Jump to content


Photo

The Final Four


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Jergis

Jergis

    Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts
  • LocationOklahoma

Posted 06 February 2009 - 07:34 AM

-Soldier: Sounds like the Battle Calls (i'm envisioning fell caller from the Iron Kingdoms) will allow buffing and battlefield control of a secondary nature. Rallying cries and such. The ability to mix and match defensive stance, offensive build, balanced, etc should hopefully open up many options for quality tank and DPS builds. Whether they'll have a strong alpha blast-type ability or not will determine what we'll likely see (in part) ouit of the assassin when released.

Magus: Reserving any sort of comments until i see a spell list (if ever, not complaining!) as that will determine the true versatility of this class. Obviously they intend to have blaster, chanter, and pet class as the three major archetypes. But with an interesting array of spells those archetypes could be built to produce some very entertaining and enjoyable (not to mention versatile) avatars.

Ranger: Even split along familiar lines, it will be the freedom in the pets, their abilities, and what breadth of applications the toxins have that determines versatility here. Looking forward to seeing the animal compassion-type ability in action.

Healer: Cleric, Saint, Despot, Deathwalker. I like zombie movies, but a 'Healer' that turns into a walking pile of necrotic flesh seems...odd. Perhaps it's the name. Perhaps it's the image. Or phaps i'm just thinking about it too much.

What are your initial impressions then, dear reader, about the limitations at launch. Good, bad, reserving judgment? Good gameplay and story can take the game further than classes or races. But if there is no quality variants in those features, the limited class and race options (by perception, at least) could be a further detriment. Looking forward to more.

Jergis

#2 Chyra

Chyra

    Crusader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • LocationCincinnati, OH

Posted 07 February 2009 - 08:35 PM

The Healer definitely is different from what I'm used to seeing. I typically play a good aligned healer. But this version seems to have some evil influences with the Deathwalk ability, so not sure if it will be a class I'd enjoy.

The Ranger sounds like a fun class. I love classes with animal pets, particularly when the pets are able to stand on their own, rather than something cute that just follows you around.

The Soldier sounds interesting in that it seems to be several classes in one, depending on how you specialize. For my play style, I would specialize in tactics. The abilities in this spec seem similar to some bards I've played--more a supportive role.

There have only been a couple games where I enjoyed caster classes. Typically, they're too squishy for me. So Magus likely isn't something I'd play.

Are these enough classes at launch? I would have liked to have seen a couple more. But with the specialization options, I'm hoping there's enough variety that most will be able to find a class they are happy with. And yeah I would have liked to have seen another Asheroth race other than Human. Human is a bit boring. But if I'm happy with how my character looks, and I'm otherwise having fun in the game, then I won't notice these limitations.
Posted Image

#3 Syndic

Syndic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1886 posts
  • LocationPerth, WAustralia

Posted 08 February 2009 - 06:26 AM

The Ranger sounds like a fun class. I love classes with animal pets, particularly when the pets are able to stand on their own, rather than something cute that just follows you around.

Thats generally the problem I have with pet classes. The pets themselves make the class as if your facing 2 players rather than 1 player. To balance a pet class properly, they should work as a unit, in that one can't survive without the other, essentially you end up with 1/2 a character, but together they can be still be a force to be reckoned with, but no more than any other class when you break it down.
Adrios - Syndic (Soldier), Kadden (Mage); Hokk - Thrawn (Ranger); Toskala - Nelina (Healer)
Family - Mitthrawnurodo (Talrok)

#4 Jergis

Jergis

    Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts
  • LocationOklahoma

Posted 09 February 2009 - 07:42 AM

-I could go with that idea, Syndic. I think when looking at comparative power levels of two popular pet classes, my preference would be more of balance instead of a competitive character that also has a competitive character as a sidekick. Specifically the difference in WoW Hunter versus EQ Beastlord. The Beastlord was a *great* complimentary class for the EQ structure. They scaled it well. Even though at times i had to check my log to make sure my warder was actually hitting, i thought it was done well.

