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

135

Comments

  • quseioquseio stevens, PAPosts: 222Member
    Originally posted by Elikal

    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.

     

    my reply to this is would you teach a race of relentless cannabalistic  killing machines**(trolls) ghow to fight how to be a wizard or monk ? no and they are literally not suited to being monks theyre far to inflexible   of course unless you comepletely change how they are i wouldnt mind stuff like eq2s alternate classes like the brawler being a barehanded  fighter but NOt agile and fast but i guess the essence of what a rpg is  is lost on todays crowd the role  of a monk just does not fit a ogre and it would look rediculous doing a dragon kick

  • FoeHammerJTFoeHammerJT Broken Arrow, OKPosts: 148Member

    They have made their decisions.

     

    The polls and forum discussions are simply designed for marketing to create spin.

     

    EQN is being designed to capture as a large a market of "gamers" as possible. Not MMO Gamers. "Gamers", console included.

     

    Anything that remotely resembles something you would have to read up on, or research; isn't going in this game.

     

    This is the next gen game for WoW and Console Players.

     

    Not RPers. Not mature gamers seeking a deep, immersive experience.

     

    Certainly, not those that played EQ.

     

    And happy days for them, they deserve games too.

     
  • FoeHammerJTFoeHammerJT Broken Arrow, OKPosts: 148Member
    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.

     

    It birthed the most popular MMO of all time, and the biggest cash cow developers had ever seen.

    Yes, that ideology will continue to be used.

     

    Not even blizzard thought Dwarf warlocks were a good idea for their game.

    EQN is more shallow than WoW.

    Now Shudder.

     
  • goemoegoemoe HannoverPosts: 183Member Uncommon
    Silly. Where is the point in doing a round table and telling they make a game for "us" or "we all", when the majority is ignored. The round table is nothing but a big round advertising joke.
  • LatronusLatronus Lexington Park, MDPosts: 692Member
    Originally posted by quseio
    Originally posted by Elikal

    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.

     

    my reply to this is would you teach a race of relentless cannabalistic  killing machines**(trolls) ghow to fight how to be a wizard or monk ? no and they are literally not suited to being monks theyre far to inflexible   of course unless you comepletely change how they are i wouldnt mind stuff like eq2s alternate classes like the brawler being a barehanded  fighter but NOt agile and fast but i guess the essence of what a rpg is  is lost on todays crowd the role  of a monk just does not fit a ogre and it would look rediculous doing a dragon kick

    You do realize that this is supposed to be a sandbox, you know, no restrictions and in an alternate universe where things didn't or haven't happened yet.  The lore isn't the same.  A little research will go a long way.  

    The other thing that strikes me about this thread is the crying for restrictions to limit choice in a sandbox.  There have been people crying alligator tears for a sandbox for years.  It seems everyone wants a themebox vice a sandpark.  They want the illusion of freedom wrapped in the enigma of an amusement park, dressed in the mystery of player choices matter.  In other words, a themebox version of GW2.  Make us think it's not a Themepark by making minor tweeks to what we are bored of and tell us we have freedom when we really don't.  Lead us by the nose from place to place but don't make it look like we are mindless lemmings.

    Are there going to be choices that make people scratch their heads and ask wtf was someone thinking in a sandbox? You bet, but if you really want the freedom that is supposed to be in a sandbox, then you have to allow for the choices some will make.  Otherwise it will be a themebox.  

    image
  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Latronus
    Originally posted by quseio
    Originally posted by Elikal

    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.

     

    my reply to this is would you teach a race of relentless cannabalistic  killing machines**(trolls) ghow to fight how to be a wizard or monk ? no and they are literally not suited to being monks theyre far to inflexible   of course unless you comepletely change how they are i wouldnt mind stuff like eq2s alternate classes like the brawler being a barehanded  fighter but NOt agile and fast but i guess the essence of what a rpg is  is lost on todays crowd the role  of a monk just does not fit a ogre and it would look rediculous doing a dragon kick

    You do realize that this is supposed to be a sandbox, you know, no restrictions and in an alternate universe where things didn't or haven't happened yet.  The lore isn't the same.  A little research will go a long way.  

    The other thing that strikes me about this thread is the crying for restrictions to limit choice in a sandbox.  There have been people crying alligator tears for a sandbox for years.  It seems everyone wants a themebox vice a sandpark.  They want the illusion of freedom wrapped in the enigma of an amusement park, dressed in the mystery of player choices matter.  In other words, a themebox version of GW2.  Make us think it's not a Themepark by making minor tweeks to what we are bored of and tell us we have freedom when we really don't.  Lead us by the nose from place to place but don't make it look like we are mindless lemmings.

