding the opponent (blind would be much more effective than it currently is), or slowing their attack speed, or causing them to do less damage. They would get strong heals-over-time, especially via the ability to call forth spirits that provide benefits to all allies within their range (spirits would always be stationary and there would also be spirits that are offensive in nature). They would not get Haste or Roots, but would have access to good DD's and the best mana regeneration of all the "Priest" classes. Would still make Potions as well.

Druid - Possess strong direct healing capability and the ability to remove conditions but they can not remove hexes. Use leather armor and wield one-hand wood-based weapons and wood-based shields or a held item. Masters of the outdoors, they have the ability to cast Harmony, strong DD's and "Rain" spells (large amount of AoE damage spread over a short period), and use Tracking in those zones. The Druid can command plants and animals and take their forms (animal form would generally be more useful). Can seek out and charm a permanent (until it dies or you zone) Animal or Plant pet, or summon a more general (and often less powerful) Animal or Plant pet for use in any area. Their plant magic additionally allows them to snare, root, and create thorny damage shields. Their animal magic additionally allows them to call forth insects that do damage over time to a target. They would get solo and group teleports that are useful for traveling only (not Evacs or the other range of teleports Wizards would have). They would not have any DD capability aside from the outdoor-only ones that were mentioned.

Wizard - Would not have stuns or snares. They would have amazing Burst damage (Lightning and Fire based, with a whole range of varieties from classic DD, to "bolt" DD, to PBAoE, to small-AoE, to large-AoE), short duration Roots (Ice-based, also with a whole range of varieties, and these would all do damage), and Teleports. Their AoE burst damage would be far more useful than it ended up being in EQ (including PBAoE) and their single-target burst damage would be far better in comparison post-Original era EQ (magic damage in general for all of these classes would be far better than the terrible state it dwindled into post-Original era), although none of that Manaburn or critical cast stuff seen in later EQ eras. Their teleports would be much more flexible and useful than they currently are as well; a Wizard who specializes in such a way would have truly exceptional mobility during battle (as mana allows) via those abilities and be able to constantly hop in and out of the fray and also teleport teammates in ways that go beyond just Evacing, to a lesser degree. Would wield a one-handed staff with magical projectile capability + a secondary held item.

Summoner (formerly Magician) - Would not get damage shields or fire-based DD's or AoE DD's, but they would still get "Rain" spells (the most costly of which would have a knockdown component). Their ability to summon actual items would be a little more useful than it currently is, as would be their ability to summon allies and opponents to their location. Would be able to summon a wide variety of pets, utilizing one commandable "permanent" pet at a time and one "temporary" pet at a time that only attacks the specified target until the duration ends (or the pet dies). Summoners would be the overall best class at sustained DPS (although Brawlers would eventually beat them at single-target damage in long fights and Necromancers would eventually beat them in long-duration fights where a multitude of opponents that don't die easily are present). Some of their summons would have a small chance of backfiring (attacking the caster), as it is never a sure thing when you are playing around with summoning foreign creatures (the Summoner would be able to quickly dispel them and send them back, however). Would wield two-handed Staffs with magical projectile capability.

Enchanter - Would be similar to their current state, although with some cosmetic changes. Haste spells would not be as powerful and they would not have PBAoE stuns (but would instead have half-second duration targeted stuns, both single target and AoE, that are used mainly to interrupt and for the secondary effects that would come with them). They would have the ability to remove hexes (what is currently called a "debuff" or "DoT" would be either a Condition or a Hex) and they would have Illusion hexes that cause the target to have a chance of missing with physical attacks. They would not have the ability to slow a target's attack speed, but they would be able to slow a target's casting speed (and have some other anti-caster abilities) and also would have the ability to transfigure opponents into weaker creatures (literally transform them into, say...a sheep), which would serve as powerful debuffs. They would not get roots. Would wield multiple wands (they have projectile capability).

Necromancer - Their pets would be created from actual corpses rather than "summoned" by bone chips. Would be able to have more than one pet at a time (each one would require a different skill that must remain equipped...all pets in the game, for that matter, would require the skill to actually be equipped or else the pet goes away). The Necromancer would have more spells and abilities that exploit corpses and creatures dying. Many of the DoT lines would be more focused on spreading damage across numerous opponents rather than a single opponent. They would not have any "pure" DD's (they currently get a few). Would still have a wide range of potential abilities (snare, root, fear, transferring health and mana to allies, turning their own heath into mana, feign death, summoning corpses). Would wield a Dagger + Wand.

And the New Class:

Elementalist - Would specialize in one of the 4 elements and it would be more costly to put points into the "opposing" element line (Water vs. Fire, Air vs. Earth), although doing so would still be viable and in fact create unique skill combinations. Equipment varies depending on primary specialization - Leather armor for Air/Water and Chain armor for Fire/Earth. Air specialty wields a two-handed Staff. Earth specialty wields a one-handed blunt weapon + shield. Fire and Water wield a one-handed slashing weapon + shield. An Elementalist's power in a given line increases when surrounded by a significant amount of the given element and vanishes if none of a specific element is present, as their ability is to control the raw elements around them rather than summoning them or projecting them from their own body. The Elementalist would be adept at both melee and ranged combat, on something of a sliding scale that depends on which skills are equipped and the scenario. Deciding which form of combat to take part in at any given moment, and which elemental abilities to combine at the same time, would be the unique trait to playing the class. The ability of this class to command the elements would not be "magic", much like Bard's musical abilities are not "magic", and thus would not suffer when confronted by opponents who use anti-caster abilities.

