Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ExpansionsFollow

#1 Dec 20 2006 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
Anyone know if there will ever be a playable canine race?
#2 Dec 21 2006 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
***
2,198 posts
I doubt the Devs even know for sure, much less any of us.
#3 Dec 21 2006 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
There seems to be an imperfect cycle for adding races and classes and raising level caps in expansions.

Original EQ
Races: Barbarian, Dark Elf, Dwarf, Erudite, Gnome, Half Elf, Halfling, High Elf, Human, Ogre, Troll and Wood Elf.
Classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Enchanter, Magician, Monk, Necromancer, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Shadowknight, Shaman, Warrior, Wizard.
Level cap: 50

Ruins of Kunark
Races: Iksar
Level cap: 60

Scars of Velious
No new race, class or level cap.

Shadows of Luclin
Races: Vah Shir
Classes: Beastlord
AA also introduced in this expansion

Planes of Power
Level cap: 65

Legacy of Ykesha
Races: Froglok (Guktan)
Bank space doubled and the Charm slot was added

Lost Dungeons of Norrath
No new race, class or level cap.
Augments were introduced and the stamina bar turned into endurance.

Gates of Discord
Classes: Berserker
Leadership AA introduced

Omens of War
Level cap: 70

Dragons of Norrath
No new race, class or level cap.
Guild Hall and Guild Lobby added.

Depths of Darkhollow
No new race, class or level cap.
Monster Missions, Spirit Shrouds and evolving items were introduced.

Prophecy of Ro
No new race, class or level cap.
More bank slots added and player auras introduced.

The Serpent's Spine
Races: Drakkin
Level cap: 75

As you can see, before TSS they went 3 expansions without any new race / class / level cap. With a new race just being introduced, and a new level cap, it seems to me the next thing to come would be a new class.

So, the question becomes "What is going to be the next class introduced in EQ?"

There was speculation recently that a new Pirate class was in the works. What other ideas are out there? I wouldn't mind seeing a new silk wearing class, perhaps Geomancer with hybrid druid / magician type spells.
#4 Dec 21 2006 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
why do we need another class? what could a new class possibly bring that isnt already in game, and arent the classes imbalanced enough as it is? personally i dont see any reason for new classes or races at all.

look at the zerker, how many of those do you see? we have one zerker main in our guild, and about two others who ar alts, thats because they were a bad idea from the start, they are just another psuedo tank/dps class that really doesnt have a place in the game, theres really nothing new that can be introduced to everquest as i see it, so why bother?
#5 Dec 21 2006 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
I felt I should credit the web site I used to reference all that info:

http://samanna.net/gen.info/chronology.shtml

A great site, and I thank those responsible for making it so easy to browse and read.
#6 Dec 21 2006 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
sickseventwenty the Brilliant wrote:
why do we need another class? what could a new class possibly bring that isnt already in game, and arent the classes imbalanced enough as it is? personally i dont see any reason for new classes or races at all.

look at the zerker, how many of those do you see? we have one zerker main in our guild, and about two others who ar alts, thats because they were a bad idea from the start, they are just another psuedo tank/dps class that really doesnt have a place in the game, theres really nothing new that can be introduced to everquest as i see it, so why bother?


"Why do we need another class?" Variety. Replayability. Just because.

"What could a new class possibly bring that isn't already in game.." Let's discuss that. What is missing in the game? What would you like to see? I can think of a few things that would be fun or interesting to have in the game. Some would imbalance the game and some would be nightmares for the developers to implement, but some I think are reasonable. That's a topic for another thread though.

".. and aren't the classes imbalanced enough as it is?" The classes will never be "balanced" in a way that satisfies everyone. SOE tries to strike a balance of sorts though. Adding a new class does not automatically mean another class loses desirability or effectiveness.

