Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

Read this post before deciding whether to go to Vanguard. Sony is ruining the original concept just as predicted. Vanguard was designed to have class archtypes; Melee DPS, Tanks, Healers,  Caster DPS. As you can read from the post below now one class can switch it's role which is absurd and goes against the whole system.

How about being true to your game design and not copying some other game called WoW? WoW has done the same thing and there is problems with it. Hybrids have taken the Warrior and Priest's role in WoW. Designers need to have vision of their own rather than copy someone else thinking it will work for their game as it did a completely different game. Everyone would just play WoW if every game out there tries to be it. What would be the point of playing something else?

Anyhow thought people would like to know.

http://forums.station.sony.com/vg/posts/list.m?topic_id=33907

Good for them... I'm sure I'm not the only one here that agrees with the decision to allow every class to fill different roles. Many people enjoy this game because of the sandbox feel... forcing any class to fit into one specific role takes away from the sandbox ideal.  Diversity in class design and roles is never a bad thing. 

In WoW an effective raid always consists of a strong balance of EVERY class, including various specs of each class.  A pally cannot tank better than a warrior in every fight, and they have in no way replaced priests or warriors.  Certain battles might favor a pally or a druid or a warrior, but class diversity is a lot more appealing than cookie cutter classes where everybody is exactly the same.

Yeah!  After reading this, I've decided to look more closely at Shamans. I usually play healers, and after abandoning my first post-return Shaman because Halasgard itself was so bugged, I think I may look more deeply into this class.  (Also, I now know that logging out fixes most bugs... which  I didn't when I threw in the towel in Myrean.) 

Frankly, with server populations so low, and my sense that many returning folk will be gone once the free month is over, I figure I better build a character who can fit into whatever group she can find.  I think this is a very good way to create the adaptability a low-population, low-influx game needs.

I personally hate it when classes are forced to play a specific role. I think it's one of the reasons I enjoy Guild Wars so much. You have your primary class and can combine it with an other class as a secondary class. Some of the combinations are insane. Mesmers (who are meant to shut-down casters) instead turn into extreme nukers due to their Fast Casting attribute shortening the long casting times of Elementalist spells.

So in short, I don't think it's such a big deal at all.

The sky is falling!

I dont really see the problem in what you are saying,yes the classes are a bit more diverse so whats the problem?

I do play a shammy and at lvl 33 I am really enjoying it but for group quests I still want a vary of different classes and in raids ofc I do,not only for the tanking abilities or healing abilities but also for the buffs etc,There has been some talk of shammies here but anyone that has played 1 will tell you we do not kill quickly our best "trick" is to outlast others and that can take sometime,for a group we still need a nuker and a tank also some of our heals have cooldowns so we arent the best to be a main healer in bad spots.

Like I have said before every class has its place in VG which is great from a player point of view.

Dunno whats wrong with a diversity of choices? Many MMOs have skill trees which enable you to shape the class in several ways. How is that bad to have more choice?

Shamans currently already are able to choose one of three forms (which can be changed in any city) they are Rakkur (melee dps), Tuurgin (tank), and Hayatet (caster).  They are still primarily a healer but each of these forms gives them a unique flavor.

This change is going to make form choice more than a simple flavoring of the class depending on the form you choose, it will make Tuurgin's viable tanks for most content, Hayatets respectable casters, and Rakkur respectable melee dps.  The idea is that if played to their fullest they should be on par with classes in that archetype while in their so called "super totem form" (not actual name) but without the ability to heal.

So people are saying no one will roll any other class because shaman can do it all (which is true without changing characters they could do it all, though they would have to respec, regear, and re allocate their attributes each time).  The reality is that while they will be a much stronger hybrid than "hybrid" classes in most games by actually being viable in their secondary role they will not replace any other class.

They will be the most versatile class in game, and I guess you could say the most powerful because of that but as far as end game goes Tuurgin's will not be replacing real tank classes, Rakkur will not be competing with rogues and monks for the top of dps charts, and Hayatet will not be taking sorcerer's raid slots.  They will be able to fill these rolls in a pinch, but there is no way they are going to scale them to be more powerful than the existing classes in that archetype to the point where all other classes become obsolete, to think that is the case is absurd.

All they are doing is making the totems more than token secondary roles, it is kind of like adding a new class to each archetype but that doesn't mean the rest of the classes will necessarily suffer because of it.

Originally posted by Elikal

Dunno whats wrong with a diversity of choices? Many MMOs have skill trees which enable you to shape the class in several ways. How is that bad to have more choice?

EDIT:  I did not fully read the quote.

Skill trees are horrid.  They pigeonhole your character to a certain skill-set.

My original post was praising customization, not class specialization.

Customization = good.  Specialization(trees) = bad.