Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Column] EverQuest Next: No Class Race Restriction is a Good Thing

245

Comments

  • LanessarLanessar PALM HARBOR, FLPosts: 87Member
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    I'd prefer permanent or painful consequences on the first, but nothing permanent on the second.

  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Originally posted by OSF8759

    "Because roleplaying" is a very nihilistic argument. It can be used to justify removing any mechanic from the game. This must be a game first and foremost, and if there is no structure (structure = limitations) then there is no game.

     

    And I agree with DavisFlight above. This signifies player choices bear no consequences in this game. This is a  very bad thing.

     

    Is EverQuest Next going to be a game (structured play with goals, rewards and punishments) or a play set (unstructured play with playing pieces to provide the visuals/sounds)? I understand roleplayers ultimately want a play set, but the vast majority want a game.

     

    It's a sandbox. Think back to your parents telling you to go outside and play. Your choices of what to do to occupy your time were entirely up to you.

    It's a hybrid.  You may have the option to go outside, but you had activities that were acceptable.  Play on the swing, get a friend and throw a ball, play tag, ride bikes, climb trees.  Having choices doesn't make a sandbox .. if that were true, then WoW is also a sandbox.

     

    Rally Calls are not entirely open ended, for instance.  Every outcome was programmed ahead of time, much like how a Choose Your Own Adventure book has definitive endings.  Or is GW2 now a sandbox too, because of it's story choices and dynamic events?

     

    EQN does have sandbox elements, which is of course welcome.  Being able to do as you please and break lore in a hybrid based on a popular IP is the issue at hand.  Some races just don't turn out successful in a profession.  Too big, too small, not smart enough, not strong enough .. not agile enough.

     

    I don't think it's going to be isolated incidents where 1 or 2 people explain away their history via roleplay.  It will be a high % of odd combinations running around to just make the whole game rather silly.  Tiny races are harder to spot / target, so they will be very popular in PVP.  Zzzz... how entertaining to see a gnome wield a 5 foot long sword weighing 100 lbs. :(

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    Except this shows that the devs, despite overwhelming player outcry, are determined to make this game nice and friendly, where the choices you make only have a shallow impact on yourself and the game. If your choices are ever in danger of hurting you, cut it.

    That's the kind of design that birthed WoW.

  • OzivoisOzivois Phoenix, AZPosts: 598Member

    This discussion that claims that players shouldn't have to wiki or research which race best suits their class choices is an insult to our intelligence. Of all of the posts I have seen on sites like mmorpg.com, I have never seen a thread where people complain about having to re-roll a character because they didn't do enough research on their choices.

    If SOE is going to be stubborn enough to implement generic races, generic classes (i.e. you can be all classes) and things of this nature then they will have a generic game that will never see it's true potential.

    Certain races having very specific aptitudes towards the needs of certain classes is not an old-school, D&D design element that faded away. This is nonsense and I reject that opinion. Quite the opposite, keeping alot of race, alignment and class restrictions are just the type of features that will make new MMOs fresh, challenging and appealing to players.

    Most players agree with the philosophy that you should "learn your class" to properly execute your role in a party. I think most of us also agree that you should "learn your race", "learn your build" etc. etc. as part of the challenging process of being the most effective person you can be in the game. To dumb a game down be removing any possibility of negative consequences from player decisions is, in my opinion, a huge mistake.

  • ZorgoZorgo Deepintheheartof, TXPosts: 2,226Member

    Well, with races being cosmetic, hopefully faction will have enough of an influence it would warrant alts. Otherwise, guess this isn't an alt-lovers game. 

    Not a game breaker for me - but not a plus either.

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    This is one of those questions where it's a bit tricky to decipher the real reason *why* players voted the way they did.

    Do people actually have a reason for wanting a restriction?  Or are they rationalizing because some game they liked in the past had them?

    Do they really think seeing a particular combination (in-game or just on the selection screen) will hurt their enjoyment of the game or are they just saying "there are some combos that I personally wouldn't be interested in playing"?

  • LanessarLanessar PALM HARBOR, FLPosts: 87Member
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    Except this shows that the devs, despite overwhelming player outcry, are determined to make this game nice and friendly, where the choices you make only have a shallow impact on yourself and the game. If your choices are ever in danger of hurting you, cut it.

    That's the kind of design that birthed WoW.