"I don't see any reason for new classes or races at all." I agree with you there. There is no gaurantee that SOE is going to introduce another new class in the future, that's just the way it's gone in the past. I'm not expecting SOE to change the way they go about expansion releases, so I really think they will introduce a new class soon.

"There's really nothing new that can be introduced to Everquest as I see it, so why bother?" They manage to find something new to introduce in almost every expansion. If not a new race or class then new abilities like AA and LAA, or grouping improvements like instanced zones and monster missions, gear tweaks like adding charm slot and augments, and much more. I expect they'll be able to find a new feature or two to add if they put their minds to it.
#7 Dec 22 2006 at 2:41 AM Rating: Good
45 posts
It would be nice to see a new class. But they pretty much have everything you could want. Anything added would be a sub hybrid. what i would like to see is melee specialization. I play a pally mostly and cannot remember the last time i used a two handed weapon other than to train the skill. I always have a one hander and a shield. For me its better HP, AC and overall defense. I am not a DPS class so i do not try to be. Even something as small as the level cap. I could raise 1hs x amount more than anyother skill. or just one handers or just two handers. Or even get as specific as swords vs axes. Yes it would suck if later you got a sweet weapon in your non-specialty. But hey it happens. It could make rangers a straight duel wield or bow class. Having it so you would loose a tad in your non-specialty and gain a tad in specialty. Nothing drastic.

The only other thing i am finding more that i do not like is the lack of desperity in the classes. I am a good tank. I hold aggro well. 10K HP and 2700 AC unbuffed. That can tank a lot of zones. But i am finding that Monks, Rangers, Zerkers, Mage pets(sometimes in the right setting) and Beastlords can do the job in most zones. Yes Warriors, SKs and Pallies still are better but not always needed now. You have a good slower and a good healer and your list of tanks goes up by a good number. On the flip side. I have been in groups where i can main heal. Give me Seers or KEI, AOTC and i am good to go. With the new resting regen i can keep up very well. I have AAs in shortening LoHs. Tell the sudo tank this is a LoH round wait until he hits 30% run up and complete heal. Go right back to medding. That one long med is usually all i need to keep up. Plus the free AA group heal.

And i think they need to ease up on the expansions. If it is high content exansion next it will only further add to the desperity or lack of how ever you want to look at it.
#8 Dec 22 2006 at 9:11 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
".. and aren't the classes imbalanced enough as it is?" The classes will never be "balanced" in a way that satisfies everyone. SOE tries to strike a balance of sorts though. Adding a new class does not automatically mean another class loses desirability or effectiveness.


my point here isnt that other classes will lose out, more that the new class would just be a mish mash of other classes, yet another uneeded hybrid and another class that will no doubt find things to complain about balance wise.

Quote:
"There's really nothing new that can be introduced to Everquest as I see it, so why bother?" They manage to find something new to introduce in almost every expansion. If not a new race or class then new abilities like AA and LAA, or grouping improvements like instanced zones and monster missions, gear tweaks like adding charm slot and augments, and much more. I expect they'll be able to find a new feature or two to add if they put their minds to it.


i was referring to classes/races only on this point, theres always new stuff introduced to the game, the point i was trying to make was theres nothing new within the games combat system that can be realistically added without completely changing the combat system itself.

as for different races, IMO they really are just a waste of time, just another excuse to make another alt, level it to 31 then give up on it.
#9 Dec 22 2006 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
I also think that regularly adding new classes and races kind of clutters the playing field with too many types with overlapping abilities. Some overlap is fine, and beneficial. At some point though, adding new class or races will just happen because it's expected.

One of the reasons new class and race are added is to keep people making alts. We all know nothing drastic or "must-have" is likely to be introduced, the new types would be welcomed by those that have already done everything else they want and just like to make new characters for the novelty. Some are alt-aholics and love any new class or race to try out.

I was thinking about my Geomancer class idea (hybrid druid-magician) and think I'll have to scrap that since I'm not sure how their mana pool would be handled. I thought maybe INT+WIS divided by 2, but the class would have to be silk or leather wearer and silk usuallly doesn't have WIS and leather usually doesn't have INT. Oh well, what else can we think of??

