So far classes in EQN will have "roles" and there won't be any real "one guy does everything." Maybe not strict one dimensional trinity, but a class shouldn't be meaningless. Their example of an Anti-Mage for example, doubt it will be the best healer or anything beyond a anti-caster class. Specific role, simply not stuck with it forever. That is your assumption and not yet proven in a working environment.. Be ready for something totally different then what you expected.. And be ready for GW2 type of combat.. ZERGFEST.. Sure people can pretend to play a role such as healer, but in reality it will be an active DPS role that promotes "soloing" with minor roles like healing, support or whatnot.. Why should people play a ROLE like healing when their dps set up that works when soloing is just fine.. Get the idea yet? Even in a group situation, there is no incentive for someone to be 100% vulnerable healer like the holy priest in WoW..
What's complex about tanks tank, healers heal, dps dps and no room for variation? There was nothing complex about EQ classes. You had a job and either were good or bad at it, the end. Even early on it was 8 skills instead of what it is today. Not a whole lot of complexity going on. Sorry, but I have to question if you ever played EQ1.. The level of complexity of playing a chanter, necro, shaman or druid in many group situations was not a walk in the park.. Especially the Bard class.. Twisting songs was an art..
People say that yet they stopped playing those games for various reasons. While many left due to changes, I'm betting many left for "the next best thing" and all that empty loyalty means nothing. I give much more respect to people who have stuck through it and played games for years, regardless of the changes for better or worse. Those are fans, not fickle gamers (most of us on this site). I left EQ shortly after PoP because of the carebear e-sport path they chose.. EQ1 changed drastically in a short period of time, and why should I support a direction that I do not care for.. Just like in politics.. If my candidate changes his tune, I don't continue to support him.. If my Ford Mustang changes to an SUV, I don't keep buying them.. Get the idea?
We want chess... not checkers. <<< +1
Did you watch the SOE Live 2014 Class Panel video? Between multi-classing, gear, achievements, whatever other forms of progression, there should be plenty of complexity to character building. While every item might not have 20 stats or whatever, there should be some thought into how or why someone chooses something or how they use it. In EQ/EQ2, you have one character/class (not counting alts). EQN will have access to 40+. Managing 40+ classes, with multiple builds/templates for each potentially is quite a lot.
For me it is more along the lines of Fun vs Excel spreadsheets. Doesn't mean I don't want a challenge or have to think, but I also don't want to spend more time out of game staring at stats for hours on end either. Some of it should just make sense. Really? Did you just say that? In the paragraph above you promoted how complex EQN will be with managing 40 classes and all the multi-classing and how "gear" will have an effect etc etc.. DUDE.. You just promoted MIN/MAX excel spreadsheet character builds.. Ha Ha Ha.. Then you turned around and degraded any game that does that.. You don't think people will min/max EQN be best "PvP" build, or best this, or best that build?
Sometimes complexity for complexity sake isn't the best move. Even Blizzard as figured this out and WoW is pretty dumbed down nowadays. Can still need a brain and have a challenge without having all the tedious systems.
Between all the 40 classes, and gear and this and that.. Sounds like EQN is going to be far more complex then WoW.. So according to you, we should just keep playing WoW.. As you said, "Even Blizzard as figured this out".. lol Can I make an honest suggestion.. Lets just wait and see how the game plays when they actually have it built before commenting on such a raw stage 1 development..
Tbh, wow is made for children. Its so simple that a 9 year old could be as good as an adult on it. Personally, I am looking forward to a game which caters for adult complexity in everquest next.
Also lets face it, anything beats wows cartoony graphics.
Don't know why posting links doesn't work on this site so just go to youtube, type everquest next gameplay into search and watch the gameplay video by towliee.
its an official video from the people at tgn which shows the actualy graphics as they were 1.5 years ago and how good it was even 1.5 years ago.
That is your assumption and not yet proven in a working environment.. Be ready for something totally different then what you expected.. And be ready for GW2 type of combat.. ZERGFEST.. Sure people can pretend to play a role such as healer, but in reality it will be an active DPS role that promotes "soloing" with minor roles like healing, support or whatnot.. Why should people play a ROLE like healing when their dps set up that works when soloing is just fine.. Get the idea yet? Even in a group situation, there is no incentive for someone to be 100% vulnerable healer like the holy priest in WoW..