    I disagree. There was not "overwhelming player outcry". I follow the forums on this matter, and feel the original article over exaggerated the matter. From what I'm reading, most of the commenters are in agreement with the lack of restrictions (save for about ten posters who are going rabid). The rest are a little wary of why the devs "didn't follow the vote".

    This stems from not understanding that the devs are posting polls for feedback. Feedback in itself is not a decision-making process. It gathers information, which is then used to make a decision based on the merits of the input. The final decisions are the developers to make. Feedback does not mean "this is the way it should be". Lastly, developing or managing solely by committee ends up with a worse product than a development process which listens, but ultimately makes their own decisions.

    The detractors of the idea on races aren't making a strong case on the matter, at all. And, in fact, the premise for restrictions are incorrect - read my "history of dnd heroes" post above. Most of the popular or famous fantasy heroes from novels severely violated the D&D ruleset when they were introduced, and the rules were then changed in succeeding editions to allow them. WOW wasn't even a glimmer in someone's eye back in those days.

    Regardless, your statement merely points out the statement "you have player choice and character choice mashed together". You didn't really address that point in your response. Would you want to have a character in a sandbox world which was affected because you didn't read page 63 of the manual?

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    Except this shows that the devs, despite overwhelming player outcry, are determined to make this game nice and friendly, where the choices you make only have a shallow impact on yourself and the game. If your choices are ever in danger of hurting you, cut it.

    That's the kind of design that birthed WoW.

    I disagree. There was not "overwhelming player outcry". I follow the forums on this matter, and feel the original article over exaggerated the matter. From what I'm reading, most of the commenters are in agreement with the lack of restrictions (save for about ten posters who are going rabid). The rest are a little wary of why the devs "didn't follow the vote".

    Well over 60% wanted restrictions of some form, and were entirely ignored. They were ignored for the sake of no one doing anything that might upset them in the future.

    An easier way to solve this would be class or race respecs, not just removing choices and consequence from that part of the game.

    If they're being this light handed now, I shudder to think of the future.

  • LanessarLanessar PALM HARBOR, FLPosts: 87Member
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    Except this shows that the devs, despite overwhelming player outcry, are determined to make this game nice and friendly, where the choices you make only have a shallow impact on yourself and the game. If your choices are ever in danger of hurting you, cut it.

    That's the kind of design that birthed WoW.

    I disagree. There was not "overwhelming player outcry". I follow the forums on this matter, and feel the original article over exaggerated the matter. From what I'm reading, most of the commenters are in agreement with the lack of restrictions (save for about ten posters who are going rabid). The rest are a little wary of why the devs "didn't follow the vote".

    Well over 60% wanted restrictions of some form, and were entirely ignored. They were ignored for the sake of no one doing anything that might upset them in the future.

    An easier way to solve this would be class or race respecs, not just removing choices and consequence from that part of the game.

    If they're being this light handed now, I shudder to think of the future.

    You didn't read the actual responses below the poll. Even people who voted for restrictions had all sorts of caveats which actually put them into a different category. And the developers never stated that certain races would not be hindered or affected if they took certain classes - it was restrictions, not being able to take a class at all, that was mentioned. I'll wait til I see a more formal racial benefits description before I start with a pitchfork.

     

    EDIT: I'm trying to make my position clear, here. I'm not "for the developers", I'm "against undue criticism". I personally am highly dubious that SoE will do half of what they say for the game. However, that being said, there are things to get in an uproar about, and people are incorrectly reading that they are ignoring player feedback - feedback is just that. The poll should not decide the outcome of a decision - ever. Otherwise, you get politicians, not developers.

  • ghorgosghorgos NirgendwoPosts: 190Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Tygranir

    It's a sandbox. Think back to your parents telling you to go outside and play. Your choices of what to do to occupy your time were entirely up to you.

    Within limits and with restrictions. Even ignoring the restriction that came from your parents there are always restrictions to what you can do. You can't build a working car within a sandbox(the real life version). Why should a virtual sandbox be any different? 

  • OzivoisOzivois Phoenix, AZPosts: 598Member
    Originally posted by Lanessar

    They're making a sandbox-y game. It doesn't make sense to log into a sandbox-y game and immediately be told "oh, you can't do this".

     

    Besides, some of the most popular characters from DnD fiction were in total violation of the DnD game rules. Drizzt Do'Urden was not possible as a character under 1ED rules (the rules being used at the time the book was released).

     

    Same with Raistlin Majere (they made a whole campaign setting to allow him to be legal), Elminster (even within 2ED, no rules existed to cover that character's abilities), and the list goes on.

