*IF* Class Consolidation Happened

DISCLAIMER: - Pure Speculation on my part. Don't read into this, I'm simply doing a "What If" Scenario.

So if Class Consolidation were to happen... what would you want it to include.. or leave out? How would you like it to work. If you are completely against it... How could it work that you would be all for it?

And by class consolidation I'm talking about SOE reducing the number of classes in the game in some fashion. One example might be to cut all Subclasses out and have Bruisers and Monks, just be Brawlers, have Templars and Inquisitors go bye bye and just be Enchanters.. etc. And add new AA trees to let them spec into a "Coercer" spec, or an "Illusionist" spec... or maybe get a little bit of each.

If SOE were to do this, and you were able to help guide the process, what would work for YOU?

Crabbok@Befallen wrote:

I honestly think it would either suck, or be great.
But i wouldn't want AA trees to do it.
More like, Turn us back into a Summoner for example, and then from a base line of spells we get points to spend, and as we go down we get access to stronger spells, but with different paths, so for example you could go half conj/necro spec and get acess to half of both classes attacks.
But that also opens up the possibility of them allowing a more direct spec. For example a conjy healer spec. Putting points towards increasing the hydromancer to not suck. Then getting necro heals and etc.
Honestly though, i wouldn't want them to even try because it would be too difficult to get right without screwing it up.

Yeah but if they DO try it someday the only chance of them getting it right is if we give them feedback on how to get it right.... which is the purpose of the thread.

I don't mind anyone saying "I'm completely against this idea"... but I would hope anyone would at least give some ideas on how to do it right if it DID happen.

Crabbok@Befallen wrote:

Well, i told you what i thought =p, It should be a more lenient way of choosing what you want, not being defined as by just respeccing, that would be like getting rid of betrayel and making it easy for everyone.

If they did it they should just weed out the cloned or dumbed down classes. Warden and Fury should go away and it should be Druid, Templar and Iquistior should go away it should be Cleric, defiler and mistic should just be Shaman, monks and burisers should just be monks, troubador and dirge should be Bard, warlocks should just go away and necros be given more poison/desies basted AoEs the Conjour class should be morelike eq1s Mage class. Basicly just make the classes more like they were in eq1. We'll never get more classes in eq2 unless they consolodate classes. About half or more of the classes are just split verisons of eq1 classes they should be put back togeather so that maybe the classes can be more defined and more aa options so that they really can be differences from one druid to the next durid other then just the name of there class. This would also make class balance easier and give the devs the option of comeing up with compleatly new classes that arent just a a differnt version of a druid,shaman,monk,cleric, bard whatever. I'm all for class consolitdation to make the classes more in line with eq1.

Crabbok@Befallen wrote:

