I find all the classes fun and I just don't give a shit about the WoW forums crying about class balance. I played casually and I always got into a group as any class I played but the only thing that pissed me off was how they'd ask me to change my spec and I don't want to. I play what I play and I just don't get why Blizzard can't make the instances scale to what group you have like what Left 4 Dead tries to do with the AI director.

Probably one of the more confusing articles I have read .  First off, warriors are not hybrids, they are just tanks.  Since the article can't even define what hybrids are to start with I will just write off this article as one the author got lost in their own words.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Probably one of the more confusing articles I have read .  First off, warriors are not hybrids, they are just tanks.  Since the article can't even define what hybrids are to start with I will just write off this article as one the author got lost in their own words.

 

 

I guess no warriors have ever been dps then, in your grps?

Hit game? Omg! .............................................................lmao.

The secondary issue at play,  however, is RAID/PVE spec vs PVP spec. 

Every 'pure' class has a genuine option to spec for PvP or PvE.  I really don't see the 'hybrids' having those options as much. There may be a 'few' talent points that are shifted around, but when a 'pure' class shifts their talents for PvP it's a big change.

To add to the 'warrior' side-bar discussion: 

Anyone that see's Warrior as a 'pure' class is wrong, imho.  They are obviously great tanks, but they are able to throw out some exceptional DPS as well.   Anyone thinking otherwise about Warrior should reconsider.

I have one very good reason for not worrying about this type of stuff. If any person is going to discriminate against me due to my class or spec, then they aren't people I'd want to play with anyways. I prefer more open-minded and mature people. So to me, this whole argument misses the point entirely, which is if people are the type to discriminate, they aren't worth your time.

BLIZZ just dug the WoW HOLE a little deeper with this new "HYBRID" thing I have not played WoW since Januray all the hype back then was DUEL spec. Now that they acualy gone threw with it looks like not so MANY fanboys are so eager to jump on the band wagon. SIGH to bad a ONCE perfect game now just a MEH game.

People would waste time in the LFG channel / cities pleading for a tank / healer to join them to complete their group. This was Blizzard's answer to the problem long time ago by making classes Hybrids. Classes were given more utility to fill the crucial spots (mostly tanks / healers) needed for raids, PVP, groups, and quests within the game.

But in my honest opinion World of Warcraft is becoming more of a Pre School for beginning MMO players. Becoming more of a virtual cartoon. Perfect example: Public Test realms players can get a "Chicken Mount" now.  But they have never did anything with rogues and their ability to find traps, or pick pockets. Basically what I am saying is they are giving more eye candy that does not contribute to the player's imagination in the game.

I play a Mage and a Hunter.  Frankly, I agree with the poster who said that they wouldn't want to play with someone who excluded them because of their class.  I only just started back playing again, but as a hunter, I was included because I knew how to balance my damage and agro (as well as having an extra raid member with my pet).  As a Mage, I am included because of my DPS and my crowd control capability. 

This argument isn't new.  I played an enchanter in EQ and ran into the same situation.  People would say "oh we have KEI so we don't need an enchanter".  If you don't understand the full roles of the other classes you are grouping with and their capabilities, I wouldn't want to play with you either. 

I am not a huge forum troller, but I am sure they are screaming about the DK class imbalance.  My husband and I recently transferred out toons to a PvP server to play with some co-workers.  I have seen more overpowered DK's than anything else.  However, I am not complaining.  No one class will EVER be happy with how a game is balanced.  My fear is that the more people complain about imbalance, the more likely it is that Blizzard will swing to the other extreme and nerf the other classes. 

More often than not, my guild has found places for everyone who wants to raid to raid.  I have only ever seen people excluded when they were late to the raid or when the raid was already full.  Even then, they rotate people in and out as people log. 

Maybe I have just been very fortunate in choosing the people I play with, but I have  never been excluded when I wanted to RAID and signed up.  My husband plays a Shaman and he is always welcome to RAIDs. 

I can only speak from my own playstyle, and I won't pretend to share or totally understand the priorities of those with other bents.  But here's my two cents.  A: The needs and preferences of raiders and PvP focused players always seem to trump other considerations, I can only assume this is because Blizzard sees them as the most dedicated subscribers, or because they are concerned about being seen as a strictly casual game without a robust enough endgame.  B: The most interesting experiences I have had grouping for instances and other PvE situations were when players had to figure out all new tactics based on the unique combination of skill levels and classes.  It seems somehow joyless and anti-immersive the way the focus ends up on percentages and stats.  I mean, you either pull it off or you don't, you might "die" if you can't figure it out on the fly, isn't that part of the fun, the sense of adventure?  If you KNOW with a certainty that you have the exact right combination of classes and talents every time because you have it all figured out with charts and graphs... what's the point?  

I think WotLK is a barrel of fun, I'm enjoying a range of classes, still learning new tricks and approaches all the time after four years.  I think the little nerfs and adjustments people freak out over are a tiny price to pay for what is undeniably a game with legs that works really well overall.  Just read the forums on  recent "WoW-killer" or "finally the anti-WoW" games to see how well Blizzard is doing OVERALL (nothing is perfect). 

Originally posted by Tarkheena

I play a Mage and a Hunter.  Frankly, I agree with the poster who said that they wouldn't want to play with someone who excluded them because of their class.  I only just started back playing again, but as a hunter, I was included because I knew how to balance my damage and agro (as well as having an extra raid member with my pet).  As a Mage, I am included because of my DPS and my crowd control capability. 

This argument isn't new.  I played an enchanter in EQ and ran into the same situation.  People would say "oh we have KEI so we don't need an enchanter".  If you don't understand the full roles of the other classes you are grouping with and their capabilities, I wouldn't want to play with you either. 

I am not a huge forum troller, but I am sure they are screaming about the DK class imbalance.  My husband and I recently transferred out toons to a PvP server to play with some co-workers.  I have seen more overpowered DK's than anything else.  However, I am not complaining.  No one class will EVER be happy with how a game is balanced.  My fear is that the more people complain about imbalance, the more likely it is that Blizzard will swing to the other extreme and nerf the other classes. 

More often than not, my guild has found places for everyone who wants to raid to raid.  I have only ever seen people excluded when they were late to the raid or when the raid was already full.  Even then, they rotate people in and out as people log. 

Maybe I have just been very fortunate in choosing the people I play with, but I have  never been excluded when I wanted to RAID and signed up.  My husband plays a Shaman and he is always welcome to RAIDs. 

Shamans are always welcome to raids, they have so much utility but a Rogue is only DPS he can't do anything else and hence they are often not included in 10 man raids, in a 25 man there is enough place for them but in a 10 man its really hard to get in since there are so many classes who have the same DPS and other uses.

I play a Warlock, so I don't care anyways, I love my class and the best thing is; I am very useful in raids.

They suffer the eternal problem of balancing classes for PvP and PvE at the same time.

As an example, Guild Wars had to take the path that they avoided for so long of a same skill having a PvP AND a PvE version, plus adding PvE-only skills. A same skill will work like this on PvE areas, and will behave differently on PvP areas.

For PvE, it could be fine being able to hybrid a class while offering the same output as a pure class, with the obvious differences expected from different classes. They have to balance it for 10-man and 25-man raids, plus the leveling and questing process.

For PvP, it would not be nice if a class can both heal and damage - don't forget they must also balance the skills based on Arena, Battleground and World PvP.

And that is why the issue is too complex for someone to simply dictate what and how something should be balanced, they probably do not dominate all the aspects of the game as I mentioned.

It is however valid to show Blizzard the unbalances, it just shouldn't be so simple to say "BLIZZARD YOU SUCK AT BALANCING", their game has grown way too complex to take such a decision in 5 minutes.

The entire argument can be summed up with these few words. *Anytime you force a HYBRID class to specialize with a talent tree you are forcing them into disadvantage.* Which is why i cant figure out for the life of me why MMOs are seeing talents as the new trend like everyone needs them? Talents wouldnt be so bad if they were like EQ AAs and you could grind as many as you want, but WoW doesnt do that, as a hybrid they force you to strengthen one of your sides which ends up spreading your character thin. That is the entire idea behind them being as good as a pure class, is they do 2 things, not as good as the pure at each of those 2 but makes up for it by having a BALANCE of 2. When you froce someone to disrupt that blanace by specializing in one of those 2 things then that class just becomes a watered down version of that specialization.

I think this has been solved with dual specialization.  Now your hibrid is many things at the click of a button. 

Originally posted by Stradden

 There are only three roles in the game according to Blizzard: Tanking, Healing, DPS'ing.

Pure classes on the other hand can only perform one of the three roles. So with that in mind, the only Pure classes are Warlocks, Rogues, Mages, and Hunters. Everyone else is a Hybrid.

Read The Pures vs Hybrids Debate

so CC gets thrown out the door as being Utility ?

Rogues, Mages, Hunters, Warlcoks all have crowd control abilities

Originally posted by harkle3

People would waste time in the LFG channel / cities pleading for a tank / healer to join them to complete their group. This was Blizzard's answer to the problem long time ago by making classes Hybrids. Classes were given more utility to fill the crucial spots (mostly tanks / healers) needed for raids, PVP, groups, and quests within the game.

 

But in my honest opinion World of Warcraft is becoming more of a Pre School for beginning MMO players. Becoming more of a virtual cartoon. Perfect example: Public Test realms players can get a "Chicken Mount" now.  But they have never did anything with rogues and their ability to find traps, or pick pockets. Basically what I am saying is they are giving more eye candy that does not contribute to the player's imagination in the game.

It's all fine and dandy to criticize a game. I mean it's actually quite easy to find fault in something. But none of it means anything if you can't offer a reasonable solution. In this case, you criticize WoW for being a pre-school for beginning MMO players, but offer no alternative to WoW, which offers the same quality, polishness, functionality, and features as WoW has.

Believe me, I hated WoW for the longest time, but after leveling up a character to 80 and actually doing all the raids after WoTLK came out, I finally seen why it is so hard to go to another game for some people. It really is the little things. People like to compare games on general categories, such as PvE, PvP, and Raiding, but fail to recognize what makes those activities fun. For instance, people might say that LoTRO's PvE is a bit slow and the animations are bad, yet in WoW the combat is fast pace and the animations fluid. This makes for a more enjoyable PvE experience, since it's the combat that keeps you busy the most in PvE. Or perhaps a person may point out the lack of balance in WAR for PvP due to the team balance strategy that's unpredictable in WAR, yet in WoW every class is balanced to be able to fight 1v1 against oponents.

