:: Updated by Hannar @ 01/20/04 06:16 pm ::

4. Archetype Class System


Thu Aug 14, 2003 01:10 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=62918&highlight=#62918

Moorgard wrote:

The thing to keep in mind here is that classes will be very different in EQ2 as compared to EQ. While we use some of the same names for them, that doesn't mean they have the same skills or do the same things. A monk in EQ2 doesn't have the same role they did in EQ. As has been pointed out, the monk is now a part of the Fighter class tree, and so their job is to tank every bit as well as a warrior. You will see familiar class names that were used in EQ and other games, but that doesn't mean the functionality will be the same at all. In fact, the team has come up with new and different roles for some of these classes that are sure to get people talking. That said, there is one distinction in the monk discussion that I wanted to make clear: Quote: First and formost, bid farewell to Feign Death. It was removed from EQOA in the beta and EQ2 developers when asked about FD pulling said it is not an issue. It is gone. You're making an assumption here. What was said was that feign pulling will not be a tactic used to split mobs. Nobody has commented on whether the skill will be in the game. The fact that FD won't be used as a splitting tool has to do with the mechanics of how encounters work, which is not the way they worked in EQ.

Thu Aug 14, 2003 08:05 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63196&highlight=#63196

Moorgard wrote:

You're still thinking in terms of EQ class names. That's going to cause you all kinds of unnecessary grief. An EQ2 warrior is not the same as a warrior in EQ. Different beasts, same name. (This illustrates how using classic roleplay titles in new games is both a blessing and a curse.) If you were talking about EQ and said that a monk or paladin shouldn't tank as well as a warrior because then there would be no reason for a warrior to exist, you'd be absolutely right. But that's not the case here. In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other. They use different styles and skills to accomplish their purpose, but the core ability will always be there. If you need a tank for your party, then any flavor will do, be it monk, paladin, guar-- Oops, better stop there for now.

Thu Aug 14, 2003 08:43 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63223&highlight=#63223

Moorgard wrote:

Note that I was talking only about the *primary role* of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play. The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.

Fri Aug 15, 2003 03:04 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63808&highlight=#63808

Moorgard wrote:

For races that can be either (or neutral), the choices and allegiances you make will determine where you are welcome and where you are not. The sub-classes you end up in aren't necessarily based only around the ideas of good and evil. Some are structured that way (the paladin/shadow knight being obvious examples), but others are differenciated more by an order/chaos motif or even a difference in philosophy. The race/class combos in EQ2 have a lot of flavor and uniqueness to them. Also, bear in mind that some races may be taking the impact of the cataclysm harder than others, which may drive certain members of those societies to take some rather drastic behavioral twists.

Fri Aug 15, 2003 03:21 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63826&highlight=#63826

Moorgard wrote:

At the last FanFaire or so, information was released on the Crusader class tree. Going over the final class list, I see that some information is no longer accurate, and I wanted to give you an update. It was stated that the Fighter archetype broke down into several classes, one of which was Crusader. At that time, Crusader was made up of three sub-classes: Paladin, Shadow Knight, and Ranger. The updated information is that the Crusader branch now looks like this: Fighter >Crusader >>Paladin >>Shadow Knight As you can see, Ranger has been removed from the Fighter archetype and is now located elsewhere in the tree. Rangers will not be a tank class. I know you'd like to get the entire tree, but most likely we're going to release it in chunks instead of the whole thing at once. We're debating the best way to go about that now, and we've got a few interesting ideas that could make it fun. Sorry if that frustrates you, but such decisions aren't mine alone to make. My goal is to feed you guys cool information, and I will continue to keep pushing to do that. Until the next round of info, at least this gives you something to talk about. Where did the ranger end up?

Fri Aug 15, 2003 04:45 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63914&highlight=#63914

Moorgard wrote:

Sorry for the intrusion, but I noticed a problem with another aspect of the class tree that I should correct for you. The updated branch for Brawler is as follows: Fighter >Brawler >>Monk >>Bruiser We feel the Bruiser name is much more indicative of how the sub-class functions, and should provide you some additional fun speculating what sorts of races would fill that role. While Monks are now a tank in function, they retain the orderly nature that they had in EQ. The distinction between Monks and Bruisers, then, becomes one of discipline vs. chaos moreso than good vs. evil. As such, I have no doubt that Kerrans will do the Monk class proud, being so agile and all. (Yes, I said it: Kerran Monk.) Okay, that's the last bit of class info I can give you for now. I think I pushed my limit for today.