You are very correct that this is my assumption based on what the devs have said. Could be totally off base? Of course, but I'm lost on how your assumption, which in some cases completely goes against what the devs have said is the better view. I'm ready for anything and don't expect EQN to be the most amazing thing ever, it is just a game.
Please point out anywhere that they've said classes, roles, game play in general will based around classes that can solo or are DPS focused. You seem to assume "dps set up that works when soloing is fine" without much to go on.
We barely know anything about the game as a whole, yet you some how have concluded how it will work and magically determined that it will be GW2.5 or whatever. Not sure where your "reality" is based.
Again, point out where they've said there is no incentive to be support or that playing a non-DPS focused class is a poor choice, team work will equate to DPS zerging, etc.
Sorry, but I have to question if you ever played EQ1.. The level of complexity of playing a chanter, necro, shaman or druid in many group situations was not a walk in the park.. Especially the Bard class.. Twisting songs was an art..
Bard's are a very unique class, I'll give you that (a bit twitchy even). Please give me the run down of a class you played in a typical small group or raid encounter. Beyond timing and thinking ahead which should be part of any system that takes a few brain cells, it wasn't that crazy hard. Picking which add to CC or which to tank or which friend to heal is super hard? I will say that support classes in general have always been harder then the straight DPS/Tank classes, since they can basically go crazy and have people making up for their mistakes, but it only goes so far.
EQ was much less forgiving for mistakes which make playing well a big deal, unlike current games. That doesn't mean it was actually "harder" by default. If I got kicked in the face for making the wrong choice in tic-tac-toe, I'd find it hard as well.
Edit: Just want to add that I'm not trying to imply that early EQ or WoW for that matter were easy. Due to the "newness" and how mechanics worked, they did take a lot of effort and skill. Although we've probably all hit the farm stage where that once hair pulling challenge is meh. Micromanaging as a support is tough, heavily dependent on how good/bad the team is as well. No support for support. Which is why I tend to play these roles myself. I felt more useful handing out food and buffing in WoW then spamming DPS on my mage. Support usually gets the blame for a failure and little love when things go well. Just how it has been from my experience. But once someone learns how to actually play, it is a matter of execution. Which again, depending on how forgiving content is, will either make support look really good or bad.
I left EQ shortly after PoP because of the carebear e-sport path they chose.. EQ1 changed drastically in a short period of time, and why should I support a direction that I do not care for.. Just like in politics.. If my candidate changes his tune, I don't continue to support him.. If my Ford Mustang changes to an SUV, I don't keep buying them.. Get the idea?
I agree that we shouldn't support games we know no longer enjoy/agree with. At the same time I find it odd that a company would reward players for leaving their product by redoing the original system in an attempt to draw them back in. Unless of course the changes resulted in a huge drop in population. If I'm not mistaken, EQ/WoW both grew (WoW much more so) after I left both of them. Obviously my own leaving did nothing to them. Now if a game dropped 25% or something crazy after an expansion or patch, ya they might want to rethink the design (SWG), but I doubt I'll see many top end companies take the gamble that all their old customers will come rushing "home" if they make the original game in some form. Especially when those oh so loyal fans are a small minority.
We want chess... not checkers. <<< +1
Who doesn't? How often do you see people go "Man I really want the most watered down face roll game possible, I don't even want to try, just give me the phat lootz!" I think some simply don't know any better or have just settled because the alternative (no game) doesn't sound better. While we all differ on how much time/energy/money investment we give to games, I believe most want some form of challenge.
With that said, a well developed game could provide a mix of checkers and chess, doesn't have to be one way or the other. This thinking is why the gaming community is so toxic and why companies make so many poor decisions (at least that's my view). Too much internal issues between styles of play.