I can go on and on about the qualities that WoW does have that beats the crap out of its competitors, which most of you probably take for granted in WoW when you play or played it. You may or may not find those same functions (shift clicking a name to see their class and level, or right clicking to add to ignore or friends for example) in another game that you have relied on so much in WoW. There's a whole slew of features like this in WoW, that Blizzard was able to afford to implement that other games have not or cannot.

So when people keep criticizing WoW, which anyone can, they fail to realize WoW offers the complete package and it's polished, whereas nothing you can recommend will have all of the features and functionality that WoW has. You can try to say this or that game is better because it has better PvE or PvP, but it really is a gross generalization that doesn't take into account the little things that make or break a game for many people nowadays.

Originally posted by Tarkheena

I play a Mage and a Hunter.  Frankly, I agree with the poster who said that they wouldn't want to play with someone who excluded them because of their class.  I only just started back playing again, but as a hunter, I was included because I knew how to balance my damage and agro (as well as having an extra raid member with my pet).  As a Mage, I am included because of my DPS and my crowd control capability. 

This argument isn't new.  I played an enchanter in EQ and ran into the same situation.  People would say "oh we have KEI so we don't need an enchanter".  If you don't understand the full roles of the other classes you are grouping with and their capabilities, I wouldn't want to play with you either. 

I am not a huge forum troller, but I am sure they are screaming about the DK class imbalance.  My husband and I recently transferred out toons to a PvP server to play with some co-workers.  I have seen more overpowered DK's than anything else.  However, I am not complaining.  No one class will EVER be happy with how a game is balanced.  My fear is that the more people complain about imbalance, the more likely it is that Blizzard will swing to the other extreme and nerf the other classes. 

More often than not, my guild has found places for everyone who wants to raid to raid.  I have only ever seen people excluded when they were late to the raid or when the raid was already full.  Even then, they rotate people in and out as people log. 

Maybe I have just been very fortunate in choosing the people I play with, but I have  never been excluded when I wanted to RAID and signed up.  My husband plays a Shaman and he is always welcome to RAIDs. 

Hi, I'm the poster you agreed with. Maybe the reason we feel this way is because we played older MMO's and actually learned to appreciate what each class had to offer-completely, not just partially. I think people get too serious and deep into the numbers behind a MMORPG, when it's really not all about that. Now I know many would disagree, but do people really think developers design dungeons where if you have this class combination, instead of that one, you're going to fail? I mean really, as long as a raid has the tank, healer, dps roles covered, it shouldn't matter who fills them. To worry about it anymore than that is getting too deep into the numbers, which may give you an advantage, but is not needed. In excluding one class for another, a person just displayed that they care more about what the class is capable of doing (5% extra dmg, whoopee), instead of the player playing the class.

Originally posted by happytklz

I can only speak from my own playstyle, and I won't pretend to share or totally understand the priorities of those with other bents.  But here's my two cents.  A: The needs and preferences of raiders and PvP focused players always seem to trump other considerations, I can only assume this is because Blizzard sees them as the most dedicated subscribers, or because they are concerned about being seen as a strictly casual game without a robust enough endgame.  B: The most interesting experiences I have had grouping for instances and other PvE situations were when players had to figure out all new tactics based on the unique combination of skill levels and classes.  It seems somehow joyless and anti-immersive the way the focus ends up on percentages and stats.  I mean, you either pull it off or you don't, you might "die" if you can't figure it out on the fly, isn't that part of the fun, the sense of adventure?  If you KNOW with a certainty that you have the exact right combination of classes and talents every time because you have it all figured out with charts and graphs... what's the point?  

I think WotLK is a barrel of fun, I'm enjoying a range of classes, still learning new tricks and approaches all the time after four years.  I think the little nerfs and adjustments people freak out over are a tiny price to pay for what is undeniably a game with legs that works really well overall.  Just read the forums on  recent "WoW-killer" or "finally the anti-WoW" games to see how well Blizzard is doing OVERALL (nothing is perfect). 

Man I agree with you about the charts and graphs thing. Getting that deep into a game turns it into a job. I remember when I was getting prepped for raiding by doing Heroics and when getting T7 gear how focused I fealt I had to be on the percentages and stats. I finally quit after getting my T7 gear and finally resubbed with a renewed sense of purpose. My goal is to play the game to enjoy it like I intended to the first time and forget about the percentages and stats and just play the game. These dungeons can be beat many different ways and a few percent difference in stats isn't going to make the raid fail. Hardcore raiders get too into the numbers, excluding people who don't make the cut, when the raids aren't designed to need that much mathematical precision.

I mean listen to the devs talk about raids. They don't talk in percentages, except when players ask (the whole 5% thing). Instead, they talk about having a tank, healer, and dps in the raid. If all that matters is that you have the basic roles covered, why should players care about which class fills those roles?

I'm with you on the whole dungeon thing too as far as bring a random configuration of classes. I've always been like that, because it's more fun to figure out how to beat a dungeon with what you have than to preplan a dungeon and know you'll win. Then it's not exciting and it's just going through the motions. Hell, I've been through some dungeons without a tank or healer. It's just a matter of going slower and using ALL of your abilities to their best effect. It takes longer to do, but I find it to be more enjoyable.

Originally posted by Nadia

Originally posted by Stradden

 There are only three roles in the game according to Blizzard: Tanking, Healing, DPS'ing.

Pure classes on the other hand can only perform one of the three roles. So with that in mind, the only Pure classes are Warlocks, Rogues, Mages, and Hunters. Everyone else is a Hybrid.

Read The Pures vs Hybrids Debate

so CC gets thrown out the door as being Utility ?

 

Rogues, Mages, Hunters, Warlcoks all have crowd control abilities

Yes, CC is thrown out because all classes have CC abilities.  They may not be the same type or style but all of them have a form of CC....now that Shammy's have Hex.   Or if you want CC to count as another then you have the same issue, since all classes have CC the druids/pallies have 4 roles, Shammy, Warrior(and if you don't think taunts are a form of CC your argument is moot), Priest, and DK have 3 roles and your rogues,mages,hunters and warlocks have 2 roles.  

This is one of the odd things people throw in there to muddy the waters. Claiming a utility as making a class a hybrid. Thus your final 4 classes are hybrids too because they DPS/Utility.  This is simply not the case, When those clases spec to increase the duration/style of their CC it doesn't force them to loose the ability to DPS well.  A holy pally will be a junk DPS or Tank period. A shadow priest CAN heal, but nowhere near as well as if he were specced to heal. 

So when people keep criticizing WoW, which anyone can, they fail to realize WoW offers the complete package and it's polished, whereas nothing you can recommend will have all of the features and functionality that WoW has. You can try to say this or that game is better because it has better PvE or PvP, but it really is a gross generalization that doesn't take into account the little things that make or break a game for many people nowadays.

Unless you honestly think that the RPG should be completely stricken from MMORPG, there is no way that WoW is anywhere close to the "complete package."  It is polished, that is true, but often polishing doesn't just get rid of the sharp edges, it gets rid of all the quirks that make a product unique and interesting.  There are almost as many different ways to judge a game as there are armchair developers to do the judging, so rather than focus on the usual PvE/PvP debates, I'm going to make a couple of points about the Online and RPG aspects of MMORPGs.

As far as the online goes, those who have been playing online games for a long time would probably have difficulty arguing that class and race diversity and depth in WoW, or any other major modern MMO, come *anywhere* close to what could commonly be found in MUDs and MUSHes in the early 90s.  While the move to a graphical interface was both inevitable and welcome, it can't be used to justify the way that many non-graphical components of online gaming have been grossly dumbed down and stripped of real flavor.  In a decent MUD, race meant more than what your avatar looked like, or one or two cheesy throw-away skills.  Classes had depth and variety, and thieves could actually *be* thieves.  Hero classes were often allowed to be heroic in stature.  Modern online gaming seems more concerned with artificially enforced equality and political correctness than it does with well developed races/classes and contextual realism.

As for the RPG, WoW is actually one of the games farthest from deserving that designation.  And I do not hate WoW, it is decent when judged for what it is: a cartoony adventure game with some statistics thrown in.  You *might* be able to call it RPG-lite if you are in a really charitable mood.  We shouldn't really expect any more from Blizzard though, they aren't known for RPGs, they are known for being really good at strategy and hack & slash.  Unfortunately, most other companies seem to be following Blizzard's lead and crafting second rate online adventure games with mediocre writing and no opportunities for really developing your character's story, unless you really like logging out of the game to write fan fiction. 

Fortunately, Bioware is finally entering the online marketplace, and when TOR comes out, it is going to be very interesting to see what happens.  My prediction is that all the people that want RPG in their MMOs, all the players who like depth, complexity, and story, will abandon other games in droves.  WoW will stay alive and successful, because all of the 3 account gear whores who have probably never paused to read quest text in their lives won't care about what TOR has to offer, and EVE will stay alive, because it is a ganker's paradise, maybe even WAR for the RvR.  But they will all lose a lot of players, and most of the smaller games that manage to survive will have to go on life support, because TOR is going to be the first real graphical RPG to hit the online market, ever, making it the first game to bring something that is truly new to the online market since Ultima Online and EverQuest set the whole thing in motion.

First, as someone already pointed out, warriors are a hybrid class. I raided as an undergeared hunter and topped the dps charts every time...every time except when this dps warrior named Keyrn was with us. He stomped me every time with one exception. As such, with warriors being able to put out so much damage, I can't see them as anything but a hybrid.

Second, I only really have a problem, as far as balance goes, with the rogue. The differences among classes does not matter a whole lot to me, since it is more about the player than the class in my experience, but rogues...could definitely use an upgrade to damage. Perhaps I have grouped with poor rogues...every time, for a total of a couple of years of playing this game, but I have always seen dps warriors do more damage than rogues, and rogues only have slightly more utility. Most groups I am in ignore sap, and are very successful, especially with paladin tanks and mages..gotta love that, but that leaves rogues with what? Opening locks? I just want to see rogues put out more damage than they do.

Third, as a response to presenting a problem without a solution, the whole "Pre School for beginning MMO players" comment, WoW has been criticized for a long time as being too easy. That's one of the bigger reasons why it has such a huge base of players, because a child can play this game. If you want a more adult environment, with fewer players and less children, play EQ2. It has a lot of the same convenient functions, you still level fairly quickly, but with player and guild housing among other things, EQ2 attracts a different crowd, though I hear terrible things about the raiders in EQ2, but I heard mostly bad things about raiders in WoW, so who knows. For four years, I have played WoW until I get bored with it, and then move on to some other MMO. I always come back to WoW...whatever that says.