Fri Aug 15, 2003 05:01 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63946&highlight=#63946

Moorgard wrote:

When I think of Pugilist, I see a guy with a handlebar mustache wearing a 1930s boxing outfit. That's not the image we wanted for the counterpoint to the Monk. The Bruiser is just what the name implies: physical combat without a lot of finesse. Somebody who just wants to beat the snot out of you and doesn't care how he does it. Or should I say "she"? I have a feeling we're going to have some *scary* female Bruisers walking around! /shiver

08-15-2003 at 06:53 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=17748#post17748

Moorgard wrote:

You guys are fast with the copy and paste! Personally I like the change. Bruiser is a very evocative title. You're supposed to look at Monks and admire their technique; you look at Bruisers and have a respectful fear of their brute force.

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 07:15 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=64073&highlight=#64073

Moorgard wrote:

Levien wrote: ranger is, as it will always be, part druid part warrior. Remember what I said about thinking too much along EQ lines.

Sat Aug 16, 2003 03:17 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=64347&highlight=#64347

Moorgard wrote:

Drogosironfistcg wrote: It has already been said that rogue has 2 lev 15 branches, then 4 final classes. If that was in fact said at some point, it's not the case anymore. But that particular tree is going to have to wait a while.

Sat Aug 16, 2003 03:26 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=64350&highlight=#64350

Moorgard wrote:

Actually, the fact that I play a monk in EQ didn't have anything to do with what info I released first. It just so happened that the Fighter tree had already been talked about, so providing the updated information made sense. Plus, it was a convenient way to confirm the existance of the Kerran monk.

Sun Aug 17, 2003 11:51 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=65650&highlight=#65650

Moorgard wrote:

Agraza wrote: btw I'm posting it in this forum for moorgard's interest. hopefully if we spark some misinformation he'll come and try to correct us. so WILDLY speculate and FALSELY quote and perhaps he will deign to visit. Congrats! Your thread gets a visit from me! My response: Your table is incorrect.

08-17-2003 at 03:27 AM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=17806#post17806

Moorgard wrote:

We changed the name because it fit the class better, and made more sense considering what races can be Bruisers. Pugilist implied more finesse than what we wanted to convey.

08-17-2003 at 02:20 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=17960#post17960

Moorgard wrote:

Skandrannon wrote: I mean, a ranger has basic spell casting abilities, and fights a lot. Thats it. You have to get away from the notion that EQ2 is going to copy over the classes from EQ. We aren't. Some of our classes use the same names as those in EQ, but that's because they're generally rooted deeply in fantasy lore. In terms of functionality, though, some will be different. Not that all our classes are going to be wildly varying interpretations, of course. We're not going to have a class called Wizard that does all its damage by throwing boulders or something. But we did want to freshen things up and add some flavor to our classes, which should allow for folks to make their character even more personalized without losing one bit of usefulness or effectiveness.

08-21-2003 at 12:08 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=18587#post18587

Moorgard wrote:

Sounds like fun, if you're a wizard. But we ain't gonna do it.

Sun Aug 24, 2003 02:04 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=71388&highlight=#71388

Moorgard wrote:

Here's yet another clarification for you about the class tree. The current and final names for each archetype are: Fighter Priest Mage Scout Artisan The Fighter, Priest, Mage, and Scout archetypes are made up of three classes each. The Artisan archetype has two classes. Each class is made up of two sub-classes. If you're counting, that's a total of 47 classes. The 48th class is technically Commoner, which is what you are before choosing an archetype.

8/24/03 12:28pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=55344503&replies=9

Moorgard wrote:

Here's yet another clarification for you about the class tree. The current and final names for each archetype are: Fighter Priest Mage Scout Artisan The Fighter, Priest, Mage, and Scout archetypes are made up of three classes each. The Artisan archetype has two classes. Each class is made up of two sub-classes. If you're counting, that's a total of 47 classes. The 48th class is technically Commoner, which is what you are before choosing an archetype.