     

    So, if famous/awesome characters were made by not having any rules, why keep the archaic and fairly retarded restrictions in place? Most of them were made by failed writers who ended up writing rulebooks instead.

     

    "Dwarves cannot be wizards or use magic, because they are magic resistant".

    (Two years later) "These evil elves are insanely magic-resistant, but primarily use magic".

    Explanation? Underground "magical gamma radiation".

    But wait, dwarves are underground, too...

    "Oh, but this is DEEPER underground."

    It's like the game designers were just pulling this stuff out of their... yeah. Why continue using these standards?

     

    EDIT: And just to clarify, I started with the Chainmail ruleset, and the first campaign I played was the Kingdom of Blackmoor.

     

    Sandbox game does not mean that the game cannot have any restrictions. After all, a game by its very nature is a set of goals that you must meet by working through a set of restrictions (rules).

    The less restrictions you have in a game, the less it is a game and the more it is just a chore.

  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    Except this shows that the devs, despite overwhelming player outcry, are determined to make this game nice and friendly, where the choices you make only have a shallow impact on yourself and the game. If your choices are ever in danger of hurting you, cut it.

    That's the kind of design that birthed WoW.

    I disagree. There was not "overwhelming player outcry". I follow the forums on this matter, and feel the original article over exaggerated the matter. From what I'm reading, most of the commenters are in agreement with the lack of restrictions (save for about ten posters who are going rabid). The rest are a little wary of why the devs "didn't follow the vote".

    This stems from not understanding that the devs are posting polls for feedback. Feedback in itself is not a decision-making process. It gathers information, which is then used to make a decision based on the merits of the input. The final decisions are the developers to make. Feedback does not mean "this is the way it should be". Lastly, developing or managing solely by committee ends up with a worse product than a development process which listens, but ultimately makes their own decisions.

    The detractors of the idea on races aren't making a strong case on the matter, at all. And, in fact, the premise for restrictions are incorrect - read my "history of dnd heroes" post above. Most of the popular or famous fantasy heroes from novels severely violated the D&D ruleset when they were introduced, and the rules were then changed in succeeding editions to allow them. WOW wasn't even a glimmer in someone's eye back in those days.

    Regardless, your statement merely points out the statement "you have player choice and character choice mashed together". You didn't really address that point in your response. Would you want to have a character in a sandbox world which was affected because you didn't read page 63 of the manual?

    An NPC hero with such will would be believable.  Having hundreds or thousands of Drizzt Do'Urden's or Raistlin Majere's running around with a significant proportion to the total number of players is immersion breaking.

     

    It would be like WoW letting people roll Lich as a race (think Lich-King visuals). The outcome is predictable (guess what people's next character race will be) and waters down the meaning of what it means to really be among the cursed / damned / undead, you name it.  They'd have 20% evils and 80% carebear's.

     

    To counter your argument, I'll venture into saying you are not making a strong case for allowing illogical choices :P

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by Karteli
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    Except this shows that the devs, despite overwhelming player outcry, are determined to make this game nice and friendly, where the choices you make only have a shallow impact on yourself and the game. If your choices are ever in danger of hurting you, cut it.

    That's the kind of design that birthed WoW.

    I disagree. There was not "overwhelming player outcry". I follow the forums on this matter, and feel the original article over exaggerated the matter. From what I'm reading, most of the commenters are in agreement with the lack of restrictions (save for about ten posters who are going rabid). The rest are a little wary of why the devs "didn't follow the vote".

    This stems from not understanding that the devs are posting polls for feedback. Feedback in itself is not a decision-making process. It gathers information, which is then used to make a decision based on the merits of the input. The final decisions are the developers to make. Feedback does not mean "this is the way it should be". Lastly, developing or managing solely by committee ends up with a worse product than a development process which listens, but ultimately makes their own decisions.

    The detractors of the idea on races aren't making a strong case on the matter, at all. And, in fact, the premise for restrictions are incorrect - read my "history of dnd heroes" post above. Most of the popular or famous fantasy heroes from novels severely violated the D&D ruleset when they were introduced, and the rules were then changed in succeeding editions to allow them. WOW wasn't even a glimmer in someone's eye back in those days.

    Regardless, your statement merely points out the statement "you have player choice and character choice mashed together". You didn't really address that point in your response. Would you want to have a character in a sandbox world which was affected because you didn't read page 63 of the manual?