Fire element = skills are characterized by average activation times and long cooldowns; create damage shields, add extra fire damage to attacks, high burst damage to single targets, and significant damage over time with burning (both single target and AoE).

Air element = skills are characterized by quick activation times and average cooldowns; levitation/flight abilities, evasive abilities, add extra damage to attacks and give a chance of a knockback with attacks, single-target stuns with low damage, and tornado effects that cause moderate AoE burst damage and randomly toss the opponents in a direction.

Water element = skills are characterized by average activation times and quick cooldowns; moderate burst damage to both single targets and AoE, ability to snare opponents, ability to stop burning effects and travel easily underwater.

Earth element = skills are characterized by long activation times and quick cooldowns; can create defensive skins, physical barriers, root opponents, knockdowns with minor damage (both single target and AoE), and moderate single-target burst damage.

Elemental skills can be combined at the same time to create unique effects and/or stronger effects.

[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.

[Daywolf]

Zuranthium, World of Warcraft is that way: ----->
/
\
/
\
/
\
v

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

[Zuranthium]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[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 :D 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.

[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

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.

[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.

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.

[hrafn]

BEASTLORD

thread closed and done

[gnomishfirework]

@Zuranthium
A CH rotation is not the same as a WoW class skill rotation. It's ok to admit you confused a point. Trying to twist it into something else, when the person responding to you said they weren't going to have a conversation with you if you decided to redefine terms, which you even quoted in your reply, is a silly thing to do.

Also, your class suggestions would make the game not EQ. It's an interesting thought exercise, I guess. Ability overlap is not an issue in EQ. Classes have defined roles even with overlap. That is an issue in other games like wow and wow2 (rift) where there isn't really a defined role for anything.

By limiting abilities in such a way, you make groups even more restrictive.

[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]

@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.

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]

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]

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]

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 ;)

[Hasbinbad]

Equally or lesser geared Paladins and Shadowknights work as well - if not better - as tanks than warriors for any grouping situation currently available, as far as I know.. At the higher levels, Monks are doing quite well now when properly geared out as well.

Other than that, I agree that Tank/Cle/Enc is by far the strongest base for a group. This base hardly makes irrelevant the other classes, rather it allows them to fulfill their potential. Shamans, rogues, monks, necros, etc., all come into their own when paired with this group base. Sure, you can DO stuff with an alternative base, but give me a tank/cle/enc base to start from and I guarantee I will clear a given camp more efficiently than your Shaman/Ranger/Bard base..

SHOULD it be that way? Fuck yes. This is fucking Everquest, not your stupid made-up game. Nobody wants to play your stupid made-up game bro. Take that shit to Blizzard, maybe they will change WoW for you, as they are wont to do.

This thread is about fantasy classes for EVERQUEST, not your dumb ideas about your stupid made-up games.

Like I said, WoW is that way: ------>

[Daywolf]

Equally or lesser geared Paladins and Shadowknights work as well - if not better - as tanks than warriors for any grouping situation currently available, as far as I know..
Undead. I mean sure yeah, we would always run with the tanks that could better handle undead in those places, but doing like KC on the castle with a well equipped warrior was pretty easygoing (though Pal/SK in the back). I mean by 50, everyone is pretty well equipped, so the SK or Pal probably would need to be twinked beyond belief I guess, but so too could the warrior be. But for most of the expansions, there wasn't a whole lot of good undead spots, though I lost track after titanium.

Same as the deal with drui/rng and using harmony, which is really good compared to the enc, but only good outdoors which is more rare for groups than good high exp dungeons where harmony doesn't work. Even then, it's not so great w/o the enc there for mind crack :D

[Kika Maslyaka]

Like I said, WoW is that way: ------>

If you so desperate, please go, they are waiting for you ;)

[Tyrrion]

I love how every extremely overpowered suggestion is prefaced with "cloth-wearer" like that is all the justification you need.

[Hasbinbad]

Undead.
No. Spell taunts > taunt. HP pool doesn't really matter with a good cleric, unless yer in a raid situation.

[Daywolf]

No. Spell taunts > taunt. HP pool doesn't really matter with a good cleric, unless yer in a raid situation.Sure, my mains on live were ranger and cleric. My buddies that I camped with the most were pally(w/drui alt), wizard and warrior. Even on my ranger with the warrior I often had to back off, and same went for our pally, as spell damage took aggro. Always breaking away to save the wizard of course. Damage shields only on the warrior helped a lot, along with cleric or pally buffs. On my Cleric I always rather see aggro on our warrior, but especially when we lacked an enchanter. If you have 2 of the 3, you can do well, but 3 seemed to work the best for what we hunted, though it was hard to keep enchanters around later on when they could just loiter in town and sell crack. Then again we were not twinked, not even on our alts (when we could), so we played by the natural strengths of the classes.

[Hasbinbad]

Sure, my mains on live were ranger and cleric. My buddies that I camped with the most were pally(w/drui alt), wizard and warrior. Even on my ranger with the warrior I often had to back off, and same went for our pally, as spell damage took aggro. Always breaking away to save the wizard of course. Damage shields only on the warrior helped a lot, along with cleric or pally buffs. On my Cleric I always rather see aggro on our warrior, but especially when we lacked an enchanter. If you have 2 of the 3, you can do well, but 3 seemed to work the best for what we hunted, though it was hard to keep enchanters around later on when they could just loiter in town and sell crack. Then again we were not twinked, not even on our alts (when we could), so we played by the natural strengths of the classes.
What the hell are you talking about?