08-24-2003 at 03:08 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=18827#post18827

Moorgard wrote:

Here's yet another clarification for you about the class tree. The current and final names for each archetype are: Fighter Priest Mage Scout Artisan The Fighter, Priest, Mage, and Scout archetypes are made up of three classes each. The Artisan archetype has two classes. Each class is made up of two sub-classes. If you're counting, that's a total of 47 classes. The 48th class is technically Commoner, which is what you are before choosing an archetype.

Sun Aug 24, 2003 03:29 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=71511&highlight=#71511

Moorgard wrote:

skarfaze wrote: Weaponsmith, Armorsmith, Tailor, Architect-- Im willing to bet 100 bucks that those are subclasses of artisan. Okay. You're on.

Sun Aug 24, 2003 09:16 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=71829&highlight=#71829

Moorgard wrote:

Inkling9 wrote: Personally I am going to hate being forced to bring along a Rogue to open those boxes that drop. See, the whole idea of balance is that you have classes that are wanted and needed. Our ideal group in EQ2 isn't built around a handful of "best" classes, but around one of each combat archetype. As long as you have at least one fighter, priest, mage, and scout, you're good to go. If you don't want to bring a scout along, feel free. You can break chests open instead of having them unlocked. Of course, when doing so destroys some nice piece of loot you could have otherwise gotten, I'm not going to have much sympathy for you.

08-24-2003 at 10:10 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=18842#post18842

Moorgard wrote:

"Scout" and "Artisan" were words in the dictionary an awful long time before SWG came out. We used those terms because they are very descriptive of what each class does. "Tradesman" is too, but it's sexist. "Tradesperson" is cumbersome. "Artisan" works just fine. "Scout" is better for the archetype name than "Rogue" because a big part of what these classes do is scout ahead, find out information, etc. A bard can certainly be seen as a type of scout, but it's something of a stretch to see every bard as a type of rogue. Get what I mean? Once and for all, let me be clear: EQ2 does *not* use the same tradeskill system as any other game, including SWG. I'll be talking more about loot and tradeskills in the near future, which clarify some issues that people have been posting about.

08/25/03 09:29 AM
Stratics

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "how a fighter mage would have to manage the amount of slots for these abilities" Fighters and Mages are completely separate archetypes. Fighters will have arts (and in some sub-classes, spells) while Mages will have spells. But yes, someone with both will have to manage their resources carefully.

Mon Aug 25, 2003 02:34 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=72426&highlight=#72426

Moorgard wrote:

Teiraa wrote: I remember somewhere is stated that all EQLive classes will be in EQ2 as well. Among them the shaman. Most of the EQ class names are in our tree somewhere, but not all of them. And remember, just because we use the same name as an EQ class doesn't mean they'll function quite the same way. The name "shaman" does turn up in the EQ2 class tree somewhere. But keep in mind we may change the abilities of certain classes to better fit our archetype model. (This has been Vague Statement of the Day #1. Thanks for reading. )

08-25-2003 at 05:32 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19038#post19038

Moorgard wrote:

WarNipple wrote: No one at lvl 100 is going to say, "to complete our group, we need a Scout". <----Because that could be anyone of 6 ACTUAL classes. In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can perform its core role as well as any other.

Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:52 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=73270&highlight=#73270

Moorgard wrote:

Artillis wrote: Actualy EQlive with this new expansion is basicaly going to be bata testing a system with locks and traps ... Now I'm not playing EQ live anymore but I still keep up on it sence its the pre beta test for EQ2 features Sorry, much as some people would like to think so, it doesn't work that way. EQLive doesn't test code for us and we don't test it for them. Nor do we stroll over to Rich Waters or Scott Hartsman and say, "Hey, would you guys mind trying out an idea for us?" They develop their own content for EQ, and have zero plans to become a test bed for EQ2. Having heard some of the plans for the future of EQ, it will be going strong for a long, long time. Naeblis wrote: This is what i was worried about in EQ2. If anyone else can unlock a chest the rogue is back to useless. Only scouts can unlock chests. Others can break them open, but at the expense of having loot and cash destroyed. In other words, that won't be a popular option.

