Originally posted by Banaghran 

Well, hes confusing and mentions l2 so i would wildly assume he misses "real" summoners, since that is the only major difference i see.

Because, and lets face it, a warlock or hunter are not really summoners in the traditional sense, a pet in wow contributes what, 30% dps damage tops? Some meelee classes do 30% of their dps with their autoattacks, yet we do not call them autoattack classes, do we? :) A "real" summoner would be basically support for his pet(s), having limited combat effectivness on its own (limited like 20% master [or 0, if you choose a pet damage increase mechanic instead of direct dps mechanic via talents], 80% pet), like in the asian games, possibly opening the whole system for suggestions that are floating around for years, pet tanks and healers.

Sure, but at that point you're sorta nitpicking.  Doing 33-40% of your damage through a pet is certainly enough to be considered a pet class.  At the high end it's certainly in that 40-60% DPS range I'd consider "balanced DPS" between the player and pet (which someone earlier asked for.)

A pure pet class might potentially be cool, but there'd be a lot to work out to make it actually fun to play.  Suppose that's not really saying it couldn't happen (the same phrase can be said of every idea in here, and many are pretty excellent.)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Sure, but at that point you're sorta nitpicking.  Doing 33-40% of your damage through a pet is certainly enough to be considered a pet class.  At the high end it's certainly in that 40-60% DPS range I'd consider "balanced DPS" between the player and pet (which someone earlier asked for.)

A pure pet class might potentially be cool, but there'd be a lot to work out to make it actually fun to play.  Suppose that's not really saying it couldn't happen (the same phrase can be said of every idea in here, and many are pretty excellent.)

I found the autoattack point too interesting to not to mention, even if i was referring the whole time to the term summoner, not pet class, which implies different mechanics, some of which, granted, may seem odd by todays standards, like your gear being completely irrelevant to the summon and thus your dps like in l2.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by Axehilt

I mean I sound a little patronizing here (possibly for good reason) but seriously: what more is required for you to feel a pet class is worthy?  Were you simply unaware of how deep WOW Hunters have become since launch (or perhaps you never played one?)

 

Well, hes confusing and mentions l2 so i would wildly assume he misses "real" summoners, since that is the only major difference i see.

Because, and lets face it, a warlock or hunter are not really summoners in the traditional sense, a pet in wow contributes what, 30% dps damage tops? Some meelee classes do 30% of their dps with their autoattacks, yet we do not call them autoattack classes, do we? :) A "real" summoner would be basically support for his pet(s), having limited combat effectivness on its own (limited like 20% master [or 0, if you choose a pet damage increase mechanic instead of direct dps mechanic via talents], 80% pet), like in the asian games, possibly opening the whole system for suggestions that are floating around for years, pet tanks and healers.

Flame on!

:)

 

 

you are spliting hairs.  Where does it say that 30% doesn't make it a pet class.  Oh wait, nowhere.  You are just making it up as you go along.

IMO, pet classes have been done to death.  I can appreciate you want to play the same old thing over and over again.

Originally posted by waynejr2

you are spliting hairs.  Where does it say that 30% doesn't make it a pet class.  Oh wait, nowhere.  You are just making it up as you go along.

IMO, pet classes have been done to death.  I can appreciate you want to play the same old thing over and over again.

Context, you have missed it completely, i like it :)

Flame on!

:)

Class concepts I loved:

- Messmer (GW1): Anti-Mage Mage with very quick spellcasting and various effects on the target, such as mana stealing.

- Blood Mage (VG): Lifetap based healer. The game needs to support a defensive (ally) and offensive (opponent) target for this to work.

* Damage redirection: Various tricks to redirect damage, for example an ability that converts 10% of the group damage to healing for the Blood Mage, or another ability that redirects a part of the damage dealt on the ally to the Blood Mage, effectively increasing the hitpoints of the target (most often the group tank).

* "Blood Points": certain abilities increased the blood point counter on the current mob, while others could use them up. A new mob would always start at zero again. The maximum was 5 points.

* "Symbiotes": special buffs that needed special base items which would have to be crafted from organs, which in turn have been harvested from mobs during combat.

- Disciple (VG): Healer Monk

Uh-hu.

Rift only has 4 classes - Warrior, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.

You add 3 subclasses to each of them, but you obviously cannot play a pure Bard in Rift.

So yeah, Rift is a bad example for really anything class related.

Wrestler - a class that focuses on grappling, throws and take downs.  When I saw a class in Vindictus give a mob a pile driver it put a big kool aid smile on my face.

more classes:

1. Grenadier: ranged class, uses especial grenades with several habilities in the battlefield, for example, healing grenades, smoke grenades and gas grenades, its damage is AoE.

2. Zoologist: the zoologist is a mix of a beastmaster and a breeder, this class focuses on pet based combat and can both domate and breed species in order to create animals with better stats. 

3. Botanic: the botanic is a class which focuses in the use of plants, unlike Druids which uses magic, the botanic has breeded speciall types of plants which make several forms of attacks, like giant carnivore plants, explosive plants, and corrosive ones, also knows the use of venoms and medicines (could use some Plants vs Zombies concepts)

4. Plague Doctor: the plague doctor focuses in the use of hazardous chemicals, mostly venoms and viruses, is also a healing class at the same time since it creates medicines to counter other Plague Doctors, the pinnacle of its research is a virus which can rise dead characters as undeads for a short period of time, this undeads act as NPC mobs but have the bonuses of the gear and the stats of the player, and its only reason to exist is to fight, characters which die to this undeads also become undead so is a pandemic effect. once the effect disappears the undeads fall to the ground as dead characters and players are allowed to enter the world, (they have to stay as ghosts in the field while their bodies are fighting and are unable to revive).