Hunter, i was playing with the 'i win' class in my opinion. Or perhaps it was WoW in general. But when comparing my Hunter to my warlock, Hunter hands-down was the more sturdy and capable class by herself or in small groups of 3. I enjoyed some of my WoW days, but when i hit 60 with Hunter and the Warlock, that was it. I was done. Raiding wasn't in my blood, i had quit my guild at 50 due to mandatory raiding requirements, and it just was not fun. More importantly, though, i shut down my account (after friends had left) because there was no challenge at the end game.

Beastlord was always a challenge, too tough at times, but i never felt invincible. I hope for that feeling in Alganon, where my tactical thinking in play and study is rewarded more than picking the right invincible combination of class and skill.

I look forward to continued discussion here, keep those thoughts coming!

Jergis

#5 zopyros

zopyros

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 05:37 PM

Syndic, The deathwalker ability seems to be like Shadowform for Priests in WoW, you sacrifice your ability to cast most holy spells in exchange for a nice DPs boost (although WoW never has made a shadowpriest a truly competitive dps class). I hope to see Spirit Mastery as a competitive spec instead of increasing a healer's pew pew damage to PEW PEW damage.

As to Jergis, I love the WoW hunter but I agree, far too overpowered for the most part. I see that the ranger trees mirror the hunter's in their basic essence (pet user/ranged attack/survival).

The Magus reminds me ALOT of Diablo II's sorceress. I just hope that they're not as "squishy" as mages in the past have been. I remember back to Diablo I when the mage class seemed impossible to play 1 player because they took a while to get high enough to survive.

But all in all, I reserve judgment on the characters until I can see some sample skills to further define the classes and their specs.

#6 Drox

Drox

    Prophet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 10:00 AM

Healer: Cleric, Saint, Despot, Deathwalker. I like zombie movies, but a 'Healer' that turns into a walking pile of necrotic flesh seems...odd. Perhaps it's the name. Perhaps it's the image. Or phaps i'm just thinking about it too much.

Jergis


I agree it sounds different then most healers.

I think they are going down the route of healers are in tune with life and death. If you think about it that way they should be like a mix of necromancer and cleric.

I don't think they need to be evil. I never really look at necromancers as evil, just that they control death. And clerics usually control life, so if you mix the two types together you get what seems like something similar to Alganon's healer description.

I'm very interested though and I want to try them out as I plan on playing almost certainly a Healer.

I think I may also try to subclass as a tank, Since I used to play them a lot back in the day.

#7 Leviathan

Leviathan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:25 AM

Hi all! New to the community so pardon me if I make any game mechanic blunders or whatnot.

Anyway, the classes feel very "been there, done that" to me as, from what I've read on the website, they hold striking similarities to the current MMO king known as WoW. Now, when people say this I usually get perturbed because the label "WoW clone" gets thrown around capriciously. In this case, however, I believe they are trying to draw from a popular and successful game by mimicking some ideas. This doesn't present a problem in my mind, but I certainly hope they can deviate from WoW enough to make an independent and different game.

I'm certainly intrigued by the dual role system and look forward to hearing/reading more about it and the mechanics involved. Hopefully it's not a mirror image of WoW's dual spec but I shall wait and see.

#8 Dificeman

Dificeman

    Crusader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 19 March 2009 - 05:56 PM

They have taken aspects from many games and are trying to combine them successfully. Some classes may be similair to some of those in WoW but they are different and in the end will become very different when you start taking into account the study system and such. Personally I will base the game on how will it is put together and how much challenge it gives me. To me part of playing a MMO is the challenge it gives me with levelings, quests, and progression over all. I think that is why so far EQ1 holds my best memories cause back in the day when You gained a level it was something to be proud of. Unlike now adays where one might gain 2-15+ levels in a day.