Tue Aug 26, 2003 08:39 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=73898&highlight=#73898

Moorgard wrote:

Hiding and sneaking are definitely things that Scouts will need to be successful. Different sub-classes in the tree may have different means of accomplishing such feats, of course. However, don't expect the 100% security that rogues have in EQ. In fact, our implementation of invisibility is substantially different from that of EverQuest.

Wed Aug 27, 2003 01:35 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=74063&highlight=#74063

Moorgard wrote:

AlcoholicGamer wrote: It's EQ1 all over again with paladins and SK's grouping together. Don't want to be an ass but whatever you do, don't put RPG on the box. I'll say the same thing to you I said in the banking thread: You have all the tools you need to roleplay that way if you want to. If you don't think you should group with players of opposite alignment, don't group with them. It's certainly possible that special-rules servers could be added somewhere down the road. But until that point, you just have to accept that the vast majority of players don't want such restrictions forced upon them. B_Ray wrote: Changing allegiance should definitely not be an easy thing or even an attractive thing (much less tempting). I'd like to see it be done purely for roleplay purposes (or the desperate desire to make a form a truely unique character) and none other. What would be wrong with that? The issue is that as soon as you offer another path--no matter how difficult--that gives any kind of uniqueness or benefit, players will flock to it. And it won't just be the roleplayers who do it; it will be the folks who spend 40 hours a week playing the game and have the time to invest in such endeavors. Now, that said... there is a concept I will discuss further down the road which will present some unique challenges to those players that want to take a more difficult road. But keep in mind it's going to be quite limited in focus and definitely won't be for everyone. It's something that really doesn't make sense until the whole class tree is out there, so you'll have to wait a bit for it. Somehow I think you'll remember I mentioned it.

Wed Aug 27, 2003 01:36 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=74065&highlight=#74065

Moorgard wrote:

Yes, races are restricted on what classes they can be, and the combinations won't necessarily be the same as they were in EQ.

Wed Aug 27, 2003 10:17 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=74998&highlight=#74998

Moorgard wrote:

Utilaellr wrote: Why can't we have good and evil wizards, with different spells? Yeah, why can't we?

08-27-2003 at 03:25 AM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19173#post19173

Moorgard wrote:

Lorelie wrote: Most groups, while able to exp and such, would most likely prefer a class from the warrior or crusader branch than the brawler branch. Incorrect. All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role as well as any other. Get over the notion of monks from EQ. Ours are a different breed.

08-27-2003 at 01:04 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19177#post19177

Moorgard wrote:

jigsaw wrote: I believe there will be atleast 2 more charming- mezzing type class. You will still have bard and chanters for those roles but there will be atleast 2 more classes with some type of crowd control abilities. The solution to making combat more exciting is *not* adding more classes that can mez. If anything, that only simplifies things even more. Our goal is not the trivialization of combat. Far from it. You're still clinging to the idea of pulling six mobs, having an enchanter mez them all, and killing them one by one. Let go of that.

09-02-2003 at 02:39 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19853#post19853

Moorgard wrote:

I hate to burst your collective bubble, but the build shown at ECTS didn't have the final class names in place.

09-02-2003 at 09:36 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19857#post19857

Moorgard wrote:

Zalxder wrote: err... where exactly can this new class video be found? On my PC here in the office.

Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:38 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=80860&highlight=#80860

Moorgard wrote:

Interestingly enough, if you were playing EQ now you'd find that paladins are probably the most-desired exp group tank in the game, or at least are tied with SKs. But as was pointed out, our archetype system is specifically designed so that no classes are seen as less desirable.

Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:47 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=80873&highlight=#80873

Moorgard wrote:

The priest sub-classes will specialize in different types of heals, but over the course of the encounter no method of healing will be "better" than any other. In a multi-group situation, I would venture to guess that having all three classes of priests will be highly desirable, because each has certain advantages. I can't wait to see what new healing strategies are invented by players, since the old CH rotation will be no more.

9/3/03 12:29pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=55722439&start=55822923

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "Supposedly all class options from EQ are to be in EQ2, just you obtain them in different manners." That isn't the case. In our class tree we use a lot of the same names that were used as classes in EverQuest. However, we don't use all of them. Nor will the names necessarily be in the same place--for instance, "Warrior" is not the name of a sub-class. And remember, just because we use the same name doesn't mean the function will be the same. For instance, our version of a Ranger is quite different from what you might be used to in EQ.

