too many is bad
But WoW's amount is too few.

(though WoW its a massive job just to add a new classes with the need of balance of a whole bloody new talent tree)

I'm more of a fan of the progressive route.  Give me 6 starting classes.  But here is the nut: allow them to branch off into subclasses every 10 levels or so.  I think that is what I really loath about mmo's right now; so many classes are exactly the same in late game.  You can have a dps spec, healer spec, or cc spec'd healer...but that isn't really progressive. 

Give me instead, a healer who specializes in in heavy armor, and 20 later picks up more healing or weapon based attacks.  Then allow that class to branch out again and specialize in spear combat, which then can specialize in dark magic, but then finally can have the option of Dragoon or Ninja Cleric.  That is what I want....A friggin Ninja Cleric. 

Enough so that there is plenty of diversity, but the classes are different from each other.  Having several different classes can really add flavor and dynamic.  The complete opposite for classless games, where someone with melee and healing skills isn't really a paladin. And everyone gravitates towards tank-mage or the FOTM.

Classes add character, but they should be very different from each other, not just 3 flavors of tankers and 3 flavors of healers with very similar abilities.

designing classes is no easy task, they should fit the era and lore and fit the available races *cough troll druid*

So to answer your question, the more the merrier, but realistically about 8-15 depending on how creative your designers are.

I still think, EQ had the perfect amount of classes, including the beastlord... and perhaps the berserker...

Originally posted by Eronakis

I still think, EQ had the perfect amount of classes, including the beastlord... and perhaps the berserker...

Vanguard is right up their with EQ1 imo.

Eq1 had great classes though,i like my Erudite wizard, but my Val Shar Beastlord kicked ass.

Originally posted by billynomates

Originally posted by Eronakis

I still think, EQ had the perfect amount of classes, including the beastlord... and perhaps the berserker...

Vanguard is right up their with EQ1 imo.

Eq1 had great classes though,i like my Erudite wizard, but my Val Shar Beastlord kicked ass.

 

Oh man I had an erudite wizard too! By God that was the best! I only invited Beastlords in my group for SD or SA haha

But yes, Vanguard is absolutely right up there. 3 different classes for tanks, support, healers and dps (caster/melee) or 4 different classes for tanks, dps (caster/melee) healers + your jack of all trade classes ..is the best way to go I think..

I voted less then 9!

One fighting class. If you can do damage you are this class.

Medic/healer. Years of education have made this character to be able to treat injuries. Also knowledge in chemistry and weak spots in a human body. But they cant hurt anyone because of the code of  healers.

Crafter. You can learn to craft anyting in the world. And repair it ofcourse.

 I love variety and customization, so the more the merrier

Originally posted by Astralglide

 I love variety and customization, so the more the merrier

Well the number of classes doesn't really have much to do with how much variety is in a game (and more classes typically means less customization.)

You could have a game with 30 playstyles spread amongst 3 classes (10 playstyles just within the mage class; 10 for rogue; 10 for warrior.)   Or you could have a game with 20 playstyles spread among 20 classes.   The first game has fewer classes but a lot more playstyles.  The first game also has a lot more customization.

If I have to tolerate a class-based game, then I'd rather have a few, very well developed classes than a bunch of shallow ones. I mean, when it comes down to it and adding improvements to the game, a 4 class game can see 10 new skills each, while a 40 class game would see 1 skill each.

Besides, most MMOs rely on a very fixed number of roles anyhow (tank, dps, healer, hybrid) so why make a bunch of shallow copies that fill the same role? And inevitably end up with some classes being more powerful than others.

I did the 20+ one. The more the better if you ask me, so long as each one is well-conceived and executed. This goes for skill-based games as well. The more paths I can take, the more options I have, the better, as long as they are balanced.

More options are always better.