With the difference Alganon is making to thier game versus many others that certain aspects are similair to are what drew me here. I like the idea of the Study system and the idea of characters really being different based on thier skills. I like the idea of the library. One thing QoL has said from the get go. They are trying to take the best aspects from games currently out there and refine them a bit and combine them successfully into a solid MMO. So naturally some things will have the same feel :)

#9 Grymmoire

Grymmoire

    Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • LocationColumbus, OH

Posted 20 March 2009 - 06:02 PM

If the Prophet is more akin to a necro that can drain life then it sounds like something which greatly holds interest for me. On the other hand, if the class plays out to be more of a crowd control class like an EQ enchanter, then I am not interested at all. Of course a hybrid could prove very interesting, but I tend to favor the necromancy role more than crowd control.

The Healer Deathwalker ability and smiting sounds very tempting though.

Why are Assassins always last to launch or seem to be left to the wayside? Is it because most players seem to fear that class the most (stealth, opening poison strikes, fast dps class)?

The Warden seems to perhaps have some druidic flavor along with perhaps a shamanistic bent; hard to tell at this juncture though.

If the post release of the other classes and races are within a reasonable time frame , no problem, but I would hate to see them release too far down the pike while the other four/two races get skilling and level up too high., since starting over on a new class/race and repeating content is only interesting to me when the upper content lacks, thus making repeating lower end content more fun. Otherwise, I want to be continuing to experience mid to upper end content.

The study system may lend enough of a variety and versitilty to the base classes, so that no perceptive lack in there being only four base classes and two race combos being available at release will be realized. Beta should divulge this to those that get the opportunity to test...so do it well please Lol !!!
"You're simply jealous, since the voices speak only to me."

#10 Tro

Tro

    Servant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • LocationWashington DC

Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:38 PM

If the Prophet is more akin to a necro that can drain life then it sounds like something which greatly holds interest for me. On the other hand, if the class palys out to be more of a crowd control class like an EQ enchanter, then I am not interested at all. Of course a hybrid could prove very interesting, but I tend to favor the necromancy role more than crowd control.

The Healer Deathwalker ability and smiting sounds very tempting though.

Why are Assassins always last to launch or seem to be left to the wayside? Is it because most players seem to fear that class the most (stealth, opening poison strikes, fast dps class)?

The Warden seems to perhaps have some druidic flavor along with perhaps a shamanistic bent; hard to tell at this juncture though.

If the post release of the other classes and races are within a reasonable time frame , no problem, but I would hate to see them release too far down the pike while the other four/two races get skilling and level up too high., since starting over on a new class/race and repeating content is only interesting to me when the upper content lacks, thus making repeating lower end content more fun. Otherwise, I want to be continuing to experience mid to upper end content.

The study system may lend enough of a variety and versitilty to the base classes, so that no perceptive lack in there being only four base classes and two race combos being available at release will be realized. Beta should divulge this to those that get the opportunity to test...so do it well please Lol !!!


Rename the Healer class to Necromancer.
Master of Life and Death.

#11 albedo

albedo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 06:30 AM

Soldier

Stances really look like a "copy-paste" from WoW and it's artificial and useless because, in Wow, a tank always use defensive stance and a dps offensive stance. It will be the same here because we'll have to specialize in defensive/tactical/offensive. Using a shield or a 2H weapon must make the diference by itself. Give it up and bring us many differents skills for shield and 2H.

Ranger

Seems really good. Toxins and presence are really interesting. The ability to off-tank with the pet in guardianship is really exciting.

Magus

Really solid and interesting. Ice spezialization should allow the mage to transform into a big Ice elemental who could be a magical tank in some situations.

Healer

Looks like a good "WoW copy/paste". Change the name of the class.

#12 Syndic

Syndic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1886 posts
  • LocationPerth, WAustralia

Posted 10 April 2009 - 08:11 PM

Soldier

Stances really look like a "copy-paste" from WoW and it's artificial and useless because, in Wow, a tank always use defensive stance and a dps offensive stance. It will be the same here because we'll have to specialize in defensive/tactical/offensive. Using a shield or a 2H weapon must make the diference by itself. Give it up and bring us many differents skills for shield and 2H.

