Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

EQ class stereotypes, too much?

245

Comments

  • WellspringWellspring Member EpicPosts: 1,331
    I remember them talking about Clerics having the unique ability to pickup and move some giant shields, and use them to block passages, ect. And I believe each class will have unique things of their own similar to this in Pantheon.

    Right now I believe their focus is on getting the base class mechanics down, then improve upon them and make the classes uniquely Pantheon.

    They've already done this with the Races. The Gnomes and Dwarfs are uniquely Pantheon. I have no doubt the classes will be the same way, they just haven't finished them yet.
    --------------------------------------------
  • XodicXodic Member EpicPosts: 1,138
    Traditional DnD style classes are the best class designs I have ever seen. EQ was based on that concept and so is Pantheon. You progressives are too busy trying to recreate the wheel. What pisses me off is when a game chooses to use a class name that has already been defined and then !fs it all up - like playing a Ranger that's dumbed down to an archer /pet class...

    A warrior is a warrior, a cleric is a cleric, a wizard is a wizard, these classes and most others are already defined  - if you want a warrior that has laser beams then rename the class, not try and redefine what a warrior is.
  • HexipoxHexipox Member UncommonPosts: 241
    I remember them talking about Clerics having the unique ability to pickup and move some giant shields, and use them to block passages, ect. And I believe each class will have unique things of their own similar to this in Pantheon.

    Right now I believe their focus is on getting the base class mechanics down, then improve upon them and make the classes uniquely Pantheon.

    They've already done this with the Races. The Gnomes and Dwarfs are uniquely Pantheon. I have no doubt the classes will be the same way, they just haven't finished them yet.
    WHAT?? No bearded female dwarfs the?!? :anguished:  :angry:
  • FeyshteyFeyshtey Member UncommonPosts: 136
    Darksworm said:
    The game does seem a bit like plagiarism to me.  Completely shameless in the way they've basically cloned EverQuest.
    You could make that argument about every MMO because EQ was the precursor to every other 3D MMO. Almost every game out there uses UI elements, controls, systems, quests mechanics, or fight mechanics... all originating from EQ. 

    If you really wanted to get technical about it, EQ "stole" the class and race designs from Dungeons & Dragons, or from Tolkein and Lord of the Rings.

    All that aside, I'm not just unconcerned with the likenesses Pantheon has to Everquest in class design. I'm looking forward to it. While there are multitudes of games that have many of the same class backstories, none offer them in a gameworld with the mechanics I enjoy. Coupling original gameplay concepts with original class theories (mostly) is like a homecoming that I've been on the lookout for over a decade for.

    -Feyshtey-

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,914
    Dullahan said:
    As long as Pantheon doesn't create a mechanic like complete healing that makes a single class mandatory, I don't see a problem.

    Complete healing is one thing from EQ that Pantheon absolutely should not emulate.
    On this one thing, I'll agree with you, @Dullahan.

    Complete Heal was one culprit, but the inequity of healing between clerics, shamans and druids was in place long before 39th level.  The druid's regeneration spells simply didn't provide enough healing to keep a tank alive during a fight, and the shaman's damage avoidance via slow and cripple were never able to reliably change the outcome of a fight.  Both druid and shaman heals were a level behind the clerics, so when a cleric was healing for 300 HPs, the druid / shaman heal was 100 HPs.  The basic mob DPS needed to challenge a group of 6 was only countered by a cleric, and the other healing classes just weren't able to do the job.  You either got a cleric, or planned to do less dangerous content (with less reward).  Or you died a lot.

    There was also the bigger issue of Resurrection, not as a means to restore XP, but as a nearly vital mechanism to keep the group together when the enchanter died, due to a resisted attempt to mez.  The group without a cleric had to wait for the enchanter to run back to the group, where the group with a cleric got going far faster.  Resurrection for Druids and Shaman (and Paladins) didn't come along until much higher levels (50-60).  A death without a cleric in the group was often a precursor to the group breaking up.  The time difference between a run-from-bind and a resurrection frequently was the cause of groups falling apart.