[Skope]

I'd make dwarf a class.

Give them really big axes that they throw, always in a drunken rage.

[Daywolf]

What the hell are you talking about?HP pool does matter. Add resistance and damage shield to the warrior improves the situation by keeping aggro well enough. Still comes down to warrior, enchanter and cleric (then add DPS'), while I never saw warrior interchangeable with other tanks but in a few situations. Speaking along the lines of full groups of course, and taking red con on the norm. Guess that's why they called it the holy trinity, was pretty exclusive for some time on only the three.

So as far as dreaming up additional classes, still comes down to DPS, or it throws off the balance and makes for solo player classes, or destroying existing classes that can do nothing else than their single designed role for the most part.

And that is why my main pick is Arcane Archer, as it's a solid DPS class, which EQ having no real archer class for some time.

[Zuranthium]

Tank/Cle/Enc is by far the strongest base for a group. This base hardly makes irrelevant the other classes, rather it allows them to fulfill their potential. Shamans, rogues, monks, necros, etc., all come into their own when paired with this group base.

SHOULD it be that way? Fuck yes. This is fucking Everquest.

Yes, this is Everquest...and until the later levels it is NOT required to have a Tank/Cleric/Enchanter setup to play the game. Game balance started straining at the end of Original EQ and then went completely awry with Kunark era. You also don't seem to recognize that the Original Vision behind Everquest was never completely fulfilled. The game as it was is not the game that it could have been. Much room for improvement. My class changes add more flavor to every single class and make the game more interesting (and balanced), while adhering to the ideal Everquest was striving for.

I find your assertion of "this base hardly makes other classes irrelevant" to be incorrect. When it's not possible to not even play the game, in a fun and fruitful manner, because you are lacking specific classes that are needed for most of the later content...yes, that makes many of the others classes rather irrelevant, aside from being called upon now and then to perform whatever little tricks they can do. Not only do you need the Tank/Cleric/Enchanter base, you need at least one other melee DPS aside from your Tank (ideally Rogue or Monk) on top of that. Then of the remaining 2 party members, more melee DPS or a Shaman are the desired classes. SK's/Bard's are more often second picks, the INT casters aside from Enchanter are not wanted, Rangers and Paladins are not wanted, and Druids are not wanted. The "required based" doesn't allow other classes to fulfill their potential, it just makes it harder for them to fulfill their potential because they have to wait for that exact setup to come along before they are allowed to be useful.

Ideally all classes should be approximately valuable. Clerics, and any other class, should only be a requirement against the God/Dragon type encounters. The only way to balance the classes without them losing their flavor, as in WoW, is to give them significantly different abilities (not just in name) and playstyles. And the only way to allow for distinctly different abilities and playstyles, of the amount that supports having this many classes in the game, is to make it so that there are MANY ways to approach combat, not just "Tank one target at a time, DPS it, and C-Heal".

[Hasbinbad]

Yes, this is Everquest...and until the later levels it is NOT required to have a Tank/Cleric/Enchanter setup to play the game. Game balance started straining at the end of Original EQ and then went completely awry with Kunark era. You also don't seem to recognize that the Original Vision behind Everquest was never completely fulfilled. The game as it was is not the game that it could have been. Much room for improvement. My class changes add more flavor to every single class and make the game more interesting (and balanced), while adhering to the ideal Everquest was striving for.

I find your assertion of "this base hardly makes other classes irrelevant" to be incorrect. When it's not possible to not even play the game, in a fun and fruitful manner, because you are lacking specific classes that are needed for most of the later content...yes, that makes many of the others classes rather irrelevant, aside from being called upon now and then to perform whatever little tricks they can do. Not only do you need the Tank/Cleric/Enchanter base, you need at least one other melee DPS aside from your Tank (ideally Rogue or Monk) on top of that. Then of the remaining 2 party members, more melee DPS or a Shaman are the desired classes. SK's/Bard's are more often second picks, the INT casters aside from Enchanter are not wanted, Rangers and Paladins are not wanted, and Druids are not wanted. The "required based" doesn't allow other classes to fulfill their potential, it just makes it harder for them to fulfill their potential because they have to wait for that exact setup to come along before they are allowed to be useful.

Ideally all classes should be approximately valuable. Clerics, and any other class, should only be a requirement against the God/Dragon type encounters. The only way to balance the classes without them losing their flavor, as in WoW, is to give them significantly different abilities (not just in name) and playstyles. And the only way to allow for distinctly different abilities and playstyles, of the amount that supports having this many classes in the game, is to make it so that there are MANY ways to approach combat, not just "Tank one target at a time, DPS it, and C-Heal".
What game are you playing dude?
You can do any camp in the game with VERY few exceptions with a rng/shm/dru/nec/brd/mag
or..
mag/nec/wiz/mag/shm/enc
or..
whatever..
It's just that you can't do many camps as efficiently as you can with a tank/cle/enc/rog/rog/rog.
If you wanna get the bossest mostest awesomest exp or chances at loot, you gotta put in the effort to get a solid group together. Otherwise, you gotta take your lumps and have a ranger tank. Having a ranger tank does NOT mean you CAN'T do stuff, it just means that it won't be as good.