Just as a last note about WoW's success, they also have a very successful advertising campaign. I mean, what other MMO has Mr. T, that midget guy, William Shatner, and Ozzie? I want Patrick Stewart on a WoW commercial!!

Edit: I had to edit this after reading the above post, which posted while I was typing mine. I have to agree with the whole quest reading thing. In WoW, I really had every intention of reading the quests in Northrend, and getting into the game for all of the material again, like it was for me in the beginning, but by level 74 I was just blasting through the quests to try to hit 80, because of how much content I could not participate in until I was 80, and because I wanted to own people in PVP, which, arguably, shouldn't even be in the game based on the story, but, who cares about stories, right?

My point is, I have a hard time finding the RPG aspect in any MMO, since you can't change the world, and hundreds of people are doing the same quests you are, but then I went back to EQ2 after 4 years. I started out not reading the quests, because I was so used to WoW, but as I progressed, I found myself reading the quest text, despit the fact that it is usually several bubbles of conversation, because it was actually well written and interesting, and several of the quests are fully voiced over. It's the little details that make me like a game, and WoW is terribly lacking in the role-playing details.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

So when people keep criticizing WoW, which anyone can, they fail to realize WoW offers the complete package and it's polished, whereas nothing you can recommend will have all of the features and functionality that WoW has. You can try to say this or that game is better because it has better PvE or PvP, but it really is a gross generalization that doesn't take into account the little things that make or break a game for many people nowadays.

 

Unless you honestly think that the RPG should be completely stricken from MMORPG, there is no way that WoW is anywhere close to the "complete package."  It is polished, that is true, but often polishing doesn't just get rid of the sharp edges, it gets rid of all the quirks that make a product unique and interesting.  There are almost as many different ways to judge a game as there are armchair developers to do the judging, so rather than focus on the usual PvE/PvP debates, I'm going to make a couple of points about the Online and RPG aspects of MMORPGs.

As far as the online goes, those who have been playing online games for a long time would probably have difficulty arguing that class and race diversity and depth in WoW, or any other major modern MMO, come *anywhere* close to what could commonly be found in MUDs and MUSHes in the early 90s.  While the move to a graphical interface was both inevitable and welcome, it can't be used to justify the way that many non-graphical components of online gaming have been grossly dumbed down and stripped of real flavor.  In a decent MUD, race meant more than what your avatar looked like, or one or two cheesy throw-away skills.  Classes had depth and variety, and thieves could actually *be* thieves.  Hero classes were often allowed to be heroic in stature.  Modern online gaming seems more concerned with artificially enforced equality and political correctness than it does with well developed races/classes and contextual realism.

As for the RPG, WoW is actually one of the games farthest from deserving that designation.  And I do not hate WoW, it is decent when judged for what it is: a cartoony adventure game with some statistics thrown in.  You *might* be able to call it RPG-lite if you are in a really charitable mood.  We shouldn't really expect any more from Blizzard though, they aren't known for RPGs, they are known for being really good at strategy and hack & slash.  Unfortunately, most other companies seem to be following Blizzard's lead and crafting second rate online adventure games with mediocre writing and no opportunities for really developing your character's story, unless you really like logging out of the game to write fan fiction. 

Fortunately, Bioware is finally entering the online marketplace, and when TOR comes out, it is going to be very interesting to see what happens.  My prediction is that all the people that want RPG in their MMOs, all the players who like depth, complexity, and story, will abandon other games in droves.  WoW will stay alive and successful, because all of the 3 account gear whores who have probably never paused to read quest text in their lives won't care about what TOR has to offer, and EVE will stay alive, because it is a ganker's paradise, maybe even WAR for the RvR.  But they will all lose a lot of players, and most of the smaller games that manage to survive will have to go on life support, because TOR is going to be the first real graphical RPG to hit the online market, ever, making it the first game to bring something that is truly new to the online market since Ultima Online and EverQuest set the whole thing in motion.

RPG's are traditionally games that allow you to select a race and class (or skill set) to start with. Once you get in game, RPG's allow you to follow a story or go about your own way, depending on the presentation of the game. During your adventures, you gather loot and gain xp. You can equip this loot, or sell it to buy loot from merchants. How xp is used to advance your character depends upon the game. Some games grant you a level and certain predetermined abilities, while others allow you to pick and choose skills. What really sets RPG's apart is the diversity in their character progression system (how you use xp). So I really disagree with your point, saying that WoW isn't a RPG, because WoW fits the traditional RPG mold rather well actually.

I'd really like more in depth character progression and personal story lines as well, and some MMO's have done a nice job in developing races, but you have to deal with what's offered or go somewhere else. As for what's released, WoW offers that best all around package. As for ToR or any future MMORPG; past experience should have taught most of us by now not to put as much faith in them as you are right now. It's a bit naive. At any rate, I'm a huge Star Wars fan and a big Bioware fan, so I'm looking forward to ToR as much as anyone, but I'm not going to start proclaiming any game as the messiah of MMORPG's until it actually proves to be it. 

Originally posted by metalshelf

First, as someone already pointed out, warriors are a hybrid class. I raided as an undergeared hunter and topped the dps charts every time...every time except when this dps warrior named Keyrn was with us. He stomped me every time with one exception. As such, with warriors being able to put out so much damage, I can't see them as anything but a hybrid.

Second, I only really have a problem, as far as balance goes, with the rogue. The differences among classes does not matter a whole lot to me, since it is more about the player than the class in my experience, but rogues...could definitely use an upgrade to damage. Perhaps I have grouped with poor rogues...every time, for a total of a couple of years of playing this game, but I have always seen dps warriors do more damage than rogues, and rogues only have slightly more utility. Most groups I am in ignore sap, and are very successful, especially with paladin tanks and mages..gotta love that, but that leaves rogues with what? Opening locks? I just want to see rogues put out more damage than they do.

Third, as a response to presenting a problem without a solution, the whole "Pre School for beginning MMO players" comment, WoW has been criticized for a long time as being too easy. That's one of the bigger reasons why it has such a huge base of players, because a child can play this game. If you a more adult environment, with fewer players and less children, play EQ2. It has a lot of the same convenient functions, you still level fairly quickly, but with player and guild housing among other things, EQ2 attracts a different crowd, though I hear terrible things about the raiders in EQ2, but I heard mostly bad things about raiders in WoW, so who knows. For four years, I play WoW until I get bored with it, and then move on to some other MMO. I always come back to WoW...whatever that says.

Just as a last note about WoW's success, they also have a very successful advertising campaign. I mean, what other MMO has Mr. T, that midget guy, William Shatner, and Ozzie? I want Patrick Stewart on a WoW commercial!!

Edit: I had to edit this after reading the above post, which posted while I was typing mine. I have to agree with the whole quest reading thing. In WoW, I really had every intention of reading the quests in Northrend, and getting into the game for all of the material again, like it was for me in the beginning, but by level 74 I was just blasting through the quests to try to hit 80, because of how much content I could not participate in until I was 80, and because I wanted to own people in PVP, which, arguably, shouldn't even be in the game based on the story, but, who cares about stories, right?

My point is, I have a hard time finding the RPG aspect in any MMO, since you can't change the world, and hundreds of people are doing the same quests you are, but then I went back to EQ2 after 4 years. I started out not reading the quests, because I was so used to WoW, but as I progressed, I found myself reading the quest text, despit the fact that it is usually several bubbles of conversation, because it was actually well written and interesting, and several of the quests are fully voiced over. It's the little details that make me like a game, and WoW is terribly lacking in the role-playing details.

You're right, EQ2 isn't a bad game, but it doesn't have all the little things that mesh really well together giving WoW its charm. It could be argued that what EQ2 doesn't have, it makes up for with a more in depth crafting system, better graphics, housing, and more content. As for the community, you should know by now that the larger the community, the easier it is to see the asshats. There's asshats in EQ2 as well, and possibly the same percentage that is in WoW, but you won't notice them as much, since the community is a lot smaller.

But all of that doesn't really matter if you're the type of person who believes in good business ethics. If you do, then you shouldn't go anywhere near a SOE product. I can understand people saying every company may do questionable things, because most people don't truly understand how businesses work, but SOE has blatantly done unethical things in the past, such as completely changing SWG and changing the way classes worked in EQ2. I mean, how can anyone truely trust SOE after all of that or even justify supporting them? But that's another topic for another day.

Yes, SOE took SWG and basically made a whole new game out of it, which ruined it for a lot of people that I knew who loved it, and quit, but with EQ2, changing the way classes advanced didn't have a huge impact, since you can still betray your city and change from a shadow knight into a paladin. Now you just choose what you would have become and play it from level 1, instead of 20. The biggest difference in EQ2 is leveling. When I played 4 years ago, it took me over 2 months, maybe a little over 3, to get to level 38, and it was a very slow process. Now, I have been playing sparingly for less than a month, and have a level 41.

You described RPGs very well, as a base, but not as a role-playing game. The problem that many people have with WoW and calling it a role-playing game is that you hardly do any role-playing, the quest text is not unique to your race or class, your race isn't even all that important. It used to be more important, but then they went and nerfed my precious undead racial ability. Your class is very much the same as other classes like you, with only three different paths you can take. The things that make it, as a base, an RPG, are not very important later on, so it is hard to get into any role-playing aspect of the game after you leave your racial lands and start becoming just like every other hunter or mage or whatever.

EQ2 once had a live event, where a GM playing a character came down and interacted with me and this other person, spawned some stuff on himself and had us save him, so he could give us a reward. I have never heard of events in WoW where an actual GM was playing a character to make unique experience for a small crowd of players at a time. To me, this makes SOE better for any RPG value that players may be looking for, but then, that was 4 years ago, and they may have decided to not do that anymore. No clue.

In EQ2, they have several different "trees" that can make your class different from others with the same class. They also have several racial abilities that, while not having huge effects, serve to make your character slightly different based on your race. Basically, at level 80 in WoW a gnome warrior and a tauren warrior will have little difference if they are both tanks. The tauren should have slightly higher health. In EQ2, the two races would have minor differences that could play a role in the way they tank, and, even as tanks, the gnome and the warrior could have specced differently and tank in different manners, while both can still very effectively tank. In WoW, I find most often there is one acceptable way to spec for tanks, and talent points spent elsewhere, since they are a limited resource, are looked down upon.

