EverQuest DEVS look at role definition and class balancing.. again.

[Ramsus]

Re-Envisioning Classes in EverQuest [ Edited ]
Options
Brenlo
Community Manager
Posts: 1761
Registered: 02-24-2004

Server: Test




The EverQuest development team continues the process of evaluating class roles, class definitions, and class desirability to ensure that each class provides value in group and raid situations. Moreover, we have found that the term "class balance" is a term that means many different things to different people and we believe that it's more accurate to define our goal in another way.

We believe at its core, each class should be fun and have a desirable role in raid and group situations and it is to this standard that we will hold our evaluations as EQ continues to grow and evolve.

We have begun the process by looking into group roles. We plan to take a look at raid roles after we have finished with groups. We are looking at what each class has to offer in a group setting, how useful and viable that role is and finally, how well they perform these duties. The team is currently reviewing extensive data from live servers to make sure that the conclusions we make are as accurate as possible. Once we have data that we can share, we will ask for your input and insight on our conclusions.

Our goal is to identify the underlying reasons behind any problems we uncover and we may find it necessary to make fundamental changes to the game to address them. As we move forward with this process, we will keep the community apprised of our findings and gather their input on the changes we feel need to be made to make players of all classes in EverQuest feel useful as they fulfill roles that are interesting and fun to play. We would like you to be part of these discussions and help us to determine the shape of classes in EverQuest's future.

Thank you for you time and for being a part of this wonderful world that is Norrath. As an initial step in this process, while we are gathering data, we're going to host a live chat between players and the developers to begin this discussion. We will announce the time and date for the chat in the next few days.

The EverQuest Team.

Brenlo Bixiebopper
Community Relations Manager



http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=Crier&message.id=62&no_redir=true



Yay. Here we go again. Possible changes to game fundamentals, changing your toon's basics 5 years after you created it. Some classes have dealt with this in the past (necros and monks come to mind easily) but I don't think we have seen anything on the scale we are looking at here.

[Bardolaf]

That message was rather vague. What are they going to change? Spell lists? I mean, with necros and monks, and other stuff likeWarriors, there was a general outcry of people, whether ligitimate or not, that there was something about that class that either gave it too much of an advanage or disadvantage, and so the class was changed. With this, I haven't read anything anywhere about anyone with a serious complaint about any certain class. This seems like them just taking it upon themselves to "fix" something that doesn't neccesarily need fixing. That's just what I see.

[Kalthanan]

Well, this could be a good thing or a bad thing.

Some nerfs were good. Some nerfs were initiated for good reasons, but improperly implemented, or overcompensated for the perceived imbalance.

Changing a few numbers here or there, like changing a class's mitigation 2% or adjusting some mana costs by 1% or 3% here or there... who cares? That's the usual kind of "balancing" they do.

What we've never seen is a chart with a "mission statement" for lack of a better term for each class. "Class X should, after all is said and done, be able to tank XX% of what class Y can tank. Class Z should be able to nuke for Q, class W should be able to nuke for Q-10%, and class V should be able to nuke for Q-20%, but all with equal mana costs." Each class should have a relationship to each other class, in terms of tanking ability, itemization goals, spell/discipline abilities, AA abilities, etc. And don't forget class-specific quests!

I hope that such a chart exists over at SOE, and that they follow it. They shouldn't be trying to tweak from the bottom up; all itemization and class statistics should flow from the chart down, not the reverse.

[Catweazel]

I would see this more as using EQ1 playerbase and established characters to address class balance in EQ2. I am having some surprises playing the different toons in EQ2, and balance is not happening, certainly up to level 20.

I only really read the rogue boards anymore, and there has been a few murmerings that rogues in the high end game are dealing too much DPS, but that kind of fizzled away a month ago. There is a huge disparity between end game rogues and level 40+ rogues, although I think this is more itemisation issues (for example, I still wear Droga quest items - which were doable at 55, and up until a few weeks ago, I was wearing a shoulder item I had since my mid 40's.)

IMO - the most unbalanced class at the moment is BST's - everyone else seems about right when we are talking groups.

Solo play is just a completely different problem. Some classes (root/nuke types especially) are just designed better for soloing. I have often wished to be able to solo my rogue - and one thing that would really really help, would be either a snare / root, or Fear (intimidate) actually working, combined with something decent from Bind Wound. 100HP a heal is pathetic....and that is with aa's and maxxed skill.

Poison skills are laughable, pathetic. PP'ing is nerfed to death and either needs a revamp or removal. Traps could be so much more if they made them disarm for minutes (instead of seconds), if they made them visible to rogues - and this would add an element of utility in all situations. Treasure chests could work the same way.

I am all for them changing and breathing new life into EQ1. If they get the formula right - it will benefit all MMORPG's.