Edit:

And By this, I mean that I do not like classes such as EQ, where there are well-thought abilities, but different classes often have similar abilities. I know this comes from picking one at first, and specializing later. I do, however, like a system such as TES, where there are several options, and you can pick and choose what you like. In this way, you might have two classes that have the same abilities with only a few differing points, but the difference here is that in TES you can choose specifically what you want. In this way, you have more options. In EQ, you have few. More options are always better.

For some reason a vast majority of people prefer more, more, more. More quests! More loot! More adventure!

Less is more.

Give me quality, not quantity. I vote for a single-digit class variety. Generalize your game categories. Let's go with the cookie cutter holy trinity example. Generalize your forms of attack and defense. Let's go with the cookie cutter physical and magical. Generalize your ranges. We'll take melee and ranged as an example. Do yourself a quick little table that squares off category vs. combat mechanics vs. range. In this example we'd have 12. Cross off pairings that don't fit your lore, such as a 'ranged tank' or 'offensive healer' etc. That number would be trimmed to, say, 6-8 or so.

Within your final classifications (omgosh *class*ifications), develop and offer customization to the heart's content! Be involved with innovative and refreshing abilities. Don't give me 20 different heals. Give me 5 that are all unique and provide a certain 'feel' of gaming that is fun but distinct. Let those 5 be modifiable further through gear, talents, quests, training etc.

Edit: is that supposed to be 12? I'm going to leave it, but if my math is off I'm claiming sobriety being at fault on a Thursday night. Shutting down thinking power for the week!

I concur...variety is almost as close to full customization as you can get. 

I'm gonna have to go with... 0

Zero is the only acceptable number of classes in an mmorpg.

Skills....

At this point in time, I really can't decide between having 10 to 12 classes, or having none at all. I do like the idea of having no classes actually, but rather skills, and using those skills to customise a particular 'role' that you want to play. It does not even have to be a fighting role; you could be a miner or a courrier or explorer, provided you train up the skills necessary to excell at it. And that, I admit, is what I love about EVE Online.

At the same time, I like the idea of having 10 classes, with lots of skills given, but a limit on the number of skills that you can put on a skill bar. Like Guild Wars for example; I particularly love the dual professions system inside the game, as well as the limit on the skill bar. It's highly customisable as well, because you could literally fit the thousand over skills (that you get for having two professions) into a skill bar to, once again, fulfil a role that is needed by the team.

I used Guild Wars and EVE Online as examples because personally, I feel that both systems are exemplerary, and out of all the games I've played, I get the most enjoyment out of these two games, due to their class system.

---

Originally posted by pojung
For some reason a vast majority of people prefer more, more, more. More quests! More loot! More adventure!
Less is more.
Give me quality, not quantity. I vote for a single-digit class variety. Generalize your game categories. Let's go with the cookie cutter holy trinity example. Generalize your forms of attack and defense. Let's go with the cookie cutter physical and magical. Generalize your ranges. We'll take melee and ranged as an example. Do yourself a quick little table that squares off category vs. combat mechanics vs. range. In this example we'd have 12. Cross off pairings that don't fit your lore, such as a 'ranged tank' or 'offensive healer' etc. That number would be trimmed to, say, 6-8 or so.
Within your final classifications (omgosh *class*ifications), develop and offer customization to the heart's content! Be involved with innovative and refreshing abilities. Don't give me 20 different heals. Give me 5 that are all unique and provide a certain 'feel' of gaming that is fun but distinct. Let those 5 be modifiable further through gear, talents, quests, training etc.
Edit: is that supposed to be 12? I'm going to leave it, but if my math is off I'm claiming sobriety being at fault on a Thursday night. Shutting down thinking power for the week!

---

I am terrible at maths, and I did not even try to figure out how many there would be with that table. I understand the concept, however, and I think it is a logical way to develop classes, but I think it is restrictive, and I think it is reverse to the way classes should be developed.

