Comments on: How many classes do you like to see in a game?

By: oritelman

oritelman — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:52:10 +0000

i got a question…
did anyone know a good fps with multi-class system many classes and race social skills like woodcutting an mining lol but also many weapons and armour wih kle attacks ?
if some one know a good game pls tell.

pls do noot mail.

By: spinks

spinks — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:18:19 +0000

That depends entirely on what abilities you think define your class, what level you get them at, and how many of them come as standard with the base class.

Presumably in EQ2, people felt that the base classes were not very full featured and didn’t have the versatility they expected from ‘full’ classes. (When I played it, after they let you pick your final class at level 1, I felt rather overwhelmed with abilities but I guess experienced EQ2 players are used to that and expect it.)

But it’s true that you don’t get the same level of complaint about the different specs in WoW — although it’s just as valid there. You really can’t play very effectively as some of them until much later on. I think people just take their class identity very seriously.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:09:38 +0000

How is that different from playing 60 levels before you have all the toys and tools for a given class? (Not snarky; it seems to me that there’s *always* a wait to get to “the class someone wants”…)

By: spinks

spinks — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:46:36 +0000

Not sure about those, but EQ2 definitely did at the start. They scrapped it because people didn’t enjoy having to play for 20 levels (or however many) as a base class before they could actually play as the class they wanted.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:54:44 +0000

I prefer no classes, and/or the ability to completely control (and respec) my character. It’s most definitely all about choice. (I’m not min-maxing, either, just exploring the game systems.)

Was it Tabula Rasa (and Aion?) that started you in an “archetype” that later diverged into a more specialized “class”? It almost reminds me of Seiken Densetsu 3, where you chose from of six characters (each embodying a “class”), and as you played, you could upgrade twice, each time choosing “light” or “dark”, effectively giving 24 potential classes, each having their speciality.

This let players get up and running with characters defined in broad strokes, but also let them refine their approach to the game as they became more proficient with their particular choices. It seems to me to be a nice way of handling the learning curve…

but I’d still want a complete respec, even the ability to totally change class.

By: Elnia

Elnia — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:28:40 +0000

I prefer fewer classes more roles. I do think it’s more efficient because you don’t have to reroll but that’s not the major reason. The major reason is that I not only like to know what I’m getting with class but what I’m *not* getting. All the classes in EQ 2 were huge turn off to me. Too many options and I had no idea how they all played. The *worst* feeling for me in a game is to play it a long time and then come to the conclusion I would have been better off playing some other class but I didn’t understand that at the beginning because I didn’t understand what my choices were. I hate that. It doesn’t make me go “oooh replayability” it makes me feel like a dork and that I was conned.

By: foolsage

foolsage — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:01:50 +0000

Flexibility is one of the most important things to me in character creation and development. I’d far rather have fewer classes to choose from but be able to customize my character significantly, than to have a large number of classes to choose from where every member of a given class is effectively the same. Ultimately, it comes down to a) my desire to tweak and test mechanics by playing with wildly different builds, b) my desire to create unique characters that are unlike everyone else’s (or at least not cookie-cutter), and c) my desire to shape my characters organically based on roleplay considerations.

By: Ysharros

Ysharros — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:42:35 +0000

If there have to be classes, then more is better. Which is why I’m enjoying EQ2 (among other things): it satisfies my insane altoholic mania.

By: lonomonkey

lonomonkey — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:37:15 +0000

I’d rather have a few classes with more versatily and uniqueness than a bajillion classes wich all do more or less the same.

By: uzbeck

uzbeck — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:18:11 +0000

Also of course there’s the re-roll issue.

A lot of people start the game with a concept in mind, often one with little or no relation to game mechs or even whats possible (Duel wielding rapiers, my D&D character, I wanna play Dritz etc etc) and when that dream crisps and dies in the face of the possible it can be a real game killer.

With different builds and possibilites out there you dont have to just re-roll when current game reality makes itself known. Or the Nerf bat strikes. I may have a couple of 80 alts and a Dk in the 70′s, my wife may have umpty ump 80′s but Joe Slow who just spent 12 months leveling to endgame is liable to just quit if he’s told to go do it again as a ninja-jedi instead. 4 classes per faction? Depends on how much wiggle room you have in-class. If its lots thats cool. All those Jedi/Sith that roll on that name alone who turn out to be not so great tanks/healers better have an option other than re-roll…but I’m sure they will.

Will they go for breaking the ‘holy trinity’? Nah. Its possible as previously mentioned but I’m with Spinks on this…not something I see Bioware breaking that particular MMO mold on. World of Darkness from CCP….all bets are off.