It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It actually is the first time I brought up this game, and in doing a simple Google search I ran into a single reviewer on a single website that increasingly slammed the series with each release.Nyctelios said:Also, @Kyleran , not the first time you bring up that thing. What's your deal with the game?
I knew I should have gone back and added an emoticon to that post, but it was early.....MadFrenchie said:That's not why they're doing it, according to Blizzard's statements on the matter.Kyleran said:Actually they are doing it so that one lead developer who stated fans don't really want vanilla servers can say to everyone, "I told you so" when they inevitably crash and burn.delete5230 said:Several things:
1) I don't think Blizzard is looking at classic as a major money maker, but as a GIFT TO FANS THAT WANT IT....I don't think Blizzard will care about population deviations, however they will care about quality upkeep and monitor it for future knowledge.
It will never shut down no matter what. It will be a gift that will always be their and they will always pay for servers accordingly. It will easily pay for it self for a long time, and possibly drop in profit at some point… One thing for sure, it will always be their.
2) As time passes, Blizzard will evaluate and adjust accordingly. This could lead to many different paths that are unknown at this point.
" Launch and see what happens "
3) Were looking deeper into this more so than Blizzard themselves.
Blizzard will never allow people to say " I told you so "... Because it's simply A GIFT !
Though I believe they'll eventually add change of some sort once enough players clamor for it, after admitting to the error of their ways.
I think in most trinity games Devs try to create content that permits some flexibility in approaches and build.While that might seem good, that also depends a lot on the distribution and frequency of the content. If a tank-cleric is good for one situation, but a paladin-druid is better at another situation, you would need roughly an equal number of these situations throughout the world. That seems very unwieldy from a development perspective.Kajidourden said:That's my concern, too. I don't want another game where 1/6th of the population *has* to be tanks and 1/6th of the population *has* to be clerics. The population of a gaming community isn't likely to be so regimented. Thus, it is likely to be difficult to build functional groups. A very odd decision in a group-friendly game.Kyleran said:Likely not, one or two will be slightly deficient in some manner.Okay. Clerics, druids and shaman. Will all 3 be equally capable of keeping a tank alive? That wasn't the case in early EQ1.
There might be some situations requiring the unique skills of a particular healer to help keep the tank alive by alternate means.
I think it's more likely that they will be fairly equal in different situations. No matter what game you're talking about there is no instance of all classes of the same role being exactly 100% equal in every situation.
The idea is diversity, and you'll want certain healers for certain mob types, etc.
This is a rather old thought for me. What happens with a non-optimal group? Is all content being tailored to a predetermined 'optimal group'? I've not seen it addressed, but then again, I don't pour over everything said about Pantheon.
I am curious to see how VR addresses this, as EQ1 was filled with content that required a certain group mix to tackle that content without being grossly overpowered. That's the model VR is basing Pantheon on, and yet they've claimed to improve the issues with some of the old-school titles. If 6 level 30s are in a group, and they should be fighting level 30-35 mobs. It is a design problem if those people have to fight level 20-25 mobs due to their class choices.