    Are there going to be choices that make people scratch their heads and ask wtf was someone thinking in a sandbox? You bet, but if you really want the freedom that is supposed to be in a sandbox, then you have to allow for the choices some will make.  Otherwise it will be a themebox.  

    It's not a sandbox buddy.  Get over it.  It's a hybrid.

    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.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,751Member Uncommon

    EasyMMO gameplay wins over lore and any sort of rational behind what a class is meant to be.

    So you have to ask yourself why have the round table when they already have decided the answers? Going down the ezMMO route is not new, so their decision to do this was no doubt made ages ago.

    The roundtable like so many of these attempts to make it seem like players are inputting to a MMO is an exercise in finessing the player community. By this I mean they know those that go on forums and the like want to feel their views are known, we liked to think the devs are listening to us. But the baulk of the player base does not even go on the forums and it is those that the MMO companies want to pander to.

    Whenever the roundtable or its equivalent says one thing but market research disagrees, they will go against the roundtable. The majority even if they say nothing are catered for. That's right, a lot of this is about what it is assumed the majority want, remember these game hopping guys don't even bother to answer polls or whatever.

    But MMO companies feel the need to finesse those who will take part in discussions about the game. In this case 6 thousand or so players who posted about class restrictions. So they get some 'plurality' bullshit straight out of the PR department. They do get told some of the real reasons in the video, but then that brings us back to why have the roundtable? Those are stock reasons, they were never going to make any other decision.

    In fact if you add together those that wanted class restrictions with those that wanted some for replay ability that's 54%, a majority even by SOE's rigged system. But this is not about what the forum posters want, so it is hardly surprising it did not go that way.

    When they did the Guns and Ninja's post some 47% gave a straight no. But as the other answer is not just "yes" they can play the plurality card again. So 47% of players ignored and there will be guns and versions of ninjas in game. Want to stop EQNext having everything and anything they think will scrap in a few more players? Well you can piss off as far as they are concerned.

    So is the roundtable worth taking part in? Well, there are questions where I think the answer was not decided like beards on female dwarves. But that is all they are going to listen to, anything that effects easymode gameplay and WoW template is set in stone already.

     

  • UsualSuspectUsualSuspect CardiffPosts: 1,243Member

    "When we started developing the game, we realized we wanted to create a situation where our players were never forced to make a decision that they would later regret based on knowledge they didn't have at that stage in their careers."

     

    Hey, I know, why don't you show them the information during character generation? Duh. Ogre - Big and dumb, they'll never make a good wizard, too clumsy to be a rogue, but they're great at breaking bones. Ta da! Now they have the knowledge!

     

    "DnD was the model for all MMOs then and it made sense at the time to adhere to as many of the conventions presented as possible."

     

    It's not the model for all MMO's, it's the model for all RPGs. You can't redesign what's already been perfected. There might be hundreds of different types of cars, but they're all cars. You take out the base design and you're left with the Sinclair C5 (look it up!). RPG's have always had the base design of race/class because it works, it gives people direction and allows them to focus their mind on an idea. There's a reason modern MMO's are failing; they lack that focus and direction, it's all so 'wishy washy', nothing really matters, you're just an object following a story.

    EQ Next is going down a very bad path. It looks more console than any other MMO I've seen, which is really sad considering I was birthed from the original EverQuest. EQ2 was a let down, EQ Next looks like the nail in the coffin.

     
  • NovusodNovusod Lakewood, NJPosts: 892Member Uncommon

    I think they are making a mistake by going against the community like this. It was a solid Majority not a plurality that wanted class restrictions.

    • 40% saying that certain races should be restricted to certain classes
    • 27% saying that no class restrictions but penalties levied for certain races
    • 14% saying that it adds an element of replayability if race restrictions are in place

    See what they did there. They split the vote as those options should be added together to make 54% in favor of race restrictions. That is such complete and total dishonesty right there. That is a great way to start your game by rail roading more than half your community.

     

    This just proves that Round Table nothing but PR with all real design decisions already made. Hey folks your opinion does matter we were just trying to build hype.

     

    Personally I think they should go with soft restrictions. Nothing is stopping you from making a Fae berserker or an Ogre mage but there should be some penalties for making such a decision. Or at least have a trade off in stats. The little Fae can't use all the weapons because they are too big and too heavy or an Ogre mage can't use all the spells because they are too dumb. I think the old D&D logic should apply. One races' dagger is a another races' two handed sword. Balance it with weight restrictions and dexterity penalties. Over burdened with weight then wear less armor if you want to use a giant sword. This game should promote experimentation with builds like D&D did. Sandbox isn't just about world design. It is about class design as well.

     

    STOP making every decision to placate min / max power gamers. Those people are a poison to the community and yet they always get their way. It is because of them we see mechanics that support little pocket knives doing more damage than a greatsword or huge axe. Lets at least have some pretense at realism before going completely off the wall.