    The design objective of EQ healing was equal but different classes, but it just didn't work that way in principle.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • danwest58danwest58 Member RarePosts: 2,012
    Honestly I think Pantheon should be like EQ.  Why?  Because the developers want to make the game that way for an audience that is there.  Not all games should be like WOW.  
  • HexipoxHexipox Member UncommonPosts: 241
    danwest58 said:
    Honestly I think Pantheon should be like EQ.  Why?  Because the developers want to make the game that way for an audience that is there.  Not all games should be like WOW.  
    Your totally missing the point about this thread, no one ever talked about wow nor that making the game like EQ as a problem... the idea of this thread was, which you gathered if you read the initial post, the diversity in classes, concerns on following EQ classes/rolls to the letter, with little diversity.
  • HexipoxHexipox Member UncommonPosts: 241
    edited January 2017
    Mendel said:
    Dullahan said:
    As long as Pantheon doesn't create a mechanic like complete healing that makes a single class mandatory, I don't see a problem.

    Complete healing is one thing from EQ that Pantheon absolutely should not emulate.
    On this one thing, I'll agree with you, @Dullahan.

    Complete Heal was one culprit, but the inequity of healing between clerics, shamans and druids was in place long before 39th level.  The druid's regeneration spells simply didn't provide enough healing to keep a tank alive during a fight, and the shaman's damage avoidance via slow and cripple were never able to reliably change the outcome of a fight.  Both druid and shaman heals were a level behind the clerics, so when a cleric was healing for 300 HPs, the druid / shaman heal was 100 HPs.  The basic mob DPS needed to challenge a group of 6 was only countered by a cleric, and the other healing classes just weren't able to do the job.  You either got a cleric, or planned to do less dangerous content (with less reward).  Or you died a lot.

    There was also the bigger issue of Resurrection, not as a means to restore XP, but as a nearly vital mechanism to keep the group together when the enchanter died, due to a resisted attempt to mez.  The group without a cleric had to wait for the enchanter to run back to the group, where the group with a cleric got going far faster.  Resurrection for Druids and Shaman (and Paladins) didn't come along until much higher levels (50-60).  A death without a cleric in the group was often a precursor to the group breaking up.  The time difference between a run-from-bind and a resurrection frequently was the cause of groups falling apart.

    The design objective of EQ healing was equal but different classes, but it just didn't work that way in principle.
    It's been so long so don't quote my data here, but I remember exactly the same, which as a Druid I often ended up quart kiting solo, making money and buying the drops. It was not until around plane of time both druids and shamans got improved heal that got us on the radar as main healer in a group.

    The heals we had before that could keep a group alive but was very ineffective manavise and if we had a bad pull we suffered and often ended up dead due to casting too many small heals at a too high mana price. 

    Ofcause when you had like the best gear and lots of clickable items casting reagen and so forth for free it got easier, or you had one of the old mana stones - but for a mediocre Druid or shaman it was hard and most rather take a cleric to be on the safe side.

    i was in one of the worlds best raid guilds (Mortalis, AB) and my gear at that time was among top 5 world wide best equipped druids. At that point, me as a main healer was easy and fine, but that did hold true for the majority of druids not playing as stupid hardcore as me. 
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    EQ with a new and more modern engine? I would play that. Still, a pure remake of a revolutionary game would not really make EQ justice.

    But while Pantheons group dynamics have a lot from EQ it also have other features. For instance the perception mechanics are rather interesting.

    I am not so worried, if it is fun and feels different from Wow and the more modern MMOs I am happy. Far too many MMOs feel just like the rest of them after 5 minutes gameplay, at least it was a long time ago most of us played EQ.

    The important part is to make combat feel fun and encourages groups to work together. If they get that right I can see myself spending a rather long time in it. 
  • sirphobossirphobos Member UncommonPosts: 620
    My biggest concern with this game is that there seems to be a giant echo chamber among the fanbase that shouts down any deviation from EQ as terrible and should not be implemented. For example, people who think that 8 hour corpse recoveries are a good design. Sorry, I have a full time job, house, and girlfriend. Requiring me to stay up until 3 AM because something went wrong is not good design.

    Likewise, I don't want 24 hour JBoot camps, spending 15 minutes to recover mana, sitting on by butt doing nothing because my group can't find a healer, etc. An EQ-like game is a welcome change, but seriously, people need to take off the rose-covered glasses and recognize that EQ had some SERIOUS flaws that we only tolerated back then because despite its flaws, it was still by far the best game available.
  • WellspringWellspring Member EpicPosts: 1,331
    sirphobos said:
    My biggest concern with this game is that there seems to be a giant echo chamber among the fanbase that shouts down any deviation from EQ as terrible and should not be implemented. For example, people who think that 8 hour corpse recoveries are a good design. Sorry, I have a full time job, house, and girlfriend. Requiring me to stay up until 3 AM because something went wrong is not good design.

