when will they bring back the beastlords thread

Strade@Storms wrote:

Accually the argument has nothing to do with Balance, other then a cute way of saying NO WAY IN HELL, EVER!!
It comes down to the fact that a) we already have 24 classes that fill every roll out there, b) it would require a HUGE amount of time and labor to put in the 2 classes required for Beastlord, c) even if it was put in just like every other class ported from EQ1 it would bare little resemblance to what it was in EQ1.
As for Migrating people from EQ1, um, its not going to happen EQ1 is a FAR differant game then EQ2, as such the people that still like EQ1 will not want to move to EQ2, infact its more likly they would move to VG as that game is far closer to EQ1 in gameplay style.

ke'la wrote:

In fact, since Beastlords were part Shaman, I wonder if they would end up being too much like the Melee Mystic with their pet achievement, making them a bit redundant.

If they bring back Beastlords...I will cry. Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EverQuest. Hybrid classes were fine...as long as they remained just a hybrid of two classes.

Shadowknight. Part-Warrior, part-Necromancer.
Paladin. Part-Warrior, part-Cleric.

But Beastlords...they were a hybrid of FOUR classes. Their utility was WAY too high for the DPS they put out, or their DPS was WAY too high for the utility they had. Their melee DPS was along the lines of Monks. Their pet DPS was along the lines of Magicians and Necromancers. They could buff and debuff like a mini-Shaman. And they had mind candy like an Enchanter...which also STACKED with Enchanter's mind candy.

If Beastlords were brought into EQ2...they'd have to be nerfed harder in the transistion than Necromancers were. And then we'd hear no end to the "OMG!!one!1 They nerfed Beastlords!!one1!" threads.

Leave Beastlords dead. If you want to be a Beastlord, become a Mystic and go down the Chieftain AA line. Or become a Ranger and go down the Survival line. Our classes are already unbalanced enough as it is...bringing in the Beastlords, a class way more OP'd than Necromancers in EQ simply because of how much DPS and utility a single body can bring to a group/raid, will just further damage our current 24 classes.

Poor poor horsey, even in death he's still getting beaten..
Let it go.. Cheatlords Beastlords are not coming back...
so either start speccing your Mystic / Warden and dreaming or move on..

ke'la wrote:

I'm sorry, but this answer is 100% false and makes me think you are a shill. This is not an ad hominem attack, go look up the word as your grammar and sentence structure would indicate to me that you might take this as an attack without understanding the word I used.
EDIT: I missed a misspelled word...sorry.

Captain_Xpendable wrote:

Exactly people need to wake up and see that Shamans absorbed all that was balanced in beastlords.

To the OP:


1. Never

2. Never

3. Never

4. In EQ3

My bet is on one of the first 3 alternatives.

For all the Beastlord lovers , like my self . The close we are going to get to a Beastlord class in any other game is the Hunter Class in World of Warcraft which is a Ranger/Beast mix, I have a level 70 Hunter and love it ,but i still miss my EQ1 BeastLord. It seems SOE and a lot of people don`t want the BeastLord back , so give the Hunter in World OF Warcraft a try you guys may like it .

Nehamiah@Kithicor wrote:

You picking out spelling mistakes what makes my statment false. I was not saying a thing about your post. I was specificly refuring to the other posts that devolved into name calling and troll bait posts. Wich by the way they did. This thread was NEVER locked yet it was about beastloards, the differance between those threads and this one was that the people that supported beastloards and those that do not support beastloards remained civil to eachother. I am sorry when people post links to pics of a guy beating a horse. Threads get locked that just how it works.
As to my being a shill, well first don't you think SoE would imploy a shill that could accually spell over one that can't? Second, why would SoE need a shill on a board they run, if they don't like something they can just delete it, besides they can shill for them self as Red names. And just to be clearer no I am not a Shill, I am however an SoE fanboy and I freely admit that... that said I do take SoE to task when they do things I don't like as well, but thats another story.

Vaeamdar@Antonia Bayle wrote:

That's amazing. Just assuming it'd be a broken class from the get-go. If the current classes are already all broken, why do you even play?
I would hope, as I've stated before, that the fact they have already made 24 classes, or 2 sides to 12 classes, would give them a bit of insight on how to make a 25th.
It's probably easier to balance it at creation than ninja tweaks and updates now n then.
Also, I wouldnt expect an EQ1 BL in EQ2...it would be considerably different. SO the whole "In EQ1 they were teh suxxorz!!" argument doesn't hold any water imho.
I would expect them to be better than the EQ1 class.
So, still haven't heard a good reason why no BL in EQ2, especially not from a dev, who ultimately is the only one or ones that matter.

Dakryss wrote:

The fact they have all but explicitly said no repeatedly isn't good enough for you...well if you stick your fingers in your ears and go nananana yeah...your not going to hear a good reason.

Dakryss wrote:

You would expect EQ2 Beastlords to be BETTER than what was the best hybrid class ever conceived in EverQuest? Beastlords didn't suck in EQ. They were seriously overpowered for what a hybrid class was. Instead of being about half as good as two separate classes...Beastlords were half as good as four separate classes, putting them head and shoulders above the other hybrids of EQ.

And actually, there are 24 classes true. But there are two sides of 16 classes - not two sides of 12. Each city has the option of 4 Fighters, 4 Priests, 4 Mages, and 4 Scouts.

And no one is looking at the rest of the picture. They got tunnel vision on just one thing: The class itself. There are many other ramifications you have to consider, not the least of which being it's impact on the Artisan side of the game with who would make it's Adept IIIs? Sages? No...they already get Priest and Mage spells (2 items). Jewelers? No...they already get Scout spells and jeweler (2 items). Alchemists? No...they already get Fighter spells and poisons/potions (2 items).

In all honesty...Beastlords were the beginning of the end of EQ. People blame the Planes of Power expansion...but honestly, it was Beastlords. They were so ridiculously easy to play and brought entirely too much DPS and utility to any group raid for any one body to have. When you have one character packing 1/2 to 3/4s of the melee DPS of a Monk, 1/2 to 3/4s the pet DPS of a Necromancer or Magician, about 1/2 the buffs and debuffs of a Shaman, and a mind candy that is 1/2 as good as Enchanter's KEI AND stacks with KEI...that is just too much goodness in one body. And even the EQ devs recognized that, because some time after Luclin was released, a dev had commented on a forum (this was years and years ago) that the Beastlords were a mistake the (EQ) devs would never make again.

Let's hope the EQ2 devs don't make the same mistake.

But if you insist on Beastlords...fine. Just as long as they get NO mana regeneration and NO buffs or debuffs. And they better be noticably worse at DPS by themselves than a Monk or Bruiser and their pet better be noticably worse at DPS by itself than a Conjurer or Necromancer pet.

Vaeamdar@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Yeah..BETTER. Not broken. Not a master of all trades, but one that fits better in a group. Not one that runs the gambit of key roles, but compliments the other classes.
That's what I mean by better. The suggestions you make at the end of your post are completely acceptable. They don't HAVE to do everything, and if they did have their old abilities, then they should only effect themselves and/or their pets and not steal roles from other toons. Like I said I don't want an eq1 BL. I want an eq2 BL.
It can be done.