There has never been a silk caster hybrid added to the game, there is only Shadowknight (necro+melee) and Bard (I consider Bard enchanter+melee).

I think it's time for a Battle-Mage class:
Hybrid Magician+Melee
Wears silk or chain armor. If silk the class would be on the rogue damage mitigation table, if chain the class would be on the INT caster mitigation table (although this would be an INT based caster and I'm not sure if there's much chain armor with INT on it).
Double attack ability but not dual wield.
Pet class, but pet should not be top-end, more along the lines of shaman pet strength.
Summons pet gear, either new items less powerful than magician or the same stuff but getting the spells at later level.
Summons player usable melee weapons and gear unique to the class, with combat modifiers.
Perhaps make these summoned items "decay" after a certain time. A new tag may need to be added for that, like Unstable, to indicate that it will only last an hour or two maybe.
Nuke capabilites along the lines of Enchanter nukes, or a little less.
#10 Dec 22 2006 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
***
2,198 posts
Quote:
I think it's time for a Battle-Mage class:
Hybrid Magician+Melee
Wears silk or chain armor. If silk the class would be on the rogue damage mitigation table, if chain the class would be on the INT caster mitigation table (although this would be an INT based caster and I'm not sure if there's much chain armor with INT on it).


I'm not quite following you here. Did you get it backwards by any chance?

Quote:
Double attack ability but not dual wield.


Hmmm. Depends on what the role would be, DPS vs tanking.

Pally (tank) - double attack, no DW
SK (tank) - double attack, no DW
ranger (DPS with some utility) - double attack and DW
bard (some DPS, mostly utility) - DW but no double attack (until level 71 or with AAs)
BL (DPS and some utility) - DW but no double attack (until level 71 or with AAs)

Quote:
Pet class, but pet should not be top-end, more along the lines of shaman pet strength.


Yeah, the pet would need to be around 15-20 levels behind the mage pet, assuming it follows the pet template of the current pet hybrids.

Quote:
Summons pet gear, either new items less powerful than magician or the same stuff but getting the spells at later level.


Again, probably mostly same stuff at later levels, following the current hybrid templates. There would of course be some unique stuff added though (a la rangers nukes, SKs hate spells and dd spears, pally's brells, etc).

Quote:
Summons player usable melee weapons and gear unique to the class, with combat modifiers.


Sounds cool, but would probably be mostly wasted spells. They would make the effects of the items so low that most people wouldn't even consider using it, especially mages can already make the items with spell foci.

Quote:
Nuke capabilites along the lines of Enchanter nukes, or a little less.


That sounds about right. They wouldn't make them anywhere near as good as it's parent class, but chanter nukes would probably be considered reasonable. It would give chanters something else to complain about at least.

I'm personally not excited about any new classes. I've seen different class ideas batted around for years now and I can't really say any have piqued my interest, yet at least. One big problem is the amount of work that's required to get the new class "up to speed". We saw the same thing to an extent with BLs and to a greater extent with berserkers. They would make the class, give it it's spells and stuff, add itemization for some lower level stuff, but then the mid level would have either NOTHING they can use or they would just smack the class as useable on current items without any thought into it's balance and/or relevance. So you'd have people complaining about only having chain armor that has WIS on it (like you pointed out above) even though they're an INT class and about the lack of class specific items and stuff. They would have to try and add class specific items in every raid zone to date (or ignore it and say too bad, so sad).
#11 Dec 22 2006 at 11:32 PM Rating: Decent
**
264 posts
Ok..am I the only one to remember that when the froglok's came out, they could be enchanters and mages as well. But then for some reason, the powers that be, came up with the insight to change that. I remeber that..I had a froglok chanter..he lived til 16...then met with the "fabled delete button".
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 177 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (177)