[Ramsus]

I really doubt we have anything to worry about, unless class balancing suddenly becomes more important than doors that swing the wrong way. They have had lists of top 10 issues up on the class sights for well over 6 months now with virtually nothing being done.


Our goal is to identify the underlying reasons behind any problems we uncover and we may find it necessary to make fundamental changes to the game to address them.


The problem we have here is that SOE doesn't understand the fundamental's of EQ. They didn't write it, and practically everything they have done since they took it over has been bad.

What they are talking about doing is identifying roles for each class. there can only be so many tanks, healers, and slowers. If your class can do those now but you arent defined as 'the healer', you may find your heal spells nerfed and instead you are now responsible for foraging food and water for the group. Maybe, they don't think clerics should be able to do anything except heal. Theres no telling what they thing your classes job is and if your skills dont match up with what they think it should be, you will be changed. nerfed. upgraded. whatever.

[Anndorra]

The way I read it is another of SoE's thinnly veiled attempts to force people into groups. Even to the point of "Identifing Class roles in groups" and changing them to the point that soloing is not possible, granted this really affects druids, wizards, mages and most casting classes the most. It is unfair for certain classes to be able to solo at any level and others to be group dependant from early on (ie Warrior, rogue, monk, melee in general).

[Kalthanan]

SOE is looking at a decrease in revenue, so they're going to do what they can to make EQ a viable cash crop. I doubt they would do any solo nerfing, just because they'll lose money.

I think they're going to try to make monks, rogues, knights, rangers, etc. more intregal to the grouping experience than they are, so that they stop complaining they can't get groups. Right now, you can have a group without any of those classes, and not miss them.

[Larsay]

I don't know just a thought and nothing more built upon this. Back not to long ago the added the Combat Abilities as a both replacement and suppliment to Disiplines, this was really to attempt to bring the "Pure Melee" up to the caster/hybrid lvl. Durring this time though they did promise somthing simular to the "Heroic Oprotunities" in EQ2 that we have yet to see here. They also stated many times before that they would never give an ability that set one class aside in a group or raid situation even in a watered down way. Unfortinutly this was done because it was in fact needed. Speaking purely from the tanking side (only because my main is a tank) A few things that did set Paladins and Shadow Knights aside from Warriors were given to the Warrior class. This was infacted needed to bring the Warrior especally in a group situation up to Par. They were given a an Invulrability ability which is simular to the Harm Shield and Divine Aura spells but slightly watered down. They were also give a few abilities that allowed the incressed agro management such as the provoke line, that is simular to how Paladins use their stuns, but is really a watered down version of the Shadow Knight Hate spells. Warriors are also given a rune which is simular to the Divine Favor spell that Paladins get. There are a few others out there too. Granted These were all needed, and I can say that a good Wrrior naked or equipted can give a good Paladin or Shadow Knight theses days a run for their money when it comes to agro. Now I do not know the other classes that well prehapes some have gotten simular things like this as well maybe not. Prehapes this evaluation may bring to the other "Pure Melee" a few abilities slightly altered that thier caster/hybrid coutner part also has. One thing that I honestly am hoping for as a knight is a ability simular to defensive. I know this has been a very long argument and been going on for years, but with the ever incressing difficulty in raid encounter mobs especally for the mid size guild even an off tank almost needs a defensive like ability, It used to be with Paladins that we could use are stuns in such away we could emulate a simular effect, but again with the ever incressing difficulty in new zones mobs are becomming more and more immune to stun. Prehapes these are the things we maye see with this.

[Bawd]

We believe at its core, each class should be fun and have a desirable role in raid and group situations and it is to this standard that we will hold our evaluations as EQ continues to grow and evolve.


Too bad they aren't interested in making the game fun to play solo at high levels. That is the second biggest issue that has my toons sidelined.

The posts about XP for quests are right on, especially solo player questing. And quests that are done in small steps -- being able to log in for a grand total of 15 minutes and complete a quest step, solo.

[Kithov]

Something must be wrong with K2...

Read this whole thread and not once did he yell ... "nerf necros!"

Yer slipping brudda :radicaled :bounce: :thumbup2:

[Bawd]

Nerf Necros!

So there.

[Kithov]

Yeah Bawd, turns out you didn't need to say it... looks like they are doing that for you with the next expansion...

Mass Corpse Summons for guilds... Much faster mana and health regen during non-battle times... yes yes, no mana feeds or corpse summoning... just get rid of necros all together, why don't yah!

[Kalthanan]

Who needs mana during downtime? And we don't know what the costs will be for mass corpse summoning for raids; the cost may be prohibitive for anything but the occasional wipe in a bad spot.

[Warrl]

not to mention the corpse summoning brings everyone back to the guild hall and not the same zone.