Conclusion, while there is a huge draw to WoW, EQ2 is much better for the role-playing value, and, after level 20, WoW has very little value in that area. This is just my opinion, but there have to be options for role-playing value to exist.

Originally posted by nate1980

RPG's are traditionally games that allow you to select a race and class (or skill set) to start with. Once you get in game, RPG's allow you to follow a story or go about your own way, depending on the presentation of the game. During your adventures, you gather loot and gain xp. You can equip this loot, or sell it to buy loot from merchants. How xp is used to advance your character depends upon the game. Some games grant you a level and certain predetermined abilities, while others allow you to pick and choose skills. What really sets RPG's apart is the diversity in their character progression system (how you use xp). So I really disagree with your point, saying that WoW isn't a RPG, because WoW fits the traditional RPG mold rather well actually.

I'd really like more in depth character progression and personal story lines as well, and some MMO's have done a nice job in developing races, but you have to deal with what's offered or go somewhere else. As for what's released, WoW offers that best all around package. As for ToR or any future MMORPG; past experience should have taught most of us by now not to put as much faith in them as you are right now. It's a bit naive. At any rate, I'm a huge Star Wars fan and a big Bioware fan, so I'm looking forward to ToR as much as anyone, but I'm not going to start proclaiming any game as the messiah of MMORPG's until it actually proves to be it. 

I'll admit, I tend to define RPG more narrowly than the industry likes to.  To me, RPGs are about the ability to play and develop different roles, and have discernible effects as a result of those choices.  What WoW, and most online games, offers isn't meaningful choice.  If the only difference between player A's story and player B's story is that A kills things with his sword, and B does it with a fireball, that just doesn't strike me as any kind of real development of different roles within the story.  In fact, with the apparent exception of the Death Knight (which I haven't yet tried), the characters in WoW don't have individualized roles at all.  And no, DPS/Healer/Tank don't count.  Those aren't archetypical niches in a fantasy world, they are meta-game descriptions of gameplay tactics.  As for the overall story, a generous reading of WoW would say that there are exactly two: Horde and Alliance.  And virtually the entire experience of those two stories will be exactly the same, regardless of your race, class, gender, or any choices you make.  For such a large game, WoW has astonishingly little depth.

The reason that I am excited about TOR isn't because of some nebulous "faith," it is based in two things: first, that Bioware has *never* made a bad game.  They may have made games that appealed more or less to given segments of the gaming population, but they have been of a consistently high quality.  One could argue that they actually have this in common with Blizzard.  The difference between the two is more important though.  While Blizzard has focused on strategy and dungeon crawling, Bioware has focused on building worlds with deep and compelling stories, and creating opportunities for the stories of player characters to be just as deep as the background.  Blizzard has never created a game where the player had even the opportunity to play a character with a compelling personal story which they could actually influence.  Not once.  Faith is a belief in something for which there is no evidence.  It takes more faith to expect TOR to fail that it takes to expect it to succeed.

The second reason I am excited is because TOR represents a very important first in the industry.  Up until now, (correct me if I am wrong,) all of the "AAA" quality online games have essentially followed the same basic method.  Take the gear & grind based gameply of old-style text MUDs, add graphics, and import a few tried and true elements of single player gaming (quests).  They started with the online, and tacked on the RPG.  TOR is doing the exact opposite, it is starting with the RPG, and tacking on the MMO.  The only other game I know of that even talked about attempting this was Age of Conan, and they pared down that aspect of the game to barely a shadow of what was once intended.  But those hours on Tortage are still among the best hours of gaming created for an online game. 

What the people have Bioware have seen is a huge opportunity that virtually every other developer has been completely ignoring.  There are a very large number of gamers who like having choices in their games.  The problem for single player RPGs, is that it costs substantially more to develop two paths than one.  If the paths are well developed, it will cost almost as much more with every added path.  Customers who like choice on the other hand, are so starved for it that they will probably buy a decent looking game as long as it has two paths, with very little increase in the customer base for any additional paths past two.  This is only a problem because for a single player game, you pay once and then they can't squeeze you any more.  With online games, the monthly fees allow developers to justify a much larger budget.  You can have a game with as many paths through the story as you can hire developers to write them, and if the writing is even marginally good, the market that craves story and character development will keep on paying the monthly fee until they have devoured all of it, instead of playing one or two characters to max level and then quitting. 

This is in contrast to the current model, where for the most part one play through is basicly the same as another, and any but the most hardcore addicts get burned out and quit within a short period of time, even if they do periodically check back to see if there is any new content.  In TOR, not only will there be a real incentive for players to try the different classes, there will even be an incentive for them to play the *same* class multiple times.  The fact that the genre has been around for more than a decade and nobody has taken this opportunity yet is so stupid as to be borderline criminal.

To date, developers have been making one game, and setting it up so lots of people can play at the same time.  As one of the TOR devs said, their game isn't going to be KOTOR 3.  It is going to be KOTOR 3, 4, 5, 6, 7......... etc. etc.  Of course I am excited, because even if it isn't everything it could be, Bioware has something severely lacking in the online games so far: Vision.

Sorry warriors are not hybrids because like in all games there are some builds that just make no sense, a dps warrior is one of them.  If you want to play a such a build, be my guest, but you better have a lot of friends because pugs will just avoid you most of the time.

There are other builds that make no sense in Wow, but I won't go into them.  Hey if that is your thing go right ahead, but do it knowing that throwing yourself into the DPS pool is not always a great way to find groups.

As to the persons question above, no I don't believe I have been in a group with a DPS warrior, they are pretty rare to start with.  Most people have the brains to realize if they want to do DPS they should pick a DPS class.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Sorry warriors are not hybrids because like in all games there are some builds that just make no sense, a dps warrior is one of them.  If you want to play a such a build, be my guest, but you better have a lot of friends because pugs will just avoid you most of the time.

There are other builds that make no sense in Wow, but I won't go into them.  Hey if that is your thing go right ahead, but do it knowing that throwing yourself into the DPS pool is not always a great way to find groups.

As to the persons question above, no I don't believe I have been in a group with a DPS warrior, they are pretty rare to start with.  Most people have the brains to realize if they want to do DPS they should pick a DPS class.

Makes sense to me, and it would be nice if warriors were just tanks, and the different talent trees were just variations on tanking, but the option is there, even though it shouldn't be, and so many people choose to take it to higher level, even if they play a tank at 80, they want to level dps until then. I am one of the types that wants to play my role all the way til 80, and then stay that way. I have a paladin tank, and had a warrior tank, and neither was specced anything else. I don't even really like dual speccing, because that just means you need lots of loot! I'm for pure classes. If Blizzard wants a dps warrior, they could always introduce a new class...like the death knight...just take tanking away from the death knight, and make it pure dps.

Mentioning the warrior having three talent trees all dedicated to tanking in different ways makes me want to brainstorm about the possibilities, but that would be too long of a post.

Originally posted by metalshelf

Yes, SOE took SWG and basically made a whole new game out of it, which ruined it for a lot of people that I knew who loved it, and quit, but with EQ2, changing the way classes advanced didn't have a huge impact, since you can still betray your city and change from a shadow knight into a paladin. Now you just choose what you would have become and play it from level 1, instead of 20. The biggest difference in EQ2 is leveling. When I played 4 years ago, it took me over 2 months, maybe a little over 3, to get to level 38, and it was a very slow process. Now, I have been playing sparingly for less than a month, and have a level 41.

You described RPGs very well, as a base, but not as a role-playing game. The problem that many people have with WoW and calling it a role-playing game is that you hardly do any role-playing, the quest text is not unique to your race or class, your race isn't even all that important. It used to be more important, but then they went and nerfed my precious undead racial ability. Your class is very much the same as other classes like you, with only three different paths you can take. The things that make it, as a base, an RPG, are not very important later on, so it is hard to get into any role-playing aspect of the game after you leave your racial lands and start becoming just like every other hunter or mage or whatever.

EQ2 once had a live event, where a GM playing a character came down and interacted with me and this other person, spawned some stuff on himself and had us save him, so he could give us a reward. I have never heard of events in WoW where an actual GM was playing a character to make unique experience for a small crowd of players at a time. To me, this makes SOE better for any RPG value that players may be looking for, but then, that was 4 years ago, and they may have decided to not do that anymore. No clue.

In EQ2, they have several different "trees" that can make your class different from others with the same class. They also have several racial abilities that, while not having huge effects, serve to make your character slightly different based on your race. Basically, at level 80 in WoW a gnome warrior and a tauren warrior will have little difference if they are both tanks. The tauren should have slightly higher health. In EQ2, the two races would have minor differences that could play a role in the way they tank, and, even as tanks, the gnome and the warrior could have specced differently and tank in different manners, while both can still very effectively tank. In WoW, I find most often there is one acceptable way to spec for tanks, and talent points spent elsewhere, since they are a limited resource, are looked down upon.

Conclusion, while there is a huge draw to WoW, EQ2 is much better for the role-playing value, and, after level 20, WoW has very little value in that area. This is just my opinion, but there have to be options for role-playing value to exist.

* Do I think races in WoW are unique numbers wise?

 - No, I don't think they are unique numbers wise. Races don't suffer or gain believable changes to stats that they'd likely suffer or gain by growing up in the culture of that race.

* Do I think races in WoW are unique?

 - Yes, I think WoW races are unique by look and the first few starting zones.

 - For RPers, looks are very important, so having the variety of races in the game is more RP friendly than having a game with only 1 race.

 - You cannot fault Blizzard for allowing races to play in another races country (starting zones). Referencing EQ2; races can start in another races homeland, even though the lore makes most sense for the race of orgin to do those quests. It's no different in WoW. From a RPing standpoint, you can look at yourself as an ambassador of your races homeland, going to another races homeland to help establish more friendly relations.

- Eventually, the more powerful a character gets, the farther from his homeland he must go. So in a way it makes sense that races of all lands end up merging in later zones, which are less hospitable and more dangerous than their homelands.

* Are classes RP friendly?

 - Yes, I believe they are. Every class has a series of class quests that help immerse the player into how people of that class act in Azeroth. Eventually though, you become extremely strong and start paving your own way, which is where the class quests stop. You can look at it that way from a RP perspective, or you can complain about it and wish for class quests ranging from lvl 1-max level, which no game has. The closest I know about is DAoC, with their Epic quest line.

 - As for RPing as your class. When you kill something with your weapon of choice, are you not doing what that class would do if it could act on its own? When I cut down a bandit with my sword as a warrior, I know I am using my superior tactics and strategy to overcome my oponent. When I raise a fallen comrade as a Paladin, I know I am using the devine light to raise my fallen ally.