Let us take three classic archetypes: Mage, Warlock, Priest. They are all ranged magic dps in certain lores, and they can all be developed differently and have different feels to them. What should be done is designers should think about the world in which the characters exist and first choose a progression system that makes sense. Then they should choose classes based on the world and the kinds of people that populate it. If there are no demons, but there are undead, you might choose to design a necromancer class instead. In this way, class design is all about the lore, not a set list of "roles."

With the system you just described, you could not have these three classes, and that would be quite restrictive. Less is not more. More is more, but only if it is well designed. If you can only design seven classes that are well-thought and well-executed, then only design seven, as you say. If you can design 25 classes that are well-thought and well-executed, you should do that.

What you are implying is that if a company designs more classes, they are ipso facto less well-designed, which is not, or should not, be true. As I said, in Everquest, this is certainly a serious problem, but it doesn't have to be.

Of course, this debate about class design is one reason why I greatly favour skill systems. Then players can pick and choose the set of abilities that suits them. Of course, even then, more skill pathways are better if they are all well done. The Ryzom skill system is, to my mind, by far the best skill-based progression system yet devised. You could have any number of different types of people, but they all work well.

Hrmm. I don't think a statement of 25 'well designed' classes fits with my intuition.

I agree that there are a great number of ways you can develop classes. My baseline starts with roles and functions. Yours starts with lore. We both touch on each other's concepts (which is good! it shows a big picture understanding!), but we approach it differently. Nothing wrong with that!

Less is still more. Even from a lore perspective, you will end up fumbling for unique, distinct, fun mechanics that truly differentiate one class from another. If you approached from a lore perspective, and develop a 'warlock' who is a 'magic user, ranged attacks, offensive minded, deals with demons' and then deveop a 'necromancer' who is a 'magic user, ranged attacks, offensive minded, deals with undead' then from a functional point of view there's just too much overlap. You can tweak other things, of course, such as make one a pet class and not the other, and you would have a distinct feel for sure. But too many common denominators and everything starts blurring together, and despite all the thought and creativity, it's all bland.

I am inspired by your 'lore first' approach. It's often an element that is forgotten when you view the current line of products (queue FFXIV reform?). I think we all agree we want distinction without repitition. Cheers!

Originally posted by decoy26517

depends on the game. some games are fine with no classes while some are fine having 100+.

  This, and it depends of what type of mmorpg it is.

Is it close to 100% PvE then more is better. Think paper D&D 3.5 with all expansions and all prestige classes (and races!).

If it is game were PvP is most important it could as well be class less.

If both PvP and PvE is important then I would say "as many classes the devs can balance". If they manage to balance 100+ ( one can dream ) then I would gladly buy the game. And if the devs manage to make all those 100+ unique and distinct. Even more so.

I wouldn´t be happy with a game where you run into your "doubleganger" all too often.

Quality over quantity.

The more classes you have the less time the developers have for each class. So, balance, advancement and diversification suffers.

I would prefer a dual class type system. Something like how Titan Quest works or Guild Wars. It allows for a lot of customization and you can come up with some interesting combinations.

it really depends on the game.  If i had to choose i would say 20+ as the more the merrier in my books.  Having a huge variety of classes is great for PvE and can make for very interesting games (like Vanguard) but it kills PvP (something that is not needed in most MMO's but the devs seem to dissagree) because there are just too many skills to balance.

I would also love to see far more customisation of classes.  Dual class is fun as are talent trees but they simply arent varied enough for my liking.

 As many classes as necessary so that I don't feel like one is just a copy of another but with different skill names or spell graphics....HELLO DAOC!!!  EVERY class should look and play in a unique way.   If thats 9, so be it.  If thats 20, I don't believe it=)

I agree, quality of quantity.

I tend to prefer more classes than less as I like to play as a Hybrid instead of a Core class. The core classes bore me.

0 classes is ideal.
Why? There should be more freedom in how a player chooses to progress and access content in games.

But since that's too broad for the general net-tard to grasp, 3 or 4. Let people gain a 'role' and add to it how they wish. 

 Whatever works