5. Doppelganger: the doppelganger is a class which focuses in the imitation, the doppelganger acts as a second spy class but it doesnt use sigil, instead it copies the appearance and skills of other characters or NPCs in order to pass safe. the doppelganger also can create ilussions in order to confuse several enemies while deals killing blows from away.

Originally posted by Crunchy221
Sandbox character.  Id rather make my own class than be shoe-horned into a premade.  The more possibilites the better ofc.

^ This.  Hopefully with attributes and skills you assign yourself a la Asheron's Call.  I really don't like the trend of oversimplifying character progression and gear.  Even Diablo 3 has fallen into this trap, displaying a giant DPS or ARMOR number.  Determining your build and comparing what gear is best for your character is half the fun, at least for me, I don't want that done for me.

Originally posted by Crunchy221
Sandbox character.  Id rather make my own class than be shoe-horned into a premade.  The more possibilites the better ofc.

This picture fits so well!

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Banaghran 

Well, hes confusing and mentions l2 so i would wildly assume he misses "real" summoners, since that is the only major difference i see.

Because, and lets face it, a warlock or hunter are not really summoners in the traditional sense, a pet in wow contributes what, 30% dps damage tops? Some meelee classes do 30% of their dps with their autoattacks, yet we do not call them autoattack classes, do we? :) A "real" summoner would be basically support for his pet(s), having limited combat effectivness on its own (limited like 20% master [or 0, if you choose a pet damage increase mechanic instead of direct dps mechanic via talents], 80% pet), like in the asian games, possibly opening the whole system for suggestions that are floating around for years, pet tanks and healers.

Sure, but at that point you're sorta nitpicking.  Doing 33-40% of your damage through a pet is certainly enough to be considered a pet class.  At the high end it's certainly in that 40-60% DPS range I'd consider "balanced DPS" between the player and pet (which someone earlier asked for.)

A pure pet class might potentially be cool, but there'd be a lot to work out to make it actually fun to play.  Suppose that's not really saying it couldn't happen (the same phrase can be said of every idea in here, and many are pretty excellent.)

Well alot of ppl mention pet class and a sapper/trapper

In my eyes i see them being 1 in the same. A sapper/trapper uses the traps and what as a way to catch the pet, then uses them a deterent to stop ppl from attack the person before they kill the pet. As the pet does enough dps to be a major threat but the guy controlling the pet does little dps so the user himself and ppl he fights have to think.

As the user he has to setup trap etc... to prevent ppl from attacking him directly. On the other hand the attack or defender has to decide if its easier to kill the user while taking dmg from the pet or kill the pet then make mincemeat out of the user.

Great thread.  I always like the HOX class in AOC.  A cloth wielding melee mage class was different then normal archetypes.  And he could shapeshift into a demon.  Just wish he could change into more then just the one.

I also found the tank version of sith assassin different.  Just stealth tank seemed new to me.

I think games should push more hybrid or different archetypes more.  I think too many are scared to stray from the warrior, mage, rouge, ranger standards.

Originally posted by Krellen

Great thread.  I always like the HOX class in AOC.  A cloth wielding melee mage class was different then normal archetypes.  And he could shapeshift into a demon.  Just wish he could change into more then just the one.

 

I also found the tank version of sith assassin different.  Just stealth tank seemed new to me.

 

I think games should push more hybrid or different archetypes more.  I think too many are scared to stray from the warrior, mage, rouge, ranger standards.

Thats because  developers are afraid to make any leaps of faith or real ingenuity because if they fail well they failed but also because if they fail it could potentially kill a career and not just thiers. So they stick with the idea if it aint broken dont fix it.  

They just havent realized its been broken since UO EQ1 etc... That games like WOW shouldnt be the norm, WoW should have been a spinoff and Games like EVE(not the learning curve but everything else) should be the norm.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Crunchy221
Sandbox character.  Id rather make my own class than be shoe-horned into a premade.  The more possibilites the better ofc.

This picture fits so well!

It's true in some cases.  If you want freedom it means you are also free to shoot yourself in the foot.  Do you think the game should protect players from themselves?  I do not.

Originally posted by dave6660

 

It's true in some cases.  If you want freedom it means you are also free to shoot yourself in the foot.  Do you think the game should protect players from themselves?  I do not.

I think that if the characters rely heavily on each other in combat, or in general, I'd be much happier if people had a larger percentage of useful characters. And they'd be happier because I wouldn't need to correct their build and teach them how to play.

It doesn't matter to me if the game has classes or not, when honestly both types of games generally have the same amount of useful builds. Usually its a matter of classless games have more chances, but while games with classes can have less options, they have a greater percentage of useful builds. Like you said, in classless games there's more chance to shoot yourself in the foot.

But yes, I think that players should be protected from themselves.

Originally posted by Jaylanonyous

Shape Shifters. 

-Wow had the druid, but i want something that can really Shapeshift. Not just turn into 3 differnt forms.

 

Enchanters.

-Instead of having a class for CC, all games give every class 100 CC moves and call it a day. Thats dumb in my opinion. We have dedicated healer classes, why not a dedicated CC Debuff buffer?  EQ had it right, there.

Totally agree about Enchanters.  There was this huge movement away from classes like them back in the day almost because they were too usefull.  Mez, it was argued, allowed people to take on such huge fights that groups without it were at too much of a disadvantage.  It wasn't totally untrue but it was such a fun mechanic...  I enjoyed the hell out of it and was sad to see it go. Of course that was back when handling regular content decently required a working knowledge of assisting, main-tanking, off-tanking, pulling, peeling... etc. :)

I feel like EQ2 hit the mark pretty well with this class, at least in the earlier years... I haven't played in a long time.  The Mez wasn't a constant tab-target fest and there were other debuffs that one had to work in depending on the situation.  Really required awareness and concentration.  Good times :)