    An NPC hero with such will would be believable.  Having hundreds or thousands of Drizzt Do'Urden's or Raistlin Majere's running around with a significant proportion to the total number of players is immersion breaking.

     

    It would be like WoW letting people roll Lich as a race. The outcome is predictable (guess what people's next character race will be) and waters down the meaning of what it means to really be among the cursed / damned / undead, you name it.  They'd have 20% evils and 80% carebear's.

     

    To counter your argument, I'll venture into saying you are not making a strong case for allowing illogical choices :P

    On this subject you really should step back, take a deep breath and forget for a moment that it is a game you so deeply care for, then try and look at things and how they stand because as it is right now you're not basing anything you're saying on objective facts but on irrational emotions which have no place in such a discussion.

    image
  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Karteli
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    So what they're saying is... playing choice won't have consequence. Good to know, the chance for risk vs reward or an actual death penalty is probably out the window too.

    I think you have "player choice" and "character choice" mashed together.

    If, in a game, my character kills an innocent and loses paladin powers, that's a character choice (with consequence).

    If, as a player, I equip a broadsword and don't know that prevents me ever thereafter from using battle axes, that's a player choice (and an easy mistake to make).

    Except this shows that the devs, despite overwhelming player outcry, are determined to make this game nice and friendly, where the choices you make only have a shallow impact on yourself and the game. If your choices are ever in danger of hurting you, cut it.

    That's the kind of design that birthed WoW.

    I disagree. There was not "overwhelming player outcry". I follow the forums on this matter, and feel the original article over exaggerated the matter. From what I'm reading, most of the commenters are in agreement with the lack of restrictions (save for about ten posters who are going rabid). The rest are a little wary of why the devs "didn't follow the vote".

    This stems from not understanding that the devs are posting polls for feedback. Feedback in itself is not a decision-making process. It gathers information, which is then used to make a decision based on the merits of the input. The final decisions are the developers to make. Feedback does not mean "this is the way it should be". Lastly, developing or managing solely by committee ends up with a worse product than a development process which listens, but ultimately makes their own decisions.

    The detractors of the idea on races aren't making a strong case on the matter, at all. And, in fact, the premise for restrictions are incorrect - read my "history of dnd heroes" post above. Most of the popular or famous fantasy heroes from novels severely violated the D&D ruleset when they were introduced, and the rules were then changed in succeeding editions to allow them. WOW wasn't even a glimmer in someone's eye back in those days.

    Regardless, your statement merely points out the statement "you have player choice and character choice mashed together". You didn't really address that point in your response. Would you want to have a character in a sandbox world which was affected because you didn't read page 63 of the manual?

    An NPC hero with such will would be believable.  Having hundreds or thousands of Drizzt Do'Urden's or Raistlin Majere's running around with a significant proportion to the total number of players is immersion breaking.

     

    It would be like WoW letting people roll Lich as a race. The outcome is predictable (guess what people's next character race will be) and waters down the meaning of what it means to really be among the cursed / damned / undead, you name it.  They'd have 20% evils and 80% carebear's.

     

    To counter your argument, I'll venture into saying you are not making a strong case for allowing illogical choices :P

    On this subject you really should step back, take a deep breath and forget for a moment that it is a game you so deeply care for, then try and look at things and how they stand because as it is right now you're not basing anything you're saying on objective facts but on irrational emotions which have no place in such a discussion.

    If everything was objective, then there would be no discussion.

     

    4 * 4 = 16.  End of discussion.

     

    4 * x = y.  Begin speculation...

     

    On that note, SOE isn't even listening to their own forums, let alone these.  So discussion may very well be trivial at best.  I tried to explain each part clearly, so not sure what you mean by irrational emotions.  But whatever, we each have opinions.

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • SamhaelSamhael Huntsville, ALPosts: 700Member Uncommon
    I believe that SOE made the mistake of asking a question that they weren't prepared to receive the answers for. I think this is just the one of the first of what will be many mis-steps on the road to launch. (not basing this on past SOE launches, although there are plenty of prime examples there)
  • TookyGTookyG Warhammer Online Correspondent Alameda, CAPosts: 1,188Member
    Originally posted by Razeekster
    Why am I unable to get myself excited for this game? It seems to be the the huge sandbox game that I and lots of other people have been wanting. Just something about it I guess... I'm more excited for the Repopulation.

    For me it's because the game is going to be F2P.  I'll still give it a shot but...meh.