Templars and Inquisitors are Clerics. Illusionists/Coercers are Enchanters. I'm going to assume you know this and just had a brainshart while typing.
Your above example of recalling all the split classes to one subtype, and then differentiating through AA paths is clearly the only logical way to do this. So you roll up a druid and want to play it as a "gentle steward, using the power of Mother Nature to soothe and restore companions" - ok so you go down more of the healing AA trees. If you want to be an "angry representation of Nature's Wrath" - you go down the "Storms" line or whatever to boost your dps. If a predator favors long distance "sniper" type killing, he takes Ranger AA's. If he likes to plunge his dagger into the spine of his mark - he goes down assassin lines. 2 bards in a guild could spec differently based on what group they usually go in - buff melee more, or buff casting more?
Really the only complications lie in sister classes that generate a more unique flavor - I'm looking specifically at crusaders and summoners. A paladin is a far cry from a shadowknight in terms of lore, just as a conjuror is from a necromancer. In these cases I would make maybe 5 AA lines - 3 of which were generic to both classes. The 4th and 5th lines would delineate what flavor of class they are - but taking even 1 point in one of these lines grays you out to the other one.
EXAMPLE: A Summoner puts points in 3 different AA lines. One that boosts up his personal dps (spell haste, crit%, etc.). A 2nd line that boosts his pet's performance (higher health, faster re-use time, Pet Weapons, etc.) A third line raises miscellaneous stuff that could be common to both summoners (CoTH, power regen consumables). NOW he gets to his 4th/5th lines and must make a decision: Putting points into the 4th line [Elemental Infusion] makes all his spells/pets take on an elemental flavor. His "Blast" becomes a "Fire Blast". His pet becomes an Air/Earth/Fire/Water pet. OR he goes down the 5th line instead [Deathly Infusion]. Now his "Blast" becomes disease based, drops a bit in damage but adds a Lifetap proc. His generic summoned pets become liches and gargoyles and vampires, etc.
EXAMPLE 2: A Crusader has 3 lines. One boosts tanking ability (Mitigation, Avoidance, etc.). 2nd boosts melee ability (crits, DA). 3rd one boosts "prayers" which are spells common to both Crusader types. Now he must choose between the 4th and 5th lines - Light and Dark. Choosing light modifies his spells to a more goodly bent, while Darkness obviously does the opposite. Putting ONE point in Light makes the Dark tree completely gray out, and similarly putting ONE point in Dark makes all Light AA's unavailable.

ROFL yeah simple type-o there.

And nice ideas.

EQ2 population is far too entrenched to consolidate classes. While it would be the best thing for the game, it would be ultimately viewed as an NGE type shift and well, the crying would be deafening.
That being said, the way to do it is simple, just pair down to 12 classes. Take what makes each sub-class unique and provide that as a new/revamped AA decision tree. So you'd be a rogue and what differentiates a brig from a swash would be different AA options in a sub-class tree.
This way, you can hit a mirror and bring your swash spec or your brig spec.
It would apply the same way to all 12 paired classes in this way. All spells for the combined class would be paired down to unique names for the class and the aa trees will just add the 'flavor' to the spells, or the debuff/augment/ whatever.
Ultimately, players would like this system better if they weren't already entrenched in the current system. It allows for far greater uniqueness and distinction and gives the player more control over their playstyle and provides guild/raids far more flexability in roster depth.
Again though, to make such a change this deep into the game would simply be reacted to as an NGE and I strongly would urge SoE against making such an improvement at this time.

I hate it, and hope like hell they never ever do it. This game should be waaaaaaaaaay past something so crazy as that.
Talk about taking 2 steps forward and like 30 back.

Ultimately I don't think it'd really solve anything. The reason is that the request for customization via some other method (AA, trait selection, etc, whatever) would create versions of a class like 'enchanter' that'd just create the same sort of subclasses we currently have (coercer, illusionist), but possibly even create more variants between them that people would request all be balanced.
To me, the big problem right now is that their design philosophy is to 'wait and get things right', which has turned into 'wait until it all becomes moot in the next expansion'. A class remaining essentially broken in content for over a year is completely unacceptable to me. I understand that they need to prioritize manpower somehow, but I always think a class being demonstrably weaker than other classes of the same archetype should be among their highest priorities to quickly fix - and if a fix turns out to be poorly conceived, well, that's what expansions are for.

I once read a facetious quote somewhere on these boards that went something along the lines of "EQ2: We don't do subtle."
True.
I think the problem with class balance as it is currently being handled is that they are afraid to make subtle changes quickly. Make some small changes and see how it plays out. If it sucks, back it out. If it works, but isn't enough, expand upon it.
We already accept that no change is going to be perfect out of the gate, but making the changes subtle and testing them, then further adjusting would make players feel like SOMETHING is being done.

Awesome idea IMO. Since they obviously can't balance what they have, maybe it will make it easier to balance. The whole AOE versus single target aspect of a particular class is what is causing a lot of balance issues, consolidate those and let the player choose thru AA's what specialty they want to be.