    Likewise, I don't want 24 hour JBoot camps, spending 15 minutes to recover mana, sitting on by butt doing nothing because my group can't find a healer, etc. An EQ-like game is a welcome change, but seriously, people need to take off the rose-covered glasses and recognize that EQ had some SERIOUS flaws that we only tolerated back then because despite its flaws, it was still by far the best game available.
    I don't think anyone wants 8 hour corpse runs or mana regen speeds like vanilla EQ. 

    Sometimes though, when you deviate from EQ too much, you end up with games like EQ2 and WoW, and that is a scary thought to many people.
    --------------------------------------------
  • inmysightsinmysights Member UncommonPosts: 413
    I dont know what EQ ya'll were playing, but I have had MANY MANY dungeon runs with just a druid or shaman and an enchanter and we did just fine with no stinking cleric. There was never any reason to EVER Wait for a cleric. You can do anything with the right players, playing their classes correctly! I have watched all of the videos of Pantheon as well, and they are for sure keeping this same aspect in the game. You learn your role and do it well, you will be able to do anything and go anywhere you desire.

    I am so good, I backstabbed your face!

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,370
    With the co-creator of Everquest designing the game what kind of game did you expect them to make?

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited January 2017
    I dont know what EQ ya'll were playing, but I have had MANY MANY dungeon runs with just a druid or shaman and an enchanter and we did just fine with no stinking cleric. There was never any reason to EVER Wait for a cleric. You can do anything with the right players, playing their classes correctly! I have watched all of the videos of Pantheon as well, and they are for sure keeping this same aspect in the game. You learn your role and do it well, you will be able to do anything and go anywhere you desire.
    I played EQ mostly pre-Luclin, and I have to disagree. Until a shaman got torpor at 60, their healing was insufficient to do a lot of things. You really needed that fully buffed tank getting healed for 3,000+ hp per spell to have any level of efficiency.

    Could you do most group content without it? Absolutely. The problem was, when one healer was that much more powerful it raised the bar so high, that most people didn't want to settle for less. It was a mental thing, mostly.

    Had there been no CH to create such a massive contrast, people probably would have been more than happy with the combination of a shamans slows + heal or the druids regen + heals. Unfortunately next to CH, that was just not enough if your goal was experience or raiding.


  • KrimzinKrimzin Member UncommonPosts: 687
    Darksworm said:
    The game does seem a bit like plagiarism to me.  Completely shameless in the way they've basically cloned EverQuest.
    LOL This is laughable.
    Of course Pantheon is going to feel a bit like EQ. With the CCO being Brad McQuaid how could it be anything else. Pantheon is its own game but they are getting back to the roots of what made EQ such a success in the early days of MMOs. Group centric games are all but unheard of in the current day of MMOs. With Group Finder and even cross realm group finder the social aspect of the genre is gone. Making a world that requires you to be social and actually interact with other players to get groups is refreshing.

    Going back to Open World instead of everything being instances allows you actually feel like you are playing an MMO instead of being alone in a dungeon. Going into dungeons, doing camp checks and ducking the inevitable train was so much fun. No current MMO offers this level of Social Play.

    I can not wait for Pantheon to release.

    Just because I'm a gamer doesn't mean I drive a Honda.
    Best Duo Ever

    Lets see your Battle Stations /r/battlestations
    Battle Station 
  • iatesandiatesand Member UncommonPosts: 91
    From everything I have read and have seen the game is fully on track to be a EQ3 / Vanguard 2 in the look and feel of it. That in its-self isn't a bad thing, I liked a lot of things about both games. But they need to elevate the game where they can and I am not thinking that is going to happen. 

    VR seems very short sighted in that regards, I get that if you change to much you lose what you started with 

    The combat looks like the same old stuff from EQ, its slow, poorly animated, with all the AI of a dead cat.  I will bet you months subscription that most of those animations are going to make it into the live game practically as is. There are better ways to pull off tab based combat from better skill management  to better agro control to better game UI and I do not have faith that we will see any. We are gonna get a hot bar that we drop a icon on to

    If the game if just a remake of the same old stuff out there  but with a pretty face then people may flock to it at the start then leave just as fast. If we wanted to play Everquest again we can.  Dont  we really want to play the evolution of the game EQ could have been?