It's like going to a bar to pick up a chick.

It's gonna take effort to pull the 9.5 off Muscles Glasses; he has big muscles and really cool glasses.

That does NOT mean you CAN'T get laid, theres a fat chick with low self esteem over on the wall who will suck your cock for hours, and all you gotta do is tell her she is pretty a couple times.

Tl;dr. Rangers are fat chicks.

[xshayla701]

That does NOT mean you CAN'T get laid, theres a fat chick with low self esteem over on the wall who will suck your cock for hours, and all you gotta do is tell her she is pretty a couple times.

but i thought you liked fat chicks

[Stormhowl]

Having a ranger tank does NOT mean you CAN'T do stuff, it just means that it won't be as good.

It's like going to a bar to pick up a chick.

It's gonna take effort to pull the 9.5 off Muscles Glasses; he has big muscles and really cool glasses.

That does NOT mean you CAN'T get laid, theres a fat chick with low self esteem over on the wall who will suck your cock for hours, and all you gotta do is tell her she is pretty a couple times.

Tl;dr. Rangers are fat chicks.

Best analogy I've seen all day. Win.

[Zuranthium]

Aside from it being blatantly untrue that you can take on most any content in the game with the setups you described, the "as efficiently" clause that you use to try and shrug off the game imbalance is a massive difference in downtime to the point where the game doesn't become fun.

The other flaw in your argument is that it doesn't take "more effort" to find a tank/cleric/enchanter/melee dps/melee dps/melee dps. It simply takes those classes being logged on and available rather than other classes being available. If the game changes I propose were how the game worked, it wouldn't be a matter of just grabbing on 6 people and grouping together (although such a thing would be more viable than it is now), it would be a matter of picking the class and specialization combinations that create the best groups for the playstyle you want to attempt. There would be more player skill involved as well.

[Stormhowl]

Aside from it being blatantly untrue that you can take on most any content in the game with the setups you described, the "as efficiently" clause that you use to try and shrug off the game imbalance is a massive difference in downtime to the point where the game doesn't become fun.

Fun is subjective; making absolute statements about what is or isn't fun is a waste of everyone's time.

it would be a matter of picking the class and specialization combinations that create the best groups for the playstyle you want to attempt. There would be more player skill involved as well.

Mmm.... if only that were true for MMOs (e.g., WoW Clones) where in your design aspect is already a reality. But sadly (for you), that's not the reality of having a set number of roles and the classes that fit into them, because people will take what's available first to get through things faster, rather than waiting for what they actually want.

[Hithrohir]

There really isn't anything that you can't do with a group where each member just fits the general category -- tank, healer, dps, crowd control. The latter isn't even strictly needed in most places, and while mezzing adds is great, you can do the same basic thing - preventing the add from wiping the group - by off-tanking it, rooting it, sticking a pet on it, or just toughing through the extra damage it does to the group. Class alone will generally not determine what you can or cannot do, unless it's a case of trying to tank with a ranger who's also undergeared and poorly played, or a druid healer who's several levels under the content's limits. Single-group content is not so challenging that it requires a warrior tank or a cleric healer or anything like that, but they make it a lot easier, make wipes less likely, and make the exp come in faster (unless the content is easy enough that the extra power doesn't yield a tangible benefit). What the "top classes" do more than increase the group's chance of success is decrease downtime due to efficiency. It's still a design error that some classes are straight up better than their counterparts, but unless it's raid content or a group trying to take on an encounter with less members or at a lower level than intended, all classes can fill their designated roles well enough to suffice. It's when the players can't adapt, aren't good enough or haven't sufficiently prepared their characters for the content that class choices can determine the outcome.

The vast majority of Everquest's one-group content is very easy. For the most part, it isn't a matter of winning but rather of doing it as fast and efficiently as possible. A group generally doesn't venture into a dungeon wondering if they can survive at all, they go in with the possible question of whether or not their group is strong enough to make the killing fast enough to be worth the time and effort. And as long as there aren't weak links, it almost always is, at least for the players who aren't playing classes that can typically get more exp from soloing. Just look at most of the game's non-raid content; it might be occupied by a group, but it might also be soloed by one of the select few power-solo classes a few levels higher. People were soloing Lord and Frenzy in Guk, duoing or three-manning Efreeti in SolB, even taking on supposed raid target Phinny in Kedge with far less manpower than probably intended. The same does/will happen with Kunark's high-end dungeon encounters, and it's only because the dungeons are still so crowded and groups so frequent that it isn't constantly being done. As long as that sort of thing is possible, any group can do the same with a far-from-optimal class lineup, and while it may be less efficient with a druid healer and necro DPS and so on, it'll still be doable enough to not be an exercise in futility.

The different classes aren't that much weaker than their counterparts. Each has a failing that it makes up for in part with other abilities. It generally doesn't fully compensate for the class' shortcomings - druid buffs really don't make up for their weaker healing, for instance - but it makes the difference less crippling. You don't need CH or defensive discipline for mobs that hit for 150-200ish, you don't need the optimal DPS setup for mobs with 5-10k hp that don't enrage, and you don't need mez for content that can be rooted, pacified, feign-pulled and rarely throws more than one or two adds at you even when it goes wrong. It all makes life easier, but it's plenty possible and mostly worthwhile with anything but a catastrophically weak group.