  • AnthurAnthur StolbergPosts: 686Member Uncommon

    The decision is ok, it is their game after all.

    But they should take down those polls. The have no purpose/meaning anyway. They are just there to keep the hype going and to give the future players the illusion they have anything to say about what EQN will be aboutd. They haven't of course which was clear anyway from the beginning,

  • OtomoxOtomox HoooooPosts: 303Member
    How about no? Stop this casual propaganda!
  • EndoRobotoEndoRoboto Silverdale, WAPosts: 275Member
    I lost hope when he said this isn't an Eq1 reboot but something different entirely. Sad.
  • ghorgosghorgos NirgendwoPosts: 190Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Elikal

    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!

    Comparing thooses races to different types of humans is wrong. Much better is a comparism to different species of animals. Now take a cheetah, elephant and dolphin and the "classes" sprinter, swimmer, weightlifter and you will notice that the race will make a huge difference and no training is able to change that. 

  • ZeGermanZeGerman Andover, MAPosts: 196Member
    Originally posted by ChaaK
    Makes perfect sense, though how come they didn't realise that BEFORE asking the community?

    Perhaps they did but if the survey came back with an overwhelming majority favoring restriction they would rethink it.  As it was 54% to 44% for against is not exactly overwhelming enough for them not to go in the direction they think is right.

  • SatyrosSatyros Posts: 134Member Uncommon
    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.

     

    Exactly.. And I really hope I'm wrong about this.

    It's in the details. Like a wannabe sandbox,  aka  "player driven",  game having a dev team that did not listen to a clear demand from the future players. Or the game being completely f2p. 

  • rygard49rygard49 Huntington Beach, CAPosts: 975Member
    Originally posted by ghorgos
    Originally posted by rygard49

    However my inner child with the boundless imagination is thinking of all the great origin stories that can be created to explain exactly why an Ogre Warrior became devoted to Mithaniel Marr and somehow convinced the order to ordain him as a Paladin of Good, or how an Wood Elven Monk fell to Necromancy after the loss of his dearest friend.

    Your examples are a good reason against restrictions and i realy like to see such ways being possible. MMy own concers are thoose combinations that are less alignment based but more about actual abilities. Its absurd to think a gnome could become a great warrior. There is no question that it might be possible for a gnome to become a warrior but its physically impossible for him to become a great one. Similar for races like Ogres, Trolls, Barbarians and higher magic. It could be resolved without restrictions but heavy penalties for the classes but my interpretation of soe ist that they don't even wan't thoose penalties and thats a problem for me.

     

    A quick comment to the possibility of special cases. Well there is always the chance for a mutation or devine favour that enhances the ability of a speciman but that would apply to all races. It can't be used to justify a Wizard Ogre if you deny the magic-boost for races like elves.

    Totally agree with you on the physical/spiritual capabilities being a logical limiting factor. An Ogre pickpocket makes no logical sense, since stealth and finesse are beyond the typical Ogre. In fact, my first attempt at a response to this thread was going to be about how limitations definitely need to exist for that reason.

    But when it comes to physical limitations and capabilities, I think instead of locking out a class from a race, you should instead lock out abilities from certain races/class combos. As an example, I reject that an Ogre would ever be able to pickpocket someone. Let them take the rogue class and learn how to backstab, but lock out their ability to pickpocket.

    Likewise, Gnome warriors should never be able to knock something over with brute force. Let them wear tiny plate, and wield tiny weapons and shields, but strength related skills should be limited or locked out depending on the proposed effect.

  • ropeniceropenice Lake Worth, FLPosts: 587Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by pmcubed

    I was surprised by the poll results.  In a game that bases it's longevity on the release of new classes, a race/class restriction would suck.

    Realistically, even with a fantastic art/dev/sprite team, you can't hope to release more than say, 1 new class every 2-4 weeks. (see LOL/Dota hero release calendar's)

    People will eat through the content faster than it can be produced.  Having race restrictions will mean my Rat-guy will miss the next release of "proposed class x"

    Maybe I don't feel like rolling an alt solely for the purpose of trying out the newly released class. No thanks to that.