  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    edited January 2017
    Dullahan said:

    I played EQ mostly pre-Luclin, and I have to disagree. Until a shaman got torpor at 60, their healing was insufficient to do a lot of things. You really needed that fully buffed tank getting healed for 3,000+ hp per spell to have any level of efficiency.

    To be honest I don't think that Shaman or Druid were meant to be pure Healers, they were more like Support Classes (by design).
    A typical EQ group was made by Tank (WAR,DK,Pally) + Cleric + CC (Chanter or Bard) + 2 DPS + 1 Support (Shaman or Druid).
    You could easily run a group with no Cleric but with a Shaman and a Druid, but not with a Shaman or Druid alone.
    The beauty of 6 player groups is that you could mix and match and come up with a set up which was still viable even without key classes (because of the many hybrid/support classes).

    But I do agree, there should be a second main healer on top of the Cleric to make things a bit more easier.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,616
    ste2000 said:
    Dullahan said:

    I played EQ mostly pre-Luclin, and I have to disagree. Until a shaman got torpor at 60, their healing was insufficient to do a lot of things. You really needed that fully buffed tank getting healed for 3,000+ hp per spell to have any level of efficiency.

    To be honest I don't think that Shaman or Druid were meant to be pure Healers, they were more like Support Classes (by design).
    A typical EQ group was made by Tank (WAR,DK,Pally) + Cleric + CC (Chanter or Bard) + 2 DPS + 1 Support (Shaman or Druid).
    You could easily run a group with no Cleric but with a Shaman and a Druid, but not with a Shaman and Druid alone.
    The beauty of 6 player groups is that you could mix and match and come up with a set up which was still viable even without key classes (because of the many hybrid/support classes).

    But I do agree, there should be a second main healer on top of the Cleric to make things a bit more easier.

    Shaman and druids were the fill any hole team mate. Support with a twist. The buffs they added made up for the lower DPS of adding say a Rogue or Wizzy by making everyone else do more damage but when things went south, both the Druid and Shaman could switch from back up heals to keep who ever need a heal a heal. Sometimes keeping the cleric alive. Debuff and DPS as well. If needed they could mana dump to DPS something down. Never as well as other classes but sometimes a Swiss Army knife is your best friend. I loved my Shaman and with the right mix of classes I could heal any dungeon, raid heals, no way!!!
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,001
    ste2000 said:
    Dullahan said:

    I played EQ mostly pre-Luclin, and I have to disagree. Until a shaman got torpor at 60, their healing was insufficient to do a lot of things. You really needed that fully buffed tank getting healed for 3,000+ hp per spell to have any level of efficiency.

    To be honest I don't think that Shaman or Druid were meant to be pure Healers, they were more like Support Classes (by design).
    A typical EQ group was made by Tank (WAR,DK,Pally) + Cleric + CC (Chanter or Bard) + 2 DPS + 1 Support (Shaman or Druid).
    You could easily run a group with no Cleric but with a Shaman and a Druid, but not with a Shaman or Druid alone.
    The beauty of 6 player groups is that you could mix and match and come up with a set up which was still viable even without key classes (because of the many hybrid/support classes).

    But I do agree, there should be a second main healer on top of the Cleric to make things a bit more easier.
    To me that is a sign of good combat and class design where you can mix and match archetypes. MinMax players will always go for the best (easiest/OP) combo, but if you get good players that work well together you can do grouping with a lot of interesting combos.

    Ideally there should be more than one option for each type of base role (tank, healer, damage) and then various types of support (because support is more diverse than the other roles). It could add depth to character options and diversity to combat encounters.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    Nanfoodle said:
    ste2000 said:

    Shaman and druids were the fill any hole team mate. Support with a twist. The buffs they added made up for the lower DPS of adding say a Rogue or Wizzy by making everyone else do more damage but when things went south, both the Druid and Shaman could switch from back up heals to keep who ever need a heal a heal. Sometimes keeping the cleric alive. Debuff and DPS as well. If needed they could mana dump to DPS something down. Never as well as other classes but sometimes a Swiss Army knife is your best friend. I loved my Shaman and with the right mix of classes I could heal any dungeon, raid heals, no way!!!
    Yep exactly.
    I actually invited Shamans only for the Buffs, it's one of the Classes I expected to find in any decent group, after Tank, Cleric, and Chanter/Bard.