The reason a lot of people won't group with rangers and druids and necromancers isn't that they're so terrible they can't pull their weight. It's just better to find a cleric, rogue and warrior if you can, and it's a matter of complacency and foolishness when people won't let one of the less-than-optimal classes into their groups. It's also far less common than people make it out to be, and when rangers complain about sitting LFG for days, it's probably because they do it in Sebilis at level 49 with crappy gear, far less because they're rangers. It's much more about feeling and perception than it is about actual class worth, and while a few classes certainly are at the bottom of their archetype's hierarchy, people's aversion comes from the fact that it feels wrong and futile to play or group with a class that does 10% less DPS than others with nothing to make up for it. It feels like wasted effort because it could have been better if you'd chosen something else. It doesn't mean you couldn't do Chardok decently with a pal/dru/mag/rng/nec/nec group. It just isn't quite as good and will yield slightly less pwnage.

[falkun]

Aside from it being blatantly untrue that you can take on most any content in the game with the setups you described, the "as efficiently" clause that you use to try and shrug off the game imbalance is a massive difference in downtime to the point where the game doesn't become fun.

You are stating an opinion as fact. Personally, I enjoy doing things with sub-optimal setups. Until you push you're limits, you'll never know where they are. Also, its pretty bad ass to look back on one of those sub-optimal group experiences and think, "Wow, we pulled that off."

The other flaw in your argument is that it doesn't take "more effort" to find a tank/cleric/enchanter/melee dps/melee dps/melee dps. It simply takes those classes being logged on and available rather than other classes being available.

Again, you are stating an opinion as fact. There are very few times when a war/cler/enc/rog/rog/rog aren't on, even if they're not LFG. Enticing them to leave their current group, EC, or travel to your way-off-the-beaten-path camp is YOUR challenge, like pulling the 9.5 off Muscles Glasses.

If the game changes I propose were how the game worked, it wouldn't be a matter of just grabbing on 6 people and grouping together (although such a thing would be more viable than it is now), it would be a matter of picking the class and specialization combinations that create the best groups for the playstyle you want to attempt. There would be more player skill involved as well.

Except "the game changes you propose" are already present in games, such as WoW, and they STILL have a tank shortage. In WoW, all the DPS are pretty much within 5-10% of each other, the healers are all equally capable, and the tank classes are all equally capable (this conclusion may not be 100% accurate, but compared to classic EQ, it is valid). On top of that, you as a player do not even have to find the group, the game will do that for you while you bullshit around. You know what happens? DPS still end up waiting 30-60min for a group because tanks and healers aren't "available".

In WoW, people are too lazy to engage tanks on their server in a social manner to get them to group, and tanks are too elitist to do randoms. Hasbinbad's analogy is dead on, if you put in the effort you can pull the 9.5 off muscles glasses, but you can also get your jollies with the fat chick. If you're really lazy/bad at picking up chicks, you'll go home to JILL.

[Zuranthium]

Fun is subjective; making absolute statements about what is or isn't fun is a waste of everyone's time.

Find me a group that thinks 10 minutes of downtime per 1 blue-con mob (without any chance of amazing drops) is fun.

Mmm.... if only that were true for MMOs (e.g., WoW Clones) where in your design aspect is already a reality. But sadly (for you), that's not the reality of having a set number of roles and the classes that fit into them, because people will take what's available first to get through things faster, rather than waiting for what they actually want.

Why do you keep trying to make a surreptitious claim about how things must work in MMO's as if the only possibilities are WoW-clones? Aside from that, I really don't see what other point you're trying to make here. It seems like you are perhaps trying to arguing that it's bad for an MMO when you have an easier time of finding a workable group. Of course, even if that were true with my class changes (it generally would be), this point disregards how different areas of the game would require different tactics and thus the same group won't always be successful in every area. And if you have quests that give players incentives for actually traveling around the game World and needing to fight through the various content that requires all different kinds of tactics, then it's definitely not just a "get 6 people together and go" kind of deal.

There really isn't anything that you can't do with a group where each member just fits the general category -- tank, healer, dps, crowd control. While it may be less efficient with a druid healer and necro DPS and so on, it'll still be doable enough to not be an exercise in futility.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true with the way EQ is later on. Good luck trying to fight Sebilite Juggernaughts with your "doable" setup of Warrior/Ranger/Bard/Druid/Necro/Magician. Not mention Velious content. In actuality, once you get to that point in the game, only one class actually fits the role of healer (Cleric) and only one class fits the role of crowd control (Enchanter, plus they have a whole other array of amazing abilities) and trying to use Caster DPS instead of Melee DPS is just a big joke.

Personally, I enjoy doing things with sub-optimal setups. Until you push you're limits, you'll never know where they are. Also, its pretty bad ass to look back on one of those sub-optimal group experiences and think, "Wow, we pulled that off."

You can have sub-optional group setups even with balanced classes. That shouldn't be an argument for why classes shouldn't be balanced. I agree that it's fun to overcome with a sub-optimal group although, again, it's not even possible to attempt a sub-optimal group (not having a Cleric) for the higher level content, because you are SO sub-optimal that it's pointless. It's along the lines of trying to jump off the top of a 10 story building just to see if you might not die.

There are very few times when a war/cler/enc/rog/rog/rog aren't on, even if they're not LFG. Enticing them to leave their current group, EC, or travel to your way-off-the-beaten-path camp is YOUR challenge, like pulling the 9.5 off Muscles Glasses.