For me it is more along the lines of Fun vs Excel spreadsheets. Doesn't mean I don't want a challenge or have to think, but I also don't want to spend more time out of game staring at stats for hours on end either. Some of it should just make sense. Really? Did you just say that? In the paragraph above you promoted how complex EQN will be with managing 40 classes and all the multi-classing and how "gear" will have an effect etc etc.. DUDE.. You just promoted MIN/MAX excel spreadsheet character builds.. Ha Ha Ha.. Then you turned around and degraded any game that does that.. You don't think people will min/max EQN be best "PvP" build, or best this, or best that build?
Not at all, that will always exist. I meant that managing 40+ classes with less stats per class could potentially be as crazy as the stat overload of most vertical themepark games. Due to how everything interconnects and can alter things. Like them saying adding 1 ring could totally throw our builds out of whack, probably a bit extreme, but I doubt everyone is going to need to rush to a spreadsheet to figure it out. More like "Oh that ring does X which then impacts Y and then...."
Intuitive maybe is what I'm going for? Nothing about EQ2 or most games makes a lot of sense at face value. Hence why there is a huge disparity between the "hardcore" top end and the casual players. Doesn't have to be that way. Again, games don't need to go for extremes.
Take a MOBA for example, sure you can min/max and get crazy into the meta, but overall, things just make sense and are fairly accessible to a large audience and why they are crazy popular. I think the Keyword system for EQN is a way for non-min/max gamers to get to a higher level of building with skills-gear-achievements-etc.
You can get amazing at one "class" or "role" or expand to many more. The player sets the limit to their own challenge, instead of "If you don't have a graphing calculator and Excel, don't even bother."
Might not exactly be what the poster was talking about, but to me, the EQN system should provide endless possibilities and experimenting. Sure someone can min/max in EQN, but it will need to be different as gear/stats/classes in general are not the traditional type. It will be more personal min/maxing instead of "I'm the best! because I have XYZ!"
How do you define the "best" anything? Who sets the bar? The Anti-Mage for example, it is "the best" at killing casters maybe, but then sucks at everything else. Yay for them? In the grand scheme "being the best" won't mean much.
Between all the 40 classes, and gear and this and that.. Sounds like EQN is going to be far more complex then WoW.. So according to you, we should just keep playing WoW.. As you said, "Even Blizzard as figured this out".. lol Can I make an honest suggestion.. Lets just wait and see how the game plays when they actually have it built before commenting on such a raw stage 1 development..
Sure, guess I won't be seeing you around here then? lol
I'm not against the system of any game and have enjoyed most of them. Just think some of those jumping to a negative conclusion based on "raw stage 1 development", even when it is contrary to what the devs have even said, are missing the big picture. Seems some believe that unless this game copies or borrows heavily from another game that it will suck. Yet, here we are because we so love all those games that we don't even play them. Lets wait and see together, yay for new games
WoW has changed pretty big in the latest expansion from what I can see (haven't played nor will I). I think it is now at a point where they could up the challenge bar and player could still manage their class/gear/skills along with better content. Doubt they will, but that is what is easier to do when people don't need to stare at stats all day to become "the best." Especially in a game where being the best means nothing because of the challenge level.
Like I've said, if you are strongly against the core system and vision, nothing is going to change your mind. But as I showed in another thread about how support classes can function within an action/aim system (even to your specifications for the most part), you simply like what you like and this game probably isn't it. You'll simply glaze over and see GW2 GW2 GW2 or whatever and not be able to see through the disgruntled haze which is unfortunate.
Comments
Tbh, wow is made for children. Its so simple that a 9 year old could be as good as an adult on it. Personally, I am looking forward to a game which caters for adult complexity in everquest next.
Also lets face it, anything beats wows cartoony graphics.
Btw everquest next looks pretty good when you look at this 1.5 year old footage and then think how much more it will improve by launch.
Much better than wows cartoony graphics anyway but that's not hard nowadays.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jh_73qvfl8Y
Don't know why posting links doesn't work on this site so just go to youtube, type everquest next gameplay into search and watch the gameplay video by towliee.
its an official video from the people at tgn which shows the actualy graphics as they were 1.5 years ago and how good it was even 1.5 years ago.