* Are the quests RP friendly?

 - They are RP friendly from a generalized lore perspective. It makes sense to do many of the things you do in the world of Azeroth if you read the quests. Many of the small quest lines make more sense at later quest lines. However, there are a lot of filler kill and collect quests that are nothing but chores, and I agree that they aren't RPing oriented.

- Most of the quests do not make sense to do for one class or another, because all of them involve doing something that is likely to offend one race or another, or one classes code of ethics, but not another. But again, I haven't seen a game with quests that didn't have this problem. Hopefully Bioware will be the first.

Now your example of a live event with EQ2 was admittedly 4 yrs ago, yet you probably know about the regular live events that happen in WoW. They there are the unregular events; the latest one being the WoTLK event with all the zombies and stuff. You can decide on your own whether you value small live events that only a few people get to take part of over a large event that everyone gets to take part of. What if that person appeared to someone else? You probably wouldn't have used it as an example just now, because you wouldn't have known about it.

I'm familiar with the AA system EQ2 has and I do like it. It is cool how there are different paths that lead to a class title. However, I've read plenty of threads pointing out one path as being more superior than another for whatever role you're choosing to fill in a group. So EQ2 is not immune to this. However, none of that should matter, because people should and can spec any way they want and still be effective. The problem is that some specs have been proven to do really well at a particular thing (tanking), so some people feel they need to be that spec. Others may also pressure a person to play that spec or get passed over for groups. BUT, this doesn't have to be your problem, because as I've said in another post, people like that aren't worth grouping with. So whether the game is EQ2 or WoW, a person should choose a specc or AA line they like, not what people expect of them. If anyone should know this, it should be a RPer.

As for RPing. I used to agree with you until I witnessed first hand RPing in WoW. It was just after TBC released and Moonguard, the newest RPing server at the time, was released. The community cracked down and agreed to not let non-rpers kick them off that server, like has happened in previous RP servers and it worked. I was in a guild of 60+ active RPers and that guild I was in was just 1 of many guilds like it. I have yet to find another MMORPG with so many active RPers in one guild, much less many of those guilds and that was just 1 of WoW's RPing servers. WoW has many RPing servers. Granted, a lot of those RPing servers may be dead for RP, but it'd be ignorant to think that Moonguard is the only server that has people that actually RP's on a RPing server. Now I have seen RPing on Antonia Bayle (sp?) while playing EQ2, but not nearly as many or even as many in one place as I did on a WoW RPing server. So that goes to show that WoW is a game where roleplayers feel at home in. While it may not have as many RPing tools as EQ2, which I can't confirm or deny, it obviously has enough people that have an imagination, which is the number one tool a person should use in a RPG anyways. 

Originally posted by metalshelf

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Sorry warriors are not hybrids because like in all games there are some builds that just make no sense, a dps warrior is one of them.  If you want to play a such a build, be my guest, but you better have a lot of friends because pugs will just avoid you most of the time.

There are other builds that make no sense in Wow, but I won't go into them.  Hey if that is your thing go right ahead, but do it knowing that throwing yourself into the DPS pool is not always a great way to find groups.

As to the persons question above, no I don't believe I have been in a group with a DPS warrior, they are pretty rare to start with.  Most people have the brains to realize if they want to do DPS they should pick a DPS class.

 

Makes sense to me, and it would be nice if warriors were just tanks, and the different talent trees were just variations on tanking, but the option is there, even though it shouldn't be, and so many people choose to take it to higher level, even if they play a tank at 80, they want to level dps until then. I am one of the types that wants to play my role all the way til 80, and then stay that way. I have a paladin tank, and had a warrior tank, and neither was specced anything else. I don't even really like dual speccing, because that just means you need lots of loot! I'm for pure classes. If Blizzard wants a dps warrior, they could always introduce a new class...like the death knight...just take tanking away from the death knight, and make it pure dps.

Mentioning the warrior having three talent trees all dedicated to tanking in different ways makes me want to brainstorm about the possibilities, but that would be too long of a post.

Since when are Warriors not dps as well as tanking? Look at history. Would you consider a Samurai a dps or tank. A knight, a dps or tank. A martial artist, a dps or tank. A U.S. Marine, a dps or tank. My point being, all of those examples are warriors by definition and all accomplish their goals differently, with different weapons, cultural backgrounds, and tactics. Do you think stabbing a person with a sword will not kill a person or seriously damage them, with or without a shield equipped? I understand your need for stability in a game with a tank/dps/healer set up, but you can't possibly say warriors are not dps and know the first thing about what a warrior is.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by metalshelf

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Sorry warriors are not hybrids because like in all games there are some builds that just make no sense, a dps warrior is one of them.  If you want to play a such a build, be my guest, but you better have a lot of friends because pugs will just avoid you most of the time.

There are other builds that make no sense in Wow, but I won't go into them.  Hey if that is your thing go right ahead, but do it knowing that throwing yourself into the DPS pool is not always a great way to find groups.

As to the persons question above, no I don't believe I have been in a group with a DPS warrior, they are pretty rare to start with.  Most people have the brains to realize if they want to do DPS they should pick a DPS class.

 

Makes sense to me, and it would be nice if warriors were just tanks, and the different talent trees were just variations on tanking, but the option is there, even though it shouldn't be, and so many people choose to take it to higher level, even if they play a tank at 80, they want to level dps until then. I am one of the types that wants to play my role all the way til 80, and then stay that way. I have a paladin tank, and had a warrior tank, and neither was specced anything else. I don't even really like dual speccing, because that just means you need lots of loot! I'm for pure classes. If Blizzard wants a dps warrior, they could always introduce a new class...like the death knight...just take tanking away from the death knight, and make it pure dps.

Mentioning the warrior having three talent trees all dedicated to tanking in different ways makes me want to brainstorm about the possibilities, but that would be too long of a post.

 

Since when are Warriors not dps as well as tanking? Look at history. Would you consider a Samurai a dps or tank. A knight, a dps or tank. A martial artist, a dps or tank. A U.S. Marine, a dps or tank. My point being, all of those examples are warriors by definition and all accomplish their goals differently, with different weapons, cultural backgrounds, and tactics. Do you think stabbing a person with a sword will not kill a person or seriously damage them, with or without a shield equipped? I understand your need for stability in a game with a tank/dps/healer set up, but you can't possibly say warriors are not dps and know the first thing about what a warrior is.

I would consider all of those examples dps, as opposed to tanks, because none of them have the ability to taunt an enemy, forcing the enemy to focus on them as opposed to the other guy that is about to shoot them in the face, or stab them in the back. MMOs make systems that require tanks, because they are not real, and because people take 500 swordswipes to kill. If MMOs were realistic, then the big bad raid boss could die to a single stray arrow, as happened to so many of our own legendary warriors.

Oh, and the raid boss would have all the loot possible for him to drop each time he was killed, which would only be once, and none of the loot would be BOP.

I could go on, because I find humor in pointing out reality versus game mechanics, but I think I got whatever point I was making across. I think the only point I was making was about reality not having tanks, but please, take what you will from it.

I would like to point out one thing, the live events in WoW are events set up, without GM supervision they take place, while the live event I referred to in EQ2 was a specific instance of a GM playing a character and interacting with me and a groupmate. EQ2 also has overall large live events, one of which was taking place when I encountered the GMC. I mentioned the specific instance because I was impressed that a GM took part as an individual character. I am not terribly impressed with huge live events that take place on multiple servers, and have a specific start and stop time, have respawn timers, et cetera. That is not terribly conducive to role-playing, but such is the way of online games. Nothing beats pen-and-paper for real role-playing, and I don't really look for RPG aspects in online games, because it just leads to disappointment.

Originally posted by nate1980

So that goes to show that WoW is a game where roleplayers feel at home in. While it may not have as many RPing tools as EQ2, which I can't confirm or deny, it obviously has enough people that have an imagination, which is the number one tool a person should use in a RPG anyways. 

On my way out, but felt the need to respond to this one point.  While imagination is something that all people should have, and would unquestionably be useful in a pen and paper, or even all text RPG, in a CRPG it is the developers who are supposed to have the imagination, and the players are supposed to have multiple paths and choices to make in the world the developers created, with *well written* and *hard coded* consequences in the game of the player's choices.  What passes for RP on most RP servers is more like the LARPers who like to dress up as vampires in real life and drink "blood" than it is like a well-crafted CRPG.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by nate1980

So that goes to show that WoW is a game where roleplayers feel at home in. While it may not have as many RPing tools as EQ2, which I can't confirm or deny, it obviously has enough people that have an imagination, which is the number one tool a person should use in a RPG anyways. 

 

On my way out, but felt the need to respond to this one point.  While imagination is something that all people should have, and would unquestionably be useful in a pen and paper, or even all text RPG, in a CRPG it is the developers who are supposed to have the imagination, and the players are supposed to have multiple paths and choices to make in the world the developers created, with *well written* and *hard coded* consequences in the game of the player's choices.  What passes for RP on most RP servers is more like the LARPers who like to dress up as vampires in real life and drink "blood" than it is like a well-crafted CRPG.

LARPing...I did that for a short time, until I went to a Camarilla Convention and all it turned out to be was a bunch of people pretending to be vampires or werewolves or changelings, getting drunk and being stupid. Not for me...but that is a good point. In a console game you are limited by the graphics and the choices that are written in for you. You can not have your character do something that it is not able to do. The best you can do is to emote it and watch as your character stands there while the text says he is doing something....impressive, but such is the pitfall of consoles, and why I don't look to consoles for any true role-playing experiences. The Elder Scrolls and Fallouts of the world are as close as I have seen them come to role-playing, with Jade Empire and KOTOR getting honorable mention as well, but even they lack the ability to play a subtle evil, since they can only base your sense of good and evil off of actions and conversational choices, and deceptive evil gets sort of left behind.

Now how off topic are we?

Quick, somebody say something about hybrids and pure classes in WoW!

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Probably one of the more confusing articles I have read .  First off, warriors are not hybrids, they are just tanks.  Since the article can't even define what hybrids are to start with I will just write off this article as one the author got lost in their own words.

 

 

Blizz has to nerf titan grip b/c that someone has been doing way too much dps with 2 good 2handers.  And which class has titan grip?

Originally posted by CazNeerg

So when people keep criticizing WoW, which anyone can, they fail to realize WoW offers the complete package and it's polished, whereas nothing you can recommend will have all of the features and functionality that WoW has. You can try to say this or that game is better because it has better PvE or PvP, but it really is a gross generalization that doesn't take into account the little things that make or break a game for many people nowadays.