I find that to be an absolutely terrible challenge. The most difficult part of the game is supposed to be attempting to try and get people away from EC to come group? That is lame and doesn't require skill relevant to playing the actual content. It's also tiresome and repetitive; once you form your party you're always doing pretty much the exact same thing. There should be a multitude of options that require time to gather the necessary classes/specializations together and skill to pull it off, if you want to achieve the most efficient/awesome group possible. And if you don't have the time/resources to form a perfect or near-perfect group, then you should still be able to make a wide variety of class combinations work.

Except "the game changes you propose" are already present in games, such as WoW. In WoW, all the DPS are pretty much within 5-10% of each other, the healers are all equally capable, and the tank classes are all equally capable. You know what happens? DPS still end up waiting 30-60min for a group because tanks and healers aren't "available".

The game changes I propose are nothing like WoW at all. If one more person tries to use a WoW reference in relation to what I've been saying this entire time, I will start killing puppies.

I will delve into your point, however, because you just touched upon class equalizing. Class equalizing is not the same as Class balance. Class equalizing means you only have a small amount of actual roles and game mechanics, but far too many classes in comparison to the number of roles and game mechanics that a given class might be expected to utilize. Thus, the classes just become slightly different versions of each other within each archtype. This is not the sign of truly well designed game. However, class equalizing is at least better than classes being vastly imbalanced in this case, because if certain classes are fulfilling the same role and essentially doing it in the same way, then the game simply becomes less fun (for most people) when they suddenly find out that they class they picked and poured time into is actually not worthwhile.

And that is why you need enough roles and/or game mechanics to significantly differentiate all of the classes from each other. If every class has a distinctly different purpose, then game imbalance isn't as much of a problem (it should still be strived for) because some people will enjoy playing the class even if it is underpowered, since they like the unique methodology that class brings to the table.

The problem with EQ is the classes aren't actually all that unique from each other in many regards. When the game designers realized something was imbalanced, they often tried to equalize the classes rather than addressing the actual SYMPTOM of the problem. In Original EQ, Rogues were shit. Plain and simple, they just were. They were useful for corpse recovery within the few zones where monsters would see through invisibility and that was it. People who played a Rogue talked about how all of the cool abilities they were supposed to get - stealing, disarming traps, lock picking, safe fall, poison - were just garbage. Even Backstab was quite poor until they gave Rogues the ability to reduce their Aggro via the Hide skill (called Evade in combat), because backstabbing would simply pull the monster off the tank and then waste the healer's mana trying to keep the relatively frail Rogue alive as the monster pounded on them. That ability to reduce Aggro was necessary for making Rogues not complete shit, but they were still entirely underwhelming (after all, the Rogue was actually doing less DPS than the tank even when being able to use Backstab on recharge...the aggro system simply meant that the Rogue's sporadic larger packet of damage would draw the monster off someone who was actually doing more damage in total) and the only thing they had to show for it was being needed for a corpse recovery on occasion.

When Kunark came out, the designers did not address all of the cool abilities Rogues were supposed to have that ended up being implemented poorly, but rather they just turned the class into a DPS bot. The one skill that did actually get "fixed" (in Velious era) - making Poison - was simply an additional DPS function without anything really unique about it. And thus Rogues went from being the shittiest class in the game to being very desired. This did not help the game at all, though, because the number of shitty classes in the game increased when Kunark came out. In Original EQ it was really just Rogues that were shitty overal, but into Kunark a whole host of classes fell by the wayside, and Velious only made it even more so (even though valiant efforts were made to improve the viability of the Hybrid classes...they became less shitty but they still weren't top group picks, while at the same time non-Enchanter INT casters + Druids became even worse and the necessity of a group having the "Holy Trinity" became even higher).

[Extunarian]

Find me a group that thinks 10 minutes of downtime per 1 blue-con mob (without any chance of amazing drops) is fun.


Find me a group of 6 properly-leveled people that would be forced to have 10 minutes of downtime per blue-con mob.

Have you played on this server? I don't think I've had a 'traditional' group for more than a couple hours in the last 3 months. I have never had to wait longer than the occasional med/bio break between respawns.

Across the board, your assumptions are consistently off base but you continue to write mini-epics based on those ill-conceived assumptions. You make subjective claims and treat them as fact. When someone pins you with an argument you twist or confuse their words into something they did not say, but against which you can cobble together some semblance of a counterpoint. It's frustrating to read and quite apparent that you do not realize, care, or even believe that you do this.

[falkun]

You can have sub-optional group setups even with balanced classes. That shouldn't be an argument for why classes shouldn't be balanced. I agree that it's fun to overcome with a sub-optimal group although, again, it's not even possible to attempt a sub-optimal group (not having a Cleric) for the higher level content, because you are SO sub-optimal that it's pointless. It's along the lines of trying to jump off the top of a 10 story building just to see if you might not die.

You are implying that groups must only do "higher level content". You can, sub-optimally, and optionally too (but not sub-optionally), group all the way to 60 without doing the hardest camp in the game. Level-appropriate content exists for 1-60 that does not require the holy trinity. As an example, arguably the fastest exp in this game is actually AEing in skyshrine with BRD/CLR/ENC/ENC/WIZ/WIZ. You'll notice this group does not have a tank, includes 2 wizards (with their "inferior" DPS), and honestly the cleric is only there leeching EXP until the stuns resist, they all die, and he has to 96% rez them all. You are the one pigeon-holing your idea of a group to the holy trinity. Take a step back from your laws on group make-up and realize the possibilities for EXP and loot.