    After 40 classes, how many classes can they come up with that aren't watered down or duplicates. I guess with a limited amount of abilities they can spread them out. They could've still let all races be any class, but given certain races bonuses/penalties for certain classes to still give each race it's own feel beyond cosmetic. Maybe they will do that, as we don't know how races are to be done yet.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member

    The only thing I got from this thread is some people want race restrictions, some don't but want some significance to the race itself and a few who just need to go to drug store and get some of this:

    I mean seriously guys and girls this is a game, a MMO ostensibly but a game none the less so why in the 7 Hells would anyone here really care that it's a different MMO than those set in the same Universe? It's a game, if it is good it will be played, if I like it I will play it, if it isn't a good game it will sink, regardless of my own tastes, that's all that matters in the end: a good game, not lore, not dogmatic views on classes, nothing, good or bad game is the end of the equation and that's objective and cannot be even a little bit discerned this early. Good day gents, I am out of this thread as it will likely drag on for a while longer for those unable to understand that they do not matter in the equation ( like I don't either).

    image
  • ReverielleReverielle AustraliPosts: 66Member Uncommon

    So much for a 'life of consequence', and 'your actions will be meaningful'. Clearly the knock on effect of this means that those two statements they've loved to used are completely, and ironically, meaningless.

    This is extremely disappointing to hear. But what is immediately more disappointing are the reasons they developers gave in the interview. For all their talk and hype generated, when it comes to the facts, once again it seems, step by step, they're revealing that EQN next will be another MMO where basically you get to play 'god' with your character. As a long time fan of EQ this is hugely disappointing to hear.

    Once again; just another development team that are frightened into giving the childish/impatient player everything they wanted for fear of whining. Very disappointing.

  • YilelienYilelien Vacaville, CAPosts: 322Member

    As a ex EQ & EQ2 player. The part of the EQ experience was the class definition. That knowing that everyone had a role to play and had to do so was very important. To this day my friends TAHT i played the game with all still talk about our roles.

     

     Move along 10 years. Tell us a new EQ is coming out. Then be suprised that people are upset that they are removing (to me), one of the most important parts of the game....

  • LatronusLatronus Lexington Park, MDPosts: 692Member
    Originally posted by Tarnorili

    So much for a 'life of consequence', and 'your actions will be meaningful'. Clearly the knock on effect of this means that those two statements they've loved to used are completely, and ironically, meaningless.

    This is extremely disappointing to hear. But what is immediately more disappointing are the reasons they developers gave in the interview. For all their talk and hype generated, when it comes to the facts, once again it seems, step by step, they're revealing that EQN next will be another MMO where basically you get to play 'god' with your character. As a long time fan of EQ this is hugely disappointing to hear.

    Once again; just another development team that are frightened into giving the childish/impatient player everything they wanted for fear of whining. Very disappointing.

    Normally I would I agree totally with what you have said, but since this is supposed to a sandbox type of game, please tell me how you can have a game without boundaries if they are imposed by things such as class restrictions?  IF they were making a themempark then absolutely there better be race/class restrictions, but they have they aren't.  Besides, why can't a Dark Elf be a Pally or other good class.  I guess all Dark Elves MUST be evil.  There are no absolutes in life so why should there be in a game? 

    image
  • YizleYizle Atlanta, GAPosts: 517Member
    Dwarf mages and Troll Monks yay...
  • ComafComaf Chicago, ILPosts: 1,154Member Common

    Yes of course! 

     

    The mediocrity of having no restrictions has worked so well in the past!  Or let's be honest...this is another lazy attempt to appease the masses, while pissing off the truly dedicated player base that would have been here.  Because you see, Sony EQN, the masses tend to move on rather quickly for the new whizz bang game of the month.

     

    This brilliant style of development is exactly what Elder Scrolls Online is doing - oh wait - no they aren't.  You see, they have read a few fantasy novels, not just looked at market projections and hired developers who have nothing outside of programming experience.  See, they know that race and class means a lot in the sense of the uniqueness that a player might feel. 

    Do not fear variation, folks.  Who the hell wants all vegetables to be red, and all meat to taste like chicken?

    image
  • ComafComaf Chicago, ILPosts: 1,154Member Common
    Originally posted by Tarnorili

    So much for a 'life of consequence', and 'your actions will be meaningful'. Clearly the knock on effect of this means that those two statements they've loved to used are completely, and ironically, meaningless.

    This is extremely disappointing to hear. But what is immediately more disappointing are the reasons they developers gave in the interview. For all their talk and hype generated, when it comes to the facts, once again it seems, step by step, they're revealing that EQN next will be another MMO where basically you get to play 'god' with your character. As a long time fan of EQ this is hugely disappointing to hear.

    Once again; just another development team that are frightened into giving the childish/impatient player everything they wanted for fear of whining. Very disappointing.

     

    signed

    image
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,413Member Uncommon

    Ogres can't use magic!   -  Ogre Magi?   -  That's different!

     

    Dwarves can't do magic -  Norse Dwarves use magic  -  That's Different!

     

    Trolls can't.....   - Grendel from Beowulf was considered a troll, you know....  That's Diffeerent!

     

    etc.

     

    Lots of rigid definition going on here.  I think Lanesser has nailed it down in various posts, but the responses just shout, That's Differeent! 

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

Sign In or Register to comment.