It's not really artificial since when you are sword fighting you do actually have a stance for when you a pushing forward or for when you are going on the defence. It's also not useless since the 2 examples you gave are the exact reason the stances were created, you would not see a DPS tank in defensive stance and thats becuase it wasn't created for that reason.
EQ2 also has stances for their fighters. It's just a form of switch, you can't have the class do both tank and DPS since that would then rule out a need for DPS classes at all. So the player must choose which one to be at any given time. It's certainly not a new concept but if there is a different way to get it so a player can be restricted to either tanking or DPSing I can't think of it. The only other option is to make soldiers tanks only and that is no fun for anyone, once the groups have a tank there is very little need for another leaving very little for soldiers all over.
Adrios - Syndic (Soldier), Kadden (Mage); Hokk - Thrawn (Ranger); Toskala - Nelina (Healer)
Family - Mitthrawnurodo (Talrok)

#13 albedo

albedo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 11 April 2009 - 01:58 AM

It's not really artificial since when you are sword fighting you do actually have a stance for when you a pushing forward or for when you are going on the defence. It's also not useless since the 2 examples you gave are the exact reason the stances were created, you would not see a DPS tank in defensive stance and thats becuase it wasn't created for that reason.
EQ2 also has stances for their fighters. It's just a form of switch, you can't have the class do both tank and DPS since that would then rule out a need for DPS classes at all. So the player must choose which one to be at any given time. It's certainly not a new concept but if there is a different way to get it so a player can be restricted to either tanking or DPSing I can't think of it. The only other option is to make soldiers tanks only and that is no fun for anyone, once the groups have a tank there is very little need for another leaving very little for soldiers all over.

What i meant is that soldiers will specialize in defensive (protection), tactical or offensive (weaponry) and therefore use the equivalent stance. This is redundant. Protection soldiers won't use offensive or tactical stance : it would weaken them for a poor dps. Weaponry soldiers won't use defensive stance because they don't have defensive skills and passives to tank.
In my opinion, I would prefer really different abilities and possibilities for every specialization rather than these stances.

#14 Syndic

Syndic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1886 posts
  • LocationPerth, WAustralia

Posted 12 April 2009 - 09:47 AM

Maybe stances arewhat you think they are, then again maybe they are not. At the moment no-one can be sure but the devs. Just like you I'm working off how stances work in other games (EQ2 in particular), Alganon is not those other games, so I'm going to hold out until I see some more concrete information about how a Soldier works.
Adrios - Syndic (Soldier), Kadden (Mage); Hokk - Thrawn (Ranger); Toskala - Nelina (Healer)
Family - Mitthrawnurodo (Talrok)

#15 Cbill

Cbill

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 14 April 2009 - 07:02 AM

I'm really looking forward to the healer, especially if it doesn't require a group all the time to do things.

#16 Dificeman

Dificeman

    Crusader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 14 April 2009 - 07:13 PM

What i meant is that soldiers will specialize in defensive (protection), tactical or offensive (weaponry) and therefore use the equivalent stance. This is redundant. Protection soldiers won't use offensive or tactical stance : it would weaken them for a poor dps. Weaponry soldiers won't use defensive stance because they don't have defensive skills and passives to tank.
In my opinion, I would prefer really different abilities and possibilities for every specialization rather than these stances.


Umm every class will have a secondary role that they specialize in. Soldiers can specialize in protection (ae taunts and agro etc) tactical ( buffs etc), or offensive (dps). They all three will be able to tank just as effectivly as one another when in the stance for tanking. Just the secondary roles are different. This is true with all the other classes as well. All healers can heal the same when in the normal stance, or they can cange to thier secondary stance for whatever purpose that role has and so on and so forth. So yes Offensive soldiers can still tank just as well as any other soldier if they are in thier normal stance. I believe your a bit confused on the stances there =)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users