Part of the fun of classes not being balanced is realizing these out-of-the-box (read 'box' as 'holy trinity') solutions and making them work. You state as fact your opinion that these endeavors are not fun, yet its the accomplishment felt from succeeding in these groups that I find most fulfilling. As Extunarian says, you need to stop stating opinion as fact.

I find that to be an absolutely terrible challenge. The most difficult part of the game is supposed to be attempting to try and get people away from EC to come group? That is lame and doesn't require skill relevant to playing the actual content. It's also tiresome and repetitive; once you form your party you're always doing pretty much the exact same thing. There should be a multitude of options that require time to gather the necessary classes/specializations together and skill to pull it off, if you want to achieve the most efficient/awesome group possible. And if you don't have the time/resources to form a perfect or near-perfect group, then you should still be able to make a wide variety of class combinations work.

Anything that must be done to accomplish a task is perfectly relevant to playing the actual content. You are playing a "role-playing game", not an action shooter. This game is not just about killing things in groups, there is questing for rare items (which usually but not explicitly involves killing things), selling things in the server's market, trade-skilling, etc. If you wanted to just kill things in a group, go play DOTA. That game has killing in a group, without the other parts of the game that exists within the Everquest game.

Also, you say that you make your group and end up doing the same thing. There are many ways to kill things, with many different groups. I've already explained AEing vs. the traditional holy trinity, but there's also the fear-kiting ranger/necro duo if you need another example of a group that is "suboptimal" that can be very successful at "doing the exact same thing". You say there "should be" a multitude of options to "pull it off", are you blind to their existence already?

Finally, you can "make a wide variety of class combinations work", you need to just not be a narrow-minded idiot and think outside the box.

And that is why you need enough roles and/or game mechanics to significantly differentiate all of the classes from each other. If every class has a distinctly different purpose, then game imbalance isn't as much of a problem (it should still be strived for) because some people will enjoy playing the class even if it is underpowered, since they like the unique methodology that class brings to the table.

EQ has more roles to fill than any other MMO I have seen. WoW has the healer/tank/DPS. You fit into one of those three, always.

Travel is handled by the individual player instead of by interaction with a porting/SoWing class. (Mage porting in WoW is bullshit compared to individual flying/flight paths).
CC is handled by most every class, not specific classes who have less DPS to compensate for their superior CC capabilities.
Resurrection is handled by specific classes, not the individual player.

And that is not even a complete list of roles that exist within Everquest that have been relegated to the individual player/removed in WoW and other WoW-clones.

Congratulations, you have just proven that EQ game design, as-is, is better than the methods you, yourself, are advocating as improvements.

The problem with EQ is the classes aren't actually all that unique from each other in many regards.

Are you playing the same game I am? The EQ classes have the least amount of capability overlap of any MMO I have ever seen. If I want a SoW, I have to ask certain classes. If I want to travel across the continents swiftly, I have to ask certain classes. If I want a rez, I have to ask certain classes. If I want a tank, I have to ask certain classes. If I want to find a lost corpse, I have to ask certain classes. This interdependency for services is dependent upon the uniqueness of the classes and is alive and well here in classic EQ.

This did not help the game at all, though, because the number of shitty classes in the game increased when Kunark came out. In Original EQ it was really just Rogues that were shitty overal, but into Kunark a whole host of classes fell by the wayside, and Velious only made it even more so (even though valiant efforts were made to improve the viability of the Hybrid classes...they became less shitty but they still weren't top group picks, while at the same time non-Enchanter INT casters + Druids became even worse and the necessity of a group having the "Holy Trinity" became even higher).

This mentality of a "shitty class" is your opinion. These classes were still very capable at performing their intended roll, and even some unintended rolls. You don't have to be a "top group pick" to get into a group, and you don't always have to be at the "top (or hardest) camp pick". Having a satisfying play experience (its a game, this is all we should really be seeking) can be defined in many ways that may not include fighting at the hardest camp.

[Zuranthium]

Find me a group of 6 properly-leveled people that would be forced to have 10 minutes of downtime per blue-con mob.

Take a group with a Druid as the only healer against any high blue con mob once you are in the high 50's/60. They have to spam their entire mana bar to heal through a single mob and since they don't have good mana regen, it's an average of 10 minutes downtime per mob between the heals and buffs they need to do.

I don't think I've had a 'traditional' group for more than a couple hours in the last 3 months. I have never had to wait longer than the occasional med/bio break between respawns. Across the board, your assumptions are consistently off base

I'm not off base at all, you just aren't aware of the "assumptions" I'm making. Pray tell, exactly what have you been fighting? And have those groups had a Cleric despite perhaps not being as perfectly well rounded as the ideal?

You are implying that groups must only do "higher level content". You can, sub-optimally, and optionally too (but not sub-optionally), group all the way to 60 without doing the hardest camp in the game.

You can solo to level 60 as well. That's not the point.

The point is that you must do higher level content if you want to actually experience the entire game and get the best gear. It's impossible to do that without the very specific setups. Sure, you can do groups that get to level 60 grinding out those low blue con mobs, but that's hardly what makes Everquest (in theory) such a wonderful, dynamic game.