There is no doubt in my mind that they launched with far too many classes. That left them nowhere to go to keep the game fresh and gave them an insane balance problem. That being said, it is too late now to do anything about it. Although I am sure , should such a change be implimented, it would provide endless hours of entertaining darma.

Hmm.. on one hand, I could see some classes combining easily. Druids, enchanters, clerics, brawlers, and warriors for example. Combine abilitites, and give greater customization through the AAs. However, there are also some classes that I wouldn't want to see combined, paladins and shadow knights, conjurors and necros, assassins and rangers. I don't think one should, say, be summoning the dead one day and elementals the next. I could also see them mixing warlocks with necros and just keeping wizards.. If it were done it would have to be done fairly carefully, as there are so many things which obviously need to be taken into consideration. Would it help the game? Perhaps, in some areas. However, the other question is, is five years into the life of a game too late to be making such huge changes?

Crabbok@Befallen wrote:

If they were to merge 24 classes down to 12 (not a bad idea since there's only 12 slots for Station users), they'll have to address the good vs. evil alignment issues, since some good classes can't do certain damage (like Paladins can't do disease damage, but Shadow Knights can).
But Paladins and Templars need to be merged, they're overlapping, especially a Cleric/Priest in plate armor. It's interesting going after the mythical, that Paladins have to report to a priest to begin the quest, even though we're not priests in itself. Either Paladins are fighting priests/clerics or not, but don't mix them up and then deny Paladins Priest gear, too. Since Paladins are hybrids, just offer them to go down a healing or fighting path, instead.
With so many classes that do overlap, it creates these snafus, too.

That's kind of interesting. I don't know that I agree that Templars and Paladins should be combined, but it does make an interesting kind of related thought come to mind. Since EQ2 is so dead set on pigeon holing fighters as only being main tanks and only having one in a group, 2 to a raid, this seems like a cool path to maybe consider. Let a Paladin choose a healing route via AA's and become a viable main healer, or let a SK choose a DPS route (no laughter now, if they weren't OP) and become a viable main DPS.
Dunno, interesting things to think about.

Kigneer wrote:

Most players in the beginning seen sub-classes as fury vs warden, monk vs bruiser, necro vs conj, ect. They wanted to know who did what and how they did it. Who was better this and who better that. Over time it became more a fury = warden, monk = bruiser, necro = conj, ect to please everyone or not to make anyone feel inferior to another horse $#!*.
Honestly the only two sub-classes that I see are still true to how it was in the beginning are the two warriors. One was greater defense and the other greater offense.
For me I like truely knowing that there is a difference between what ever sub-class I want to play, but honestly if the game stays as it is I wouldn't have a problem seeing class consolidation.
None of this class X = class Y bull. For me X should be doing something better than Y does yet where X doesn't shine is where Y will outperform X.
I still think SOE needs to just come out and state what any player can expect to see in each class and what that particular class excels at.

Aull wrote:

I don't see the balance/variety problems within classes really. Inquisitors and Templars are both powerful (more-or-less equally powerful at the Mythical level), and they both have very different strengths as healers, and they play differently. The same is true of many, if not the majority, of the other classes (Rogues are another good example, for one).
I could see the argument to consolidate Brawlers into Warriors or something, since Brawlers don't really have a defined role in groups/raids, and, if done poorly, carving out a niche in tanking for Brawlers could lead to crippling the other tank classes with nerfs, or with Brawlers simply playing just as the other fighter classes do (and what would be the point of separating the classes if they're goint to play the same?).

I think aa's are where this game needs improvement. Each sub-class should have more to choices relating to that sub-class as to where a particular player would want to advance that character. No need to consolidate if the aa's provided different avenues for the class. No two guardians or any other class would be following the same cookie cutter mold that we see so much of in todays game.

Aull wrote:

It'd take a pretty large revamp because for them to be meaningful, some of the defining skills/spells would come from the trees rather than just class and level.
Today there's variety. You can spec the way you want, or you can spec the way everyone expects and get into groups.