 

Unless you honestly think that the RPG should be completely stricken from MMORPG, there is no way that WoW is anywhere close to the "complete package."  It is polished, that is true, but often polishing doesn't just get rid of the sharp edges, it gets rid of all the quirks that make a product unique and interesting.  There are almost as many different ways to judge a game as there are armchair developers to do the judging, so rather than focus on the usual PvE/PvP debates, I'm going to make a couple of points about the Online and RPG aspects of MMORPGs.

As far as the online goes, those who have been playing online games for a long time would probably have difficulty arguing that class and race diversity and depth in WoW, or any other major modern MMO, come *anywhere* close to what could commonly be found in MUDs and MUSHes in the early 90s.  While the move to a graphical interface was both inevitable and welcome, it can't be used to justify the way that many non-graphical components of online gaming have been grossly dumbed down and stripped of real flavor.  In a decent MUD, race meant more than what your avatar looked like, or one or two cheesy throw-away skills.  Classes had depth and variety, and thieves could actually *be* thieves.  Hero classes were often allowed to be heroic in stature.  Modern online gaming seems more concerned with artificially enforced equality and political correctness than it does with well developed races/classes and contextual realism.

As for the RPG, WoW is actually one of the games farthest from deserving that designation.  And I do not hate WoW, it is decent when judged for what it is: a cartoony adventure game with some statistics thrown in.  You *might* be able to call it RPG-lite if you are in a really charitable mood.  We shouldn't really expect any more from Blizzard though, they aren't known for RPGs, they are known for being really good at strategy and hack & slash.  Unfortunately, most other companies seem to be following Blizzard's lead and crafting second rate online adventure games with mediocre writing and no opportunities for really developing your character's story, unless you really like logging out of the game to write fan fiction. 

Fortunately, Bioware is finally entering the online marketplace, and when TOR comes out, it is going to be very interesting to see what happens.  My prediction is that all the people that want RPG in their MMOs, all the players who like depth, complexity, and story, will abandon other games in droves.  WoW will stay alive and successful, because all of the 3 account gear whores who have probably never paused to read quest text in their lives won't care about what TOR has to offer, and EVE will stay alive, because it is a ganker's paradise, maybe even WAR for the RvR.  But they will all lose a lot of players, and most of the smaller games that manage to survive will have to go on life support, because TOR is going to be the first real graphical RPG to hit the online market, ever, making it the first game to bring something that is truly new to the online market since Ultima Online and EverQuest set the whole thing in motion.

MUDs are WoW are two different games.
 

Its like playing chess vs playing tetris.  Can't say which is superior.

Now bring up ToR to suggest WoW is weak is royally unfair.  I can predict that the new game presented in the year 2098 will be more interesting than WoW.  Does that help us today? if we are looking for something to dump a couple of idle hours?

Sure you can wait for ToR, no harm.  That in itself does not discredit the original idea put forth, that Blizz puts in a lot of resources to improve on the little things, things that makes life easy and comfortable in a game.  That makes a game, not a noble prize discovery, or a major technological breakthru, like space warping to Mars.  We only want a smile from the game during the hour or so online.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Sorry warriors are not hybrids because like in all games there are some builds that just make no sense, a dps warrior is one of them.  If you want to play a such a build, be my guest, but you better have a lot of friends because pugs will just avoid you most of the time.

There are other builds that make no sense in Wow, but I won't go into them.  Hey if that is your thing go right ahead, but do it knowing that throwing yourself into the DPS pool is not always a great way to find groups.

As to the persons question above, no I don't believe I have been in a group with a DPS warrior, they are pretty rare to start with.  Most people have the brains to realize if they want to do DPS they should pick a DPS class.

Where do u get that ppl do not want fury or arms warrior in PUGs?  As for sense in a game, what make you think that warriors are only tanks?  In the movie of conan, he is the "tank" and damage dealer, the thief if the thief and the women, oh never mind.  If you want to insist on sense, why would a mage throw fire and ice at the same time, on a mob and not cancelling his own effects?

A warrior is a class that uses heavy armor/weapons and melee.  With a shield you can tank better, dropping the shield and duel wield 2 big hammers, what do you expect?  Still tanking?

There can only be 2 tanks in a raid, and in a 25man raid, there are room for 15 to 17 dps.  Many warriors go dps b/c it just is not possible to fit in so many tank (prot) warriors.  You might be very unlucky not to see the fury warriors in action.  They easily beat the crap out of mobs, with 2 big 2handers (inevitable doom) and WWs.

Originally posted by Orthedos

MUDs are WoW are two different games.
 

Its like playing chess vs playing tetris.  Can't say which is superior.

Now bring up ToR to suggest WoW is weak is royally unfair.  I can predict that the new game presented in the year 2098 will be more interesting than WoW.  Does that help us today? if we are looking for something to dump a couple of idle hours?

Sure you can wait for ToR, no harm.  That in itself does not discredit the original idea put forth, that Blizz puts in a lot of resources to improve on the little things, things that makes life easy and comfortable in a game.  That makes a game, not a noble prize discovery, or a major technological breakthru, like space warping to Mars.  We only want a smile from the game during the hour or so online.

Fair enough.  My diatribe was just sparked by the characterization of WoW as the "complete package."  Just because other current options lack the same things that WoW does, that does not mean it is "complete."  I think the view many hold of WoW as being the complete package is one of the primary reasons nothing really earth shattering has come along to compete with it, because most of those with real financial backing have already decided it is the be-all and end-all, and devoted their efforts to imitating it.

The day any game is widely considered the complete package is a sad day for the industry, because the honest belief in that characterization does nothing but stifle innovation and promote imitation.

Originally posted by metalshelf

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by nate1980

So that goes to show that WoW is a game where roleplayers feel at home in. While it may not have as many RPing tools as EQ2, which I can't confirm or deny, it obviously has enough people that have an imagination, which is the number one tool a person should use in a RPG anyways. 

 

On my way out, but felt the need to respond to this one point.  While imagination is something that all people should have, and would unquestionably be useful in a pen and paper, or even all text RPG, in a CRPG it is the developers who are supposed to have the imagination, and the players are supposed to have multiple paths and choices to make in the world the developers created, with *well written* and *hard coded* consequences in the game of the player's choices.  What passes for RP on most RP servers is more like the LARPers who like to dress up as vampires in real life and drink "blood" than it is like a well-crafted CRPG.

 

LARPing...I did that for a short time, until I went to a Camarilla Convention and all it turned out to be was a bunch of people pretending to be vampires or werewolves or changelings, getting drunk and being stupid. Not for me...but that is a good point. In a console game you are limited by the graphics and the choices that are written in for you. You can not have your character do something that it is not able to do. The best you can do is to emote it and watch as your character stands there while the text says he is doing something....impressive, but such is the pitfall of consoles, and why I don't look to consoles for any true role-playing experiences. The Elder Scrolls and Fallouts of the world are as close as I have seen them come to role-playing, with Jade Empire and KOTOR getting honorable mention as well, but even they lack the ability to play a subtle evil, since they can only base your sense of good and evil off of actions and conversational choices, and deceptive evil gets sort of left behind.

Now how off topic are we?

Quick, somebody say something about hybrids and pure classes in WoW!

It is off topic, but so what, it all evolved organically from the original points.  But yes, RP that happens outside the actual structure of the game isn't real RP at all in a CRPG.  If you want to meet in a field to have a wedding between your thousand year old vampire and a High Elven Druidess, officiated by a Furry priest, in a setting that doesn't have vampires, high elves, druids, or furries, that isn't RP, it is retarded junior high playacting.
 

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Orthedos

MUDs are WoW are two different games.
 

Its like playing chess vs playing tetris.  Can't say which is superior.

Now bring up ToR to suggest WoW is weak is royally unfair.  I can predict that the new game presented in the year 2098 will be more interesting than WoW.  Does that help us today? if we are looking for something to dump a couple of idle hours?

Sure you can wait for ToR, no harm.  That in itself does not discredit the original idea put forth, that Blizz puts in a lot of resources to improve on the little things, things that makes life easy and comfortable in a game.  That makes a game, not a noble prize discovery, or a major technological breakthru, like space warping to Mars.  We only want a smile from the game during the hour or so online.

 

Fair enough.  My diatribe was just sparked by the characterization of WoW as the "complete package."  Just because other current options lack the same things that WoW does, that does not mean it is "complete."  I think the view many hold of WoW as being the complete package is one of the primary reasons nothing really earth shattering has come along to compete with it, because most of those with real financial backing have already decided it is the be-all and end-all, and devoted their efforts to imitating it.

The day any game is widely considered the complete package is a sad day for the industry, because the honest belief in that characterization does nothing but stifle innovation and promote imitation.

Now the term complete package is only relative, b/c in principle there is no complete universe, unless time stops.

WoW has the money to implement a lot of features, generally more than most of the late comer competitors.  How well is WoW to each customer is a matter of preference.  That is also true.  In the current state of competition, few has what it takes to challenge WoW yet.  That is my view, not that WoW is a perfect 10/10.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

It is off topic, but so what, it all evolved organically from the original points.  But yes, RP that happens outside the actual structure of the game isn't real RP at all in a CRPG.  If you want to meet in a field to have a wedding between your thousand year old vampire and a High Elven Druidess, officiated by a Furry priest, in a setting that doesn't have vampires, high elves, druids, or furries, that isn't RP, it is retarded junior high playacting.
 

That example you gave is oddly specific. Perhaps you derived this from personal experience? Maybe a "friend" of yours tried this sort of thing out in some role-playing experience you were unfortunate enough to witness, or at least hear about?

And what exactly are you implying? Are you implying that if you want your vampire to marry the high elf with a furry priest in a setting that contains those things, that somehow that is actual role-playing?

I would like to point out that, while it could be considered role-playing in some circles, I in no way encourage Furry priests and High Elf Druids and vampires...whatever a Furry is.

An example of an emote I tried to use once is /kick. I tried to /kick my brother's character, and I accidentally removed him from the group...I guess that's what he gets for letting me be the leader, but still, how hard would it be to have /punch, /kick, /(insert random physical act) be an emote? /remove or /uninvite could be the command to remove someone from your group...

I remember when they first introduced /golfclap in WoW....that was a special time.