Wed Sep 03, 2003 05:43 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=81368&highlight=#81368

Moorgard wrote:

Kryogen wrote: Will Druish people still have the ability to manipulate the weather via spells? Some in frighteningly impressive ways...

09-04-2003 at 03:02 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=20246#post20246

Moorgard wrote:

There will be no experience penalties (or bonuses) based on your race or class in EQ2. How's that for a clear, simple answer?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 03:25 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=82495&highlight=#82495

Moorgard wrote:

Control Freak wrote: Moor any tentative date you wish to share about when the final class tree will be finished? It's been finished for a while now. In fact, it's right here on my desk. If you're asking whether I have a date as to when the whole thing will be revealed, the answer is no.

Sat Sep 06, 2003 01:06 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=84181&highlight=#84181

Moorgard wrote:

Not all sub-class choices are a difference between good and evil. Some are better defined as order vs. chaos. There can be evil monks and good bruisers, for instance. So it's not like half the class tree goes to Qeynos and half to Freeport; it's much more mixed around than that. Additionally, we are including a select few race/class combinations that are more challenging because they blur the lines as to what roles would typically fit certain races. These won't be for everyone, because training will be more risky and more costly. Again, there's only a *few* of these. We didn't want to go too far with it because doing so would run the risk of compromising the game lore. But we think the way we're doing it adds some flavor and challenge for those who want to play (or roleplay) something a little bit different.

09-08-2003 at 12:56 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21159#post21159

Moorgard wrote:

These non-standard paths don't create a more powerful character. We understand full well that if we did that, powergamers would flock to them and you'd end up with guilds full of nothing but these combos. Instead, these paths are all about flavor and variety--just a way to make your character a little different. You'll have a somewhat more difficult path, but you won't end up with advantages over a more standard race/class combo. If anything, you're expending extra effort to be the same level of power as everyone else, just because you want a more unique character. Look at it this way. In EQ, you had no idea initially what combo worked best or that one race/class had a significant experience penalty compared to another. We're telling you up front that these paths will be more challenging from an ease-of-training and monetary standpoint, but there is neither an exp penalty nor an ultimate advantage to playing one. Variety is the only motivating factor here.

09-08-2003 at 03:56 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21243#post21243

Moorgard wrote:

Kendricke wrote: Twenty priests will be twenty priests, no matter what their individual talents may be. Certainly, strategy will need to be changed for twenty clerics as opposed to twenty druids... You hit the nail of how our archetype system works right on the head. Nice post.

9/10/03 9:21am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=56124181&start=56157596

Moorgard wrote:

Nice try, though. It will be revealed in due time. And just for the record, the proper term is "fleshed out," not flushed. ;p

09-10-2003 at 01:32 AM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21692#post21692

Moorgard wrote:

Neither "Mercenary" nor "Guardsman" are sub-class names in EQ2.

Thu Sep 11, 2003 12:19 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=86445&highlight=#86445

Moorgard wrote:

Ungkor wrote: My point is, do you think we will know much about our what our class roles will be like later in the game? I'd hate to pick a class early on, level him to 50 or so, and then realize that he's headed into a role that I don't want to play. The role of your class later in the game will be the same as when you first pick an archetype. That's how our system is designed. We'll supply specific info about each sub-class during the character creation process (and of course it will be available online before that). We want players to understand the path they choose very well.

Thu Sep 11, 2003 01:01 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=86483&highlight=#86483

Moorgard wrote:

The ability for certain classes to mez and charm will still be there, but those abilities won't be without practical limits. Other forms of crowd control will definitely come into play.

Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:22 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=89850&highlight=#89850

Moorgard wrote:

Again, this is a concept that people can certainly argue either for or against. But it's simply not something we're going to implement in EQ2.

9/16/03 12:27 am
http://pub150.ezboard.com/fmonklybizeq2frm2.showMessage?topicID=51.topic&index=7

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: But the question is: Which of the 5 factions on either side does the Monk fall under? Whichever one he or she chooses.