    Until you cancel your subscription, you are only helping to continue the cycle of mediocrity.

  • Yyrkoon_PoMYyrkoon_PoM Reseda, CAPosts: 150Member
    I don't think this is a case of SOE not listening to the polls.  It  seems that some people equate listening to doing exactly what the polls say should happen. I do believe SOE listened to the results, but made a creative decision to go in a different direction. If you read the whole reply you can see where they acknowledge that their own staff was divided and they were aware that the polls came out the way they came out. The reply was very thoughtful and explained some of the reasons they went the route they did. Just because something is possible, does not automatically mean 100% easy mode and all of the players will achieve it.  SOE can easily set up a situation that certain conditions need to be met before a certain class can be picked up and that some races will have difficulties in achieving those conditions. All SOE did was open the door to any race being any class, it does not mean that every player will be every class.
  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    While I understand their decision, and though I'd much prefer class restrictions, what kinda irks me is the fact that they asked this question in the first place. They HAD to have known that people would vote for class restrictions.  Why set themselves up for a bad PR moment? It was just stupid on their part.
  • jbombardjbombard SapporoPosts: 531Member Uncommon

    I don't think design by consensus is ever a good idea.  It is like building a house and saying "Hey guys do you think we need a beam over here?", don't be surprised when your house falls apart.   There is a reason why there are professional designers and architects, they have a vision and they know and understand how all the pieces need to fit together.

     

    It is never a good sign when the people making a game need to be told by regular people how to make it.

  • EhliyaEhliya Washington, DCPosts: 199Member

    I am sorry to see the direction EQN is taking.  Massive single player without real consequences or meaningful choices isn't anything "new" - it is the trend now.  And it is geared not to the most loyal core following, but instead to grab as much market share as possible.  Again, nothing new - one grand IP after another has gone down the spout with this approach.

  • BMBenderBMBender Nowhere, NCPosts: 568Member Uncommon
    While I'll agree that race/class restricti9ons are less desirable or even useful in todays mmo's.  I'm a bit confused about the whole lets debate/vote ahh never mind thing.  Seems rather insulting to me. /shrugs

    image
  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by BMBender
    While I'll agree that race/class restricti9ons are less desirable or even useful in todays mmo's.  I'm a bit confused about the whole lets debate/vote ahh never mind thing.  Seems rather insulting to me. /shrugs

    It's how SOE wants to do business.

     

    Next poll:  "Players don't want Bards or Necromancers as they don't seem in line with all the awesomeness we would like to achieve."

     

    Results:

    Keep Bards and Necromancers (97%)

    Lose Bards and Necromancers (2%)

    No Opinion (<1%)

     

    SOE: The tally's are in, by popular demand we are now removing bards and necromancers!

    And here's why:

    < insert 2 pages of complete irrelevant dribble >

     

     

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • ElikalElikal ValhallaPosts: 7,906Member Uncommon

    I never was a fan of class restrictions. I mean, can I just be a baker or a cop because I am a White dude? Why should a race restrict your "job"? It just doesn't make sense. Why should Gnomes or Elfs or Orcs not be capable to do the same stuff?

    Maybe a D&D Elf being not so stroung and resilient would have a hard TIME to start as warrior, but with training he could do that! Nobody should hinder you. I mean, hell we have 2013 not 1979, grokk it?

    Seriously, don't take game so serious!

    I mean we are all here for the fun, so let each have his own vision of a character. EQ2 didn't have class restrictions, and good riddance. EQN has all the reasons behind them, given you don't chose ONE fixed class at start. It's just a RP pet peeve. And there is a simple solution: if you think your Gnome should not be able to play a Paladin... DON'T DO IT. Voila, problem solved. Thank me not.

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • quseioquseio stevens, PAPosts: 222Member

    good thing for devs  maybe!  players not so much there will be no or less alts alts mean  more time spent in the game

     its one of the cores of what a rpg is no cool racial abilities....or bonuses

    its a bad decision and flys in the face of the round table vote .,,,, much like us elections ignoreing the popular vote  it shows us that the roundtable means nothing its just one  way to keep the hype up and to keep people interested

  • LatronusLatronus Lexington Park, MDPosts: 692Member
    Originally posted by ChaaK
    Makes perfect sense, though how come they didn't realise that BEFORE asking the community?

    Because they obviously didn't put that much thought into before they decided to ask the community so they could figure it out on their own then tick off some by ignoring the will of the mob in their minds.  Typical SOE, act first, think later.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.