  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,657
    As for the lineup of classes I would agree it lacks some fresh ideas. But no one really knows the specifics about what abilities and how they will feel to play yet, so it could be very different from eq .. Vanguard class mechanics were very innovative and different (also by todays standards) and they look to snatch some of those ideas.
    I doubt even the devs have an exact idea of all the details.. or they shouldn't have because that process should very much be an open minded trial n error testing for fun factor etc. Many of the loved eq mechanics were actually players using tactics that were not foreseen, but picked up by the devs and formalized.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,616
    I hope its vanilla EQ1 classes and skills at the core. I would be most happy if it was 90%+ the same. Right down to Druid/Rangers and Necromancer/Shadow Knights sharing the same skills. I want a modern rerun. 
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,657
    centkin said:
    Thing is though, (as a shaman), I was better at keeping a group alive than a cleric would be in some situations.  I was able to draw aggro midfight when necessary and then allow it to go back to the tank.  I stopped so many wipes // avoided so many deaths in dungeons like HARD Ldon missions.  
    This is a great example of how great eq were. Skilled players could make many things work, sometimes as good as the "optimal group setup". Especially the Shaman class is extremely player skill based (knowledge, timing, etc), but also other classes, and when you combine that with players who are equally skilled at their roles... 
    I don't expect to see that advanced mechanics in a completely new game like Pantheon but maybe somewhere down the line of iterations they can find that kind of quality combat again.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Torval said:
    ste2000 said:
    Dullahan said:

    I played EQ mostly pre-Luclin, and I have to disagree. Until a shaman got torpor at 60, their healing was insufficient to do a lot of things. You really needed that fully buffed tank getting healed for 3,000+ hp per spell to have any level of efficiency.

    To be honest I don't think that Shaman or Druid were meant to be pure Healers, they were more like Support Classes (by design).
    A typical EQ group was made by Tank (WAR,DK,Pally) + Cleric + CC (Chanter or Bard) + 2 DPS + 1 Support (Shaman or Druid).
    You could easily run a group with no Cleric but with a Shaman and a Druid, but not with a Shaman or Druid alone.
    The beauty of 6 player groups is that you could mix and match and come up with a set up which was still viable even without key classes (because of the many hybrid/support classes).

    But I do agree, there should be a second main healer on top of the Cleric to make things a bit more easier.
    To me that is a sign of good combat and class design where you can mix and match archetypes. MinMax players will always go for the best (easiest/OP) combo, but if you get good players that work well together you can do grouping with a lot of interesting combos.

    Ideally there should be more than one option for each type of base role (tank, healer, damage) and then various types of support (because support is more diverse than the other roles). It could add depth to character options and diversity to combat encounters.
    Agreed. Shamans and druids may be more heal focused in Pantheon, but if there is no alternative to cleric I think one need be created. Having all classes dependent on one (cleric) will make group creation problematic.

    Something like a disciple would be awesome. Just sayin'.


  • HexipoxHexipox Member UncommonPosts: 241
    ste2000 said:
    Nanfoodle said:
    ste2000 said:

    Shaman and druids were the fill any hole team mate. Support with a twist. The buffs they added made up for the lower DPS of adding say a Rogue or Wizzy by making everyone else do more damage but when things went south, both the Druid and Shaman could switch from back up heals to keep who ever need a heal a heal. Sometimes keeping the cleric alive. Debuff and DPS as well. If needed they could mana dump to DPS something down. Never as well as other classes but sometimes a Swiss Army knife is your best friend. I loved my Shaman and with the right mix of classes I could heal any dungeon, raid heals, no way!!!
    Yep exactly.
    I actually invited Shamans only for the Buffs, it's one of the Classes I expected to find in any decent group, after Tank, Cleric, and Chanter/Bard.

    Yep because of their slow and buffs - but the Druid? They didn't have a vital debuff, they had a good buff but hey you could just get that from a nearby Druid... I remember velketor lab, sitting there with my group and nearby groups came to get buffed... 
Sign In or Register to comment.