9/16/03 12:30 pm
http://pub150.ezboard.com/fmonklybizeq2frm2.showMessage?topicID=51.topic&index=11

Moorgard wrote:

Factions mean a lot more in EQ2 than just the ability to walk around in a city. There can be tangible benefits from certain factions having a lot of strength in the community. Being a Fighter, a Qeynos Monk might think it obvious to support the Qeynos Guard faction. However, a player (or guild, for that matter) might decide that the benefits of having a strong merchant economy is more important. While the five factions have obvious links to the archetype system, you aren't locked into supporting any specific faction. It's up to you to decide which you want to make stronger. How you do that and what exactly the potential benefits will be, I leave for you to discover in game.

Wed Sep 17, 2003 11:31 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=90765&highlight=#90765

Moorgard wrote:

Trendor wrote: I think we can all agree that SOE is using EQ as a testbed. That's an incorrect assumption right off the bat. EQ hasn't been relegated to testing code for other games. EverQuest is the flagship game of this company, and it's not going to step aside for anyone. Will EQ2 become more popular than EQ? Who knows. But if it does, it will be because EQ2 earned it, not because of some secret company plan to make EQ obsolete. Nor was there some giant developer meeting where the EQ2 people asked the EQ guys, "Hey, we're gonna use instancing. Want to make an expansion that tests it out for us?" Instancing is not a new concept, and each team has its own take on using the technology. Quote: If they plan on making dungeon instances similiar to LDON, then we are all in for a real treat. Our use of instancing is not the same as in LDoN. Their implementation was designed as an expansion to an existing game--one that never used the technology before. For us, instancing is being included from the ground up as a core element of gameplay. That's a huge difference right there. LDoN's reward and item augmentation systems are unique to that expansion. We aren't setting out to duplicate their functionality, at least not at this stage of the game. Most of the time, our use of instancing won't be for entire zones, but rather for specific areas within a given zone. Plus, our instancing isn't just limited to dungeons, but is used for parts of overland zones as well. Again, huge difference. Quote: There are lots of down sides. Like the amount of time it takes to get the group together, get buffed, get the mission (total pain in the ass to get the mission you want to do), and run to the zone-in. Grouping up is always a process that takes a varying amount of time based on the members of the group. We will minimize the time-intensive mechanics on our end as much as possible, but a lot of it still does fall to the players. As for buffing up first, that won't be much of an issue. Quote: I believe that EQ2 will not have the classic group mold (CC, Tank, Cleric, Slower). Our design will strongly encourage you to have a Fighter, a Mage, a Priest, and a Scout. Anything beyond that is up to you. Quote: A huge time sync goes into group memebers disbanding to run to PoK to find crack. This definitely isn't going to be an issue in our game. And I don't just mean because PoK isn't around anymore. All of this is not to say that if EQ introduces some cool new feature we won't add it to our game as well. Heck, what's the point of being in the same building with other developers if you can't copy their good ideas? But just as I was adamant about the SWG devs being a separate group from the EQ2 devs, so it is with the original EverQuest team. Different teams. Different games. Making use of the same ideas sometimes? Sure. But we may have vastly different implementations of those ideas.

9/19/03 2:48pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=56642417&start=56656175

Moorgard wrote:

Utk's example is a good one. Sub-classes are all about flavor and individuality. Each sub-class in the same archetype will be noticably different from the others, but every one will be able to perform its primary function as well as any other. We don't want your preference in sub-class to affect how desirable you are to a group. How well you play should be the only factor that matters.

Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:47 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=92896&highlight=#92896

Moorgard wrote:

Wandering Monk wrote: An innovative and imaginative system of classes where any combo of classes in a group will work can produce a game with a deep and wide variety of tactics. If the company can design the abilities and skills of these classes in a way that makes this possible. Imagine where each odd ball combo brings about fun ways the players imploy various tactics (in according to their abilities) to aid the group in adventuring. Ideally, this would be terrific. In practice, it is extraordinarily difficult to make work, as illustrated by the enchanter example listed above. Players will actively seek the most efficient group makeup. When they find what they believe it to be, they will attempt to build groups exactly that way, to the exclusion of other classes. They do this because they want to net the maximum reward for the time invested. One difference in our system is that we're telling you right upfront what the ideal group will be: a Fighter, a Priest, a Mage, a Scout, and two other players. Will some people try to min/max the other two slots? Sure. But it's our job to make sure there are compelling reasons to fill those slots with any of the archetypes. The other difference is that we're setting the dependency at the archetype level, not the sub-class level. This means a far wider range of players will be able to fill those roles. Instead of the group wanting a Paladin or a Shadowknight, they will want a Fighter. Any flavor will do. I guess it comes down to two ways to encourage grouping: make classes really dependent upon each other for success, or make every class able to fill every conceivable role. When you try to fall somewhere in the middle, you introduce a myriad of imbalance possibilities. That's not to say it can't be done, but it's really really really really tricky. And subtle differences will cause an enormous outcry. We're definitely making classes depend on each other to be successful, but we're doing it in a way that opens the door for as many players as possible.