Part of the fun of classes not being balanced is realizing these out-of-the-box (read 'box' as 'holy trinity') solutions and making them work. You state as fact your opinion that these endeavors are not fun, yet its the accomplishment felt from succeeding in these groups that I find most fulfilling. As Extunarian says, you need to stop stating opinion as fact.

It is not my opinion that it's impossible to "make it work" without a specific group dynamic at the higher levels. That is quite simply a fact and you haven't played that content if you disagree.

And once again, if the classes WERE balanced (not equalized, let's not confuse the terms) then you would still find yourself in sub-optimal situations and have to make it work. I completely agree with you that such situations are fun. I love those situations and I love seeing what different classes can do in a given scenario. That kind of gameplay does exist in Everquest during the earlier levels but then it evaporates once you get to a certain point.

Anything that must be done to accomplish a task is perfectly relevant to playing the actual content. You are playing a "role-playing game", not an action shooter. This game is not just about killing things in groups

I'm perfectly aware of that, but don't try and twist the situation of not being able to form a proper group as a result of massive imbalances into something that is supposedly fun or skillful.

there is questing for rare items (which usually but not explicitly involves killing things), selling things in the server's market, trade-skilling, etc. If you wanted to just kill things in a group, go play DOTA. That game has killing in a group, without the other parts of the game that exists within the Everquest game.

Questing for any great higher end item is always going to involve long camps and needing to kill the harder content of the game (a few instances where I might be wrong here, though).

Trade-skilling? LOL. I mean, yes, it would be great if that was viable in the game (and if raising your levels in tradeskills was actually a fun endeavor rather than simply a "hit the combine button" endeavor) but it's not. Jewelcrafting is the only tradeskill you might make real money from and that requires materials that are dropped from high-end monsters and also a huge initial investment.

Also, you say that you make your group and end up doing the same thing. There are many ways to kill things, with many different groups. I've already explained AEing vs. the traditional holy trinity, but there's also the fear-kiting ranger/necro duo if you need another example of a group that is "suboptimal" that can be very successful at "doing the exact same thing". You say there "should be" a multitude of options to "pull it off", are you blind to their existence already?

AEing is not at all a viable higher level method. And good luck going into hard dungeons with a Ranger+Necro duo and seeing how far you get fear-kiting.

EQ has more roles to fill than any other MMO I have seen. WoW has the healer/tank/DPS. You fit into one of those three, always.
[list]
Travel is handled by the individual player instead of by interaction with a porting/SoWing class. (Mage porting in WoW is bullshit compared to individual flying/flight paths).
CC is handled by most every class, not specific classes who have less DPS to compensate for their superior CC capabilities.
Resurrection is handled by specific classes, not the individual player.

And that is not even a complete list of roles that exist within Everquest that have been relegated to the individual player/removed in WoW and other WoW-clones.

The amount of roles you have stated still does not cover enough territory to allow for the number of classes in EQ, if every class is to be truly unique. It's not just about specific roles either, but rather game mechanics and situations in which certain classes will shine over others. You can have two characters that are "DPS" characters and achieve that goal in completely different ways and have different nuances, requiring practice and talent to perfect the methods with regards the the specific class/specialization.

In Everquest right now, classes don't actually do anything much different to achieve that goal. Whether you are a Monk, or a Rouge, or a Ranger, you do DPS by standing around swinging under haste and occasionally pressing a couple buttons on recharge.

Your point about CC is unfortunately completely wrong once you get to the higher content, especially Velious era. The Enchanter's low-rest Mesmerize is the only viable option. As for Ressurect and Travel, they are definitely great perks and add to the community and RPG side of the game and are worthwhile assets to consider when balancing classes, but they aren't as specifically pertinent to dynamic gameplay. Although, ressurects actually do have potential for dynamic gameplay (look at Guild Wars). That is an issue I haven't talked about and am unsure about with regards to Everquest. "Battle Ressurects" are certainly a worthwhile issue to ponder, though.

[Daywolf]

Take a group with a Druid as the only healer against any high blue con mob once you are in the high 50's/60. They have to spam their entire mana bar to heal through a single mob and since they don't have good mana regen, it's an average of 10 minutes downtime per mob between the heals and buffs they need to do.You mean white con? And at that point, if only 1 drui, it's more efficient for the drui to just solo or duo (non-contact). For a full group, really needs two healing if not a cleric. And if 2 drui, more efficient to ditch the group and duo :D ...and go after yellow cons

[Popt]

Take a group with a Druid as the only healer against any high blue con mob once you are in the high 50's/60. They have to spam their entire mana bar to heal through a single mob and since they don't have good mana regen, it's an average of 10 minutes downtime per mob between the heals and buffs they need to do.

You can do King camp in Sebilis without a Cleric healer, use a Monk tank and add slows. The only real challenge might be the King himself. And as far as mana regen, I am quite certain that most groups in the high 50's/60 would include a class that may or may not increase one's mana regeneration rate. I'm also assuming that this make believe group of yours does not include any classes that have slowing spells, stuns, or that can even DPS, because there's no reason that 6 people fighting 1 blue con mob would take anyone's entire mana bar.

[guineapig]

My thread was way more on point...

[Hasbinbad]

I'm surprised anyone is actually reading what this guy has to say anymore, but this gem out of his most recent post should seal the deal.
AEing is not at all a viable higher level method.
Dude, nobody cares what you have to say. Go away.

[Hasbinbad]

My thread was way more on point...
Yeah, it was. More fun too. This one had potential, but has been hijacked by wow fanbois.