Conerning Class Balancing this is taken from EQ Forum.Follow

Let me say I found this on the EQ Boards at:
http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=rangerbalance&message.id=3458#M3458

We finally got our answer.

They will ot be doing anything other than fixes.
I really like this from Brenlo In fact many of the requested items would infringe upon already defined roles of other classes and that is something we definately do not want to do. Well you already gave away alot of the Ranger role to other classes.

We all took time to come up with lists and this is what we get for our time, more promises and expectations from SoE just to keep us playing there game.

Well it looks like SOE will be losing alot of money in the upcoming month's, then lets see what happens.

Tilan Wrote:
http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=Rangers&message.id=1466&view=by_date_ascending&page=4

Taken from this thread:
http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=Veterans&message.id=18294&jump=true


Brenlo Wrote

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think folks should expect a response to each point on the class issues list. We are working on class definition documents and would like to make sure that each class has a role in all levels and types of game play. Much of what was on the lists was wish list items and not necessarily items that would help to define a classes role. In fact many of the requested items would infringe upon already defined roles of other classes and that is something we definately do not want to do. Let's wait and see what the class definition documents have to say before we expect any new changes (other than things that are broken or just don't make sense.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I guess that's the answer to "The Lists", there will be no answer to them. It sounds like nothing on the lists will be addressed in a direct fashion other than the SEoC type things that were a "quick-fix". Everything else is simply written off as a wishlist or taken under advisement for the "new class role" papers.

We just got slapped in the face by SoE.

Edited for Spelling.
Edited to provide link to where I say this Posting.
Edited, Thu Jul 1 09:42:23 2004 by Kaeerin

Edited, Thu Jul 1 14:24:35 2004 by Kaeerin

I can tell you why they don't address a point by point list: Because most point by point lists are stupid. Many ideas that people have are unreasonable or would further blur class distinctions. Answering them on a point by point basis just makes SOE look bad as they hand back a list reading:

#1: Bards need AA to allow them to auto twist five songs
Response: We are unwilling to automate bards so much at this time and turn them into twisting buff-bots.
#2 Bards need to have melee DPS equal to that of knights
Response: Due to their unqiue nature, we'd rather not enhance their melee DPS so drasticly.
#3: Bards need a song with an effect similar to Call of the Hero
Response: We feel this would remove from mage's usefulness
#4: Bards need a song which has a Wake the Dead effect to increase their DPS
Response: Ummm.... no?
#5: Bards need a song that grants a 96% rez
Response: WTF?

And so forth. The other option is to only return the points SOE has positive feedback on, and then you have people screaming "OMG they totally ignored the bard CotH song idea!!". I'd do it as they say they are: Take it all, study it and turn it into a class role description. Once they say whatever they say, everyone will take it as gospel forever and ever (Hell, people still quote the class descriptions from the Classic & Kunark manuals) so I doubt it's anything they're going to rush.

I really don't think that taking suggestions with moderation and not making knee jerk changes is a 'slap in the face', but to each their own really.

I read through the Ranger, Druid, Shaman and SK top 10 grievences lists last night.

I think SOE is approaching this properly, they have to decide exactly where each class is going to fit in.

For example lets look at the Melee classes with arbitrary numbers.:

Warrior 100 Offence, 100 Defence + HP's
SK&Paly 70 Offence, 100 Defence, with spells for lack of offence
Rogue 150 Offence, 70 Defence, +
Monk 130 Offence, 85 Defence, + FD and Mend
Ranger 100 Offence(melee), 120 Offence(Bow), 80 Defence + Spells

This is a solid approach, the thing that will need to be worked out is that a class that is only good at something, still does not get spots in the high end of the game, everybody wants the best, and/or the specialist classes. So this needs to be taken into account when looking at the more generalized classes.

By making them pretty good at many things their utility will again be achieved. Which most likely mean that they need a small boost in many areas, instead of a large increase in any one place.

Rogue is a very specialized class, and nobody except possibly Monks should touch them in DPS. Monks are also very specialized as well.

For the tanking classes I think all should have the same mitigation levels, and then leave the warrior with the most HP's, Pally's with stuns for added mitigation, SK's the lifetaps for some self healing. Thus these will all sort of balance out.

Personally I would like to leave the rangers where they currently are, I like that they are generalized. I would like a little boost in the spell damage as it is true that a Rangers DPS generally drop when he starts nuking. Also a slight boost, in Offence and defence.

But not much, a ranger should be a second string tank, or second string DPS, but can fit either role. I don't want rangers to replace, tanks, nor the pure DPS classes, but would like to see us at a level where we are proficient at both. With TS and some serious nuking, it would be nice to have that good burst damage as well, though not as high as a wizard. Thus we would be a second string option to Wizards, Rogues and tanks.

I was reading that Healing is #4 on the list of things Rangers want. This is rubish, rangers healing ius right where it should be, it will help you solo a bit, but generally fairly useless.

Anyway, I gotta run.

My 2cp!

Let me say I found this on the EQ Boards at:

http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=rangerbalance&message.id=3458#M3458

I did not post this on the EQ boards just wanted to let everyone know about the thread.

Friar were did you get the lists from? Did you go to each individual board, and review them. Or is there a thread somewere that placed it all together?

I can't say the classes are particularly out of balance since the Melee fixes <Apart from the 65 +400AA brigade>

apart from Berserkers who don't seem to have a role even after 6 months.