Sun Sep 21, 2003 01:32 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=93579&highlight=#93579

Moorgard wrote:

Yes, all Priests can rez the dead.

Mon Sep 22, 2003 06:02 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=95014&highlight=#95014

Moorgard wrote:

Awlis wrote: I just hope Paladins get rez They do not. We have already taken the dead Priest situation into account and have a solution in mind. I'm not discussing it because as I said the death mechanic is still subject to change, but suffice it to say we have no plans to make Priests suffer greater exp debts or item loss than anyone else.

Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:13 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=95827&highlight=#95827

Moorgard wrote:

Bungleman wrote: Awhile back they said there wouldn't be an enchanter/crowd control class, so that got me pretty irritated. Nobody ever said that. What I did say was that crowd control would not be the same as it is in EverQuest. It will continue to be an extremely important aspect of gameplay, but you'll have to come up with some new strategies for it to be effective. As for the spellbook fears, rest easy. We won't be forcing casters to sit around with a spellbook filling their screen.

10/2/03 10:03am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=56988983&start=57293196

Moorgard wrote:

Doing magical damage is definitely one of the fundamental roles of the Mage archetype. How they accomplish that will vary based on class: nukes, DoTs, pets, charmed pets, etc. Basically, we have the same forms of mystical damage, though not all of them will function the same way they did in EQ. Just as melee classes will have to learn new strategies to be effective, casters will too.

Wed Oct 08, 2003 04:08 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108875&highlight=#108875

Moorgard wrote:

If what you're looking for is a highly scripted beginning that teaches you how the game works and introduces you to the archetype system, then yes, we will have that. We fully intend to guide players by the hand into our world. And yes, seasoned players will have the option to skip the intro. Lore is more likely to be revealed through the course of the game by interacting with NPCs and doing some research on your own. The problem with hitting new players over the head with lore when they create their characters is that they're already being served a plateful of gameplay info that is, in the short term, much more important. We'll give them a bit of info on their place in the world, then once they're comfortable with how the game works they can delve as much as they want to into the story.

Wed Oct 08, 2003 04:49 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108941&highlight=#108941

Moorgard wrote:

...there is trouble with the trees. RihkotixInvisifists wrote: moorgard claims to have the class tree, but i dont think its done yet, i think its still being hammered out. Well, then you're wrong.

10/8/03 5:32pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=57452605&start=57629051

Moorgard wrote:

Bards are indeed a class.

Fri Oct 10, 2003 01:55 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=110658&highlight=#110658

Moorgard wrote:

Doing opportunistic damage is definitely one of the key roles of the Scout.

Fri Oct 17, 2003 03:20 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=117760&highlight=#117760

Moorgard wrote:

Nobody told the author of that article anything about a release date--no idea where he got that info from. There are a couple other errors in the piece, including obviously the Ratonga spelling. He did, however, get those class names correct. Guardian is indeed one of the Fighter sub-classes. Inquisitor is one of the Priest sub-classes. Specifically, off the Cleric branch. Happy Friday.

Sat Oct 18, 2003 01:44 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=118392&highlight=#118392

Moorgard wrote:

axxis wrote: This one http://www.everquest-2.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4532 was just updated. And it is correct.

Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:06 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=121790&highlight=#121790

Moorgard wrote:

I wouldn't characterize Qeynos as goodie-goodie. I'd portray it more as being made up of people who realize that they are stronger together than they are apart, and who honestly want to cooperate to help one another and the world as a whole. Norrath has been broken, and the people of Qeynos want to make things better. As for the Inquisitor, I'd definitely see them as Lawful, to the point of having a singular focus that allows no room for compromise. That