Lol.  My point with that example was just that if the role you are trying to play is one that can't exist in the game you are actually playing, that isn't actually RP unless your character is a nutcase.  Most of what gets called RP on RP servers is conducted entirely in chat, often with no consideration of the contextual reality of the game universe.  Usually the situations are the equivalent of walking up to somebody you want to kick in the face in real life, and saying "I just kicked you in the face," then expecting them to act as if they were kicked in the face.  Even if they cooperate with your delusion, there still was no kicking of faces. 

This kind of online LARPer behavior is why RP so often gets a bad name in online communities, because people who enjoy playing deep CRPGs like Baldur's Gate II, and developing a character within the context of a game, get lumped into the same category as social retards who pay $14.95 a month to use an in game chat interface for interactions that could be accomplished just as well in a free chat room.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Lol.  My point with that example was just that if the role you are trying to play is one that can't exist in the game you are actually playing, that isn't actually RP unless your character is a nutcase.  Most of what gets called RP on RP servers is conducted entirely in chat, often with no consideration of the contextual reality of the game universe.  Usually the situations are the equivalent of walking up to somebody you want to kick in the face in real life, and saying "I just kicked you in the face," then expecting them to act as if they were kicked in the face.  Even if they cooperate with your delusion, there still was no kicking of faces. 

This kind of online LARPer behavior is why RP so often gets a bad name in online communities, because people who enjoy playing deep CRPGs like Baldur's Gate II, and developing a character within the context of a game, get lumped into the same category as social retards who pay $14.95 a month to use an in game chat interface for interactions that could be accomplished just as well in a free chat room.

How very true, and now I want to play Baldur's Gate.

Ah well, back to studying for finals.

Oh wait...I have an example that I just remembered. One time, in Stormwind, at the building that is now the barber shop in the trade district, I remember a night elf chick trying to RP by yelling about how she was opening a whore house, and that it was going to occupy that building....no clue how that one turned out, but I had to share.

Originally posted by Orthedos

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Orthedos

MUDs are WoW are two different games.
 

Its like playing chess vs playing tetris.  Can't say which is superior.

Now bring up ToR to suggest WoW is weak is royally unfair.  I can predict that the new game presented in the year 2098 will be more interesting than WoW.  Does that help us today? if we are looking for something to dump a couple of idle hours?

Sure you can wait for ToR, no harm.  That in itself does not discredit the original idea put forth, that Blizz puts in a lot of resources to improve on the little things, things that makes life easy and comfortable in a game.  That makes a game, not a noble prize discovery, or a major technological breakthru, like space warping to Mars.  We only want a smile from the game during the hour or so online.

 

Fair enough.  My diatribe was just sparked by the characterization of WoW as the "complete package."  Just because other current options lack the same things that WoW does, that does not mean it is "complete."  I think the view many hold of WoW as being the complete package is one of the primary reasons nothing really earth shattering has come along to compete with it, because most of those with real financial backing have already decided it is the be-all and end-all, and devoted their efforts to imitating it.

The day any game is widely considered the complete package is a sad day for the industry, because the honest belief in that characterization does nothing but stifle innovation and promote imitation.

 

Now the term complete package is only relative, b/c in principle there is no complete universe, unless time stops.

WoW has the money to implement a lot of features, generally more than most of the late comer competitors.  How well is WoW to each customer is a matter of preference.  That is also true.  In the current state of competition, few has what it takes to challenge WoW yet.  That is my view, not that WoW is a perfect 10/10.

I agree. I couldn't rate WOW a 10/10 either. Complete package wasn't meant to be taken so literally and spawn 10 subsequent posts. This is of course my own opinion.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Lol.  My point with that example was just that if the role you are trying to play is one that can't exist in the game you are actually playing, that isn't actually RP unless your character is a nutcase.  Most of what gets called RP on RP servers is conducted entirely in chat, often with no consideration of the contextual reality of the game universe.  Usually the situations are the equivalent of walking up to somebody you want to kick in the face in real life, and saying "I just kicked you in the face," then expecting them to act as if they were kicked in the face.  Even if they cooperate with your delusion, there still was no kicking of faces. 

This kind of online LARPer behavior is why RP so often gets a bad name in online communities, because people who enjoy playing deep CRPGs like Baldur's Gate II, and developing a character within the context of a game, get lumped into the same category as social retards who pay $14.95 a month to use an in game chat interface for interactions that could be accomplished just as well in a free chat room.

No man is greater than another, or lesser than another. It sounds like you look down on or make fun of these LARPers (whatever a LARPer is), and that fact means more to me than some people RPing in a game without actual mechanics making it work for them.

Originally posted by nate1980

No man is greater than another, or lesser than another. It sounds like you look down on or make fun of these LARPers (whatever a LARPer is), and that fact means more to me than some people RPing in a game without actual mechanics making it work for them.

No man is greater or lesser than another?  What fortune cookie did you find that one in?  It would be more accurate to say no men are equal to each other.  The only way for two things to be equal is if they are exactly the same.  Given that in both games and in people, different individuals will value different components more, the question isn't whether some people/products are superior to others, the question is which are superior.  The answer, of course, is a variable one depending on your priorities.  For me the man who doesn't LARP/the game that provides well scripted RP are superior to the man who does/game which doesn't, but for the next guy it may be the LARPer who is superior.  I am right for me, he is right for him.  Equality does not exist in the real world, it is a social construct made up by and for people without enough self-esteem to be confident in their own beliefs and tell people who disagree where to shove it. 

P.S.  If you are not an only child, no, your parents do not love you all equally.  There is a favorite, and there is a least favorite.

First of all, that is a funny and messed up comment about parents not loving their kids equally. Within my family, I was the "favorite" simply because I did not rebel in the same way that my brother did, and I sought a good relationship with my mother and showed her respect. Still, my mother would have died and killed to protect my brother. Did she love me more? I really couldn't say she did. All I can say is that she and I got along more easily.

Second, a LARPer is a Live Action Role-Player. It means that they dress up like their characters, whether they be vampires, dungeon delvers, or cat people, and pretend to actually be that character, despite the fact that they do not have the funds in most cases to dress as the character actually would, and, again, in most cases, the character does not look exactly like them, but inevitably winds up being so, since the character is represented not by simply imagination and a piece of paper, but by your actual person. I enjoyed LARPing to some degree, but it was very hard for people to keep reality out of role-playing, and the second it started causing personal problems among the people I was playing with, I bailed. LARPers are usually seen as lesser people because of this sort of thing. You wind up playing a character with too much of your self in it. I am 6'3" and near 290 lbs. In a pen-and-paper setting I can play an unassuming rogue that noone suspects. In a live action setting everyone assumes I am the brute, and even if I am not, I get the same initial and lasting respect from people, since, after all, they have to tilt their heads up to talk to me. Oddly enough, despite the fact that LARPing is supposed to be the extreme for role-playing, in some ways, it is not conducive to said activity.

Third....fortune cookies are for winners, but what I want to see is the makers of fortunes start putting them in almond cookies, like the ones in Kung Fu Panda....those are the ultra-win.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by nate1980

No man is greater than another, or lesser than another. It sounds like you look down on or make fun of these LARPers (whatever a LARPer is), and that fact means more to me than some people RPing in a game without actual mechanics making it work for them.

 

No man is greater or lesser than another?  What fortune cookie did you find that one in?  It would be more accurate to say no men are equal to each other.  The only way for two things to be equal is if they are exactly the same.  Given that in both games and in people, different individuals will value different components more, the question isn't whether some people/products are superior to others, the question is which are superior.  The answer, of course, is a variable one depending on your priorities.  For me the man who doesn't LARP/the game that provides well scripted RP are superior to the man who does/game which doesn't, but for the next guy it may be the LARPer who is superior.  I am right for me, he is right for him.  Equality does not exist in the real world, it is a social construct made up by and for people without enough self-esteem to be confident in their own beliefs and tell people who disagree where to shove it. 

P.S.  If you are not an only child, no, your parents do not love you all equally.  There is a favorite, and there is a least favorite.

Actually, I pulled that quote from Peaceful Warrior. It's an inspirational movies and it sounds like you can learn a lot from it. Either way, it's something I believe in. People are different and value different things, but it's an arrogant thing to proclaim yourself better than others. Let other people speak great things about you, instead of speaking them about yourself or judging others. But from listening to you post, you'll probably disregard this reply and say something that makes you look even worse.

I'm actually the oldest child out of 3, and then I have 2 more brothers on my dads side. Who's the favorite? To worry about such things or even think of it discredits my parents and my brothers, so I don't. Besides, it really doesn't matter who is the favorite, because all that matters is what I think of myself. I've always excelled in whatever I did, whether that was high school, the Marines (infantryman-0331), college and etc. I've seen more countries in this world than most, and have seen more things than your average person sees, but I still don't view myself as better or worse than another person. You need to wise up and realize that if you died today, you'd not effect the world one bit. Your views on LARPers, farpers, or scarpers wouldn't mean crap to anyone and all your arrogance would be for naught. At any rate, I'm done preaching. Hopefully you learned something, probably not, and if not, hopefully you'll wisen up as you grow up.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by CazNeerg

No man is greater or lesser than another?  What fortune cookie did you find that one in?  It would be more accurate to say no men are equal to each other.  The only way for two things to be equal is if they are exactly the same.  Given that in both games and in people, different individuals will value different components more, the question isn't whether some people/products are superior to others, the question is which are superior.  The answer, of course, is a variable one depending on your priorities.  For me the man who doesn't LARP/the game that provides well scripted RP are superior to the man who does/game which doesn't, but for the next guy it may be the LARPer who is superior.  I am right for me, he is right for him.  Equality does not exist in the real world, it is a social construct made up by and for people without enough self-esteem to be confident in their own beliefs and tell people who disagree where to shove it. 

P.S.  If you are not an only child, no, your parents do not love you all equally.  There is a favorite, and there is a least favorite.

 Actually, I pulled that quote from Peaceful Warrior. It's an inspirational movies and it sounds like you can learn a lot from it. Either way, it's something I believe in. People are different and value different things, but it's an arrogant thing to proclaim yourself better than others. Let other people speak great things about you, instead of speaking them about yourself or judging others. But from listening to you post, you'll probably disregard this reply and say something that makes you look even worse.

I'm actually the oldest child out of 3, and then I have 2 more brothers on my dads side. Who's the favorite? To worry about such things or even think of it discredits my parents and my brothers, so I don't. Besides, it really doesn't matter who is the favorite, because all that matters is what I think of myself. I've always excelled in whatever I did, whether that was high school, the Marines (infantryman-0331), college and etc. I've seen more countries in this world than most, and have seen more things than your average person sees, but I still don't view myself as better or worse than another person. You need to wise up and realize that if you died today, you'd not effect the world one bit. Your views on LARPers, farpers, or scarpers wouldn't mean crap to anyone and all your arrogance would be for naught. At any rate, I'm done preaching. Hopefully you learned something, probably not, and if not, hopefully you'll wisen up as you grow up.

The part in red I must absolutely agree with.  That is all the should matter to anyone.  People do value different things, but that doesn't mean that nobody is right about anything.  It is more accurate to say that every individual has a different set of correct-for-him answers to the same questions.  I don't claim that my answers are the objective truth.  In matters of philosophy, there is no such thing.  And what relevance does effect on the world have?  Every time an individual dies, a world ends, because each of us has a unique perception of the world, and we shape the way we interact with the "real" world based on those perceptions.  Since my world will no longer exist when I am gone, why would I waste time worrying about somebody else's world?

Arrogance is not a crime, unless you arrogantly claim to be capable of something you cannot in fact do, or to be superior in an area where you really aren't.  Humility is the real crime.  No individual should try to appear as less than he is simply to make others comfortable in their own lack of ability and/or ambition.  That is simply a waste of potential.  No person has the ability to be superior in every aspect of life, but most people have the capacity to be superior in at least one thing, if they wish to, and dedicate effort to discovering and developing their capacity.  Given that we all assign different values to different aspects of life, it is entirely possible that almost every individual could live his life in such a way as to be able to honestly consider himself superior, and within the context of how he has chosen to define it, be correct.

The only unambigious sign of inferiority that I can think of is to care so much about what other people think that you allow it to effect your own beliefs or actions.  The healthy response from any LARPer reading my earlier comments would be to either ignore them, laugh them off, tell me where to shove it, or engage in an argument with me.  Hurt feelings would simply be a sign of a weakness that should be corrected.

P.S.  The very construction of your argument indicates an underlying assumption that your world view has in fact rendered you "better" than me.  And you *should* think that, given your apparent priorities.  Just as I should, and do, think that from a purely philosophical/psychological standpoint, I am superior to you.  Each of us should strive to be greatest specimen of what humanity can be, if only in our own minds.

I realize this has become mostly a conversation between the two of you, and I am now on the outside, but I like pointing out things, for better or worse.

I think it is funny that the same person, and in the same post, said "it's an arrogant thing to proclaim yourself better than others" and "Let other people speak great things about you...," and then also said "I've always excelled in whatever I did" which seems fairly arrogant. The only person I ever knew of that truly excelled in all he did was a guy that never tried to do anything that did not come naturally to him. He was a great wrestler, a great musician, a great poker player, but he never pushed himself to the point of possibly failing, so he could say that he excelled in all he did.

I think, to a small degree, that it is healthy to be slightly arrogant, not cocky, by any means, but simply confident in your abilities, in the areas you know you are strong in, but take a stance of willingness to learn as well. Balance those two things, and you will appear arrogant to some, but your actual attitude will be a healthy balance.

I just finished my speech class finally, and I unintentionally came across condescending, by asking if people knew what this term or that term was. I only asked so that I would know if I needed to explain them in my speeches. It never occurred to me that noone in the class would know what they were, but it happened on three different occasions. My classmates may think me arrogant or a know-it-all, but it was not my intention. The three terms I remember were ex post facto, fiat money, and paper-rock-scissors-lizard-Spock, though one person in the class did actually know what I was talking about on that last one. I looked it up and showed everyone on the overhead the picture representing what beats what in that game. It was funny.

My point is, simply, that confidence can easily come across as arrogance, as it sort of did in the quoted text, but should not be avoided based on such things. Just be prepared to explain yourself, and always be willing to learn. When you think you have nothing to learn is when you are really arrogant, and your place in this world is devalued because of the stance you have taken (generic you, not targeted at anyone who has posted).

By all means, point things out.  No conversation worth continuing was ever derailed by the addition of another honest and thoughtful opinion.  That being said, this is going to be a short post, because I really don't see anything in your last comments to argue with, lol.

What Blizzard needs to do in order to end this argument is give the dps classes more options in how they do their damage, so people who play dps classes have more customization options. Hybrids will only have 1-2 ways to dps, depending upon how many rolls they have, and dps classes will have 3. 

There is noting wrong with the pure classes such as the hunter.I have a 80 hunter spec as BM and can do more dps than the ret pallys and other hybird dps in the group.Not to mention its the only class you can solo quests with easy when your pet is doing most of the work.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Lol.  My point with that example was just that if the role you are trying to play is one that can't exist in the game you are actually playing, that isn't actually RP unless your character is a nutcase.  Most of what gets called RP on RP servers is conducted entirely in chat, often with no consideration of the contextual reality of the game universe.  Usually the situations are the equivalent of walking up to somebody you want to kick in the face in real life, and saying "I just kicked you in the face," then expecting them to act as if they were kicked in the face.  Even if they cooperate with your delusion, there still was no kicking of faces. 

This kind of online LARPer behavior is why RP so often gets a bad name in online communities, because people who enjoy playing deep CRPGs like Baldur's Gate II, and developing a character within the context of a game, get lumped into the same category as social retards who pay $14.95 a month to use an in game chat interface for interactions that could be accomplished just as well in a free chat room.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but baulders gate is just a computer game with predefined characters, scripts, choices and logic for 1 player to interact with.  What exactly is roleplaying about that?  To me is shares a lot of similarities with mmos as far as limited content, quests, dungeons, etc.  The elements all seem the same for the most part. 

Maybe I define roleplaying a little different than most people due to playing pen/paper games and larps where there are few boundries for a players actions, but comparing a single player game to a multiplayer game as far as roleplaying potential goes is hard for me to understand.  Single players games are more akin to reading a choose your own adventure book than actual role playing.  MMOs are not much different except that they have lots of people to interact with and build communities. 

Originally posted by Daffid011

Correct me if I am mistaken, but baulders gate is just a computer game with predefined characters, scripts, choices and logic for 1 player to interact with.  What exactly is roleplaying about that?  To me is shares a lot of similarities with mmos as far as limited content, quests, dungeons, etc.  The elements all seem the same for the most part. 

Maybe I define roleplaying a little different than most people due to playing pen/paper games and larps where there are few boundries for a players actions, but comparing a single player game to a multiplayer game as far as roleplaying potential goes is hard for me to understand.  Single players games are more akin to reading a choose your own adventure book than actual role playing.  MMOs are not much different except that they have lots of people to interact with and build communities. 

 

Obviously an individual's defintion of role playing is going to be based largely on his gaming background.  Pen and paper veterans and people who have played a lot of CRPGs are going to have very different mental pictures when they see "RPG."  Fans of JRPGs, yet another picture.  And your characterization of Baldur's Gate is unfair, yes, it is limited in the sense that everything you can experience is pre-scripted.  But it is fundamentally different from MMOs, in that within a given quest you often have moral choices, which alter the experience and outcome of various aspects of that quest or the wider story.  There are also on occastion multiple different paths that can be taken to reach a given quest goal.  You could take all the ingredients for apple pie, throw them into a blender without any cooking, and then try to drink it as a smoothie.  The smoothie and the pie would have all the same elements, but I am pretty sure the pie will taste better, because it is how you put them together that determines what kind of experience you are going to have.

My background is primarily CRPGs with some JRPGs thrown in, so whenever I encounter LARP style interactions, it just doesn't feel like "real" RP to me.  It seems more like a junior high drama club run by Harry Potter fanatics putting on an impromptu sketch show based on their fan fiction.

I would actually agree for the most part with your "choose your own adventure" characterization of single player RPGs, if a bestselling author were to write a 1,000 page choose your own adventure with a fair degree of moral diversity in story paths, that would be very much like the story elements of a western style computer role playing game.  I would disagree about MMOs not being much different though.  For the most part MMOs have a maximum of two story paths, and they diverge on page 1, with no further choices.  Or, if sandbox style, they may have no story paths, in which case "RP" will be largely limited to people in high fantasy games who talk about being space captains, and people in space games who think they are elven priestesses.

It is strange that you consider free form roleplaying to be limited, but consider a few scripted paths in a computer game to be diverse. 

Most games right now don't have enough tools to really support free form roleplaying or the choose your own adventure type of play either.  I agree that most of what goes on currently is rather clunky at best from either camp.  Maybe in the future.

Originally posted by Daffid011

It is strange that you consider free form roleplaying to be limited, but consider a few scripted paths in a computer game to be diverse. 

Most games right now don't have enough tools to really support free form roleplaying or the choose your own adventure type of play either.  I agree that most of what goes on currently is rather clunky at best from either camp.  Maybe in the future.

 

Ultimately for me it is about two things: the quality of the immersion, and the presence of choice.  Clearly freeform roleplay would have the widest possible range of choice, but I find that an interaction that takes place entirely in the form of dialogue and emoting from players acting in a mostly off the cuff capacity just isn't capable of providing the same level of immersion as pre-scripted content from professional writers, backed up by gameplay mechanics that reinforce and illustrate your choices and their consequences.

It is especially jarring to my sense of immersion that for the most part the times I have encountered people engaged in free-form roleplay in an online game, they are so concerned with telling the personal story they have created for their characters, that they completely ignore whether or not that story is consistent with the game world in which those characters reside.  If the role you are trying to play doesn't exist in the world in which you are trying to play it, that isn't "real" roleplaying.  It is just indulgent silliness.

Indulgent silliness...now there is a phrase that I have never heard before. It seems like you are both close to the same argument, with only minor differences. Pen and paper has the highest potential for freedom, but even it can easily play out like a choose your own adventure novel. All it takes is the GM/Storyteller/DM putting a lot of time into the plot, but not a lot into the surrounding world, which gives the players the illusion of choice, while still being on a fairly restrictive track. It could be an awesome story and an awesome game, but very little freedom, just like the console games. The point is, to me, that with pen and paper, and even LARP, despite my own distaste for the activity, especially now, you can choose your own responses, and, to some degree, the story simply must change as you progress in it, because it is you progressing it, and not simply the correct sequence of events occurring while you play through them. So, in order of RP value, I would say PnP(for pen and paper), console games like KOTOR, which deserve their own category, then other console attempts at RP games, then MMOs. People just shouldn't play MMOs expecting to find great immersion, unless it doesn't take a whole lot for them.

On a side note, what is a JRPG? I could take guesses, but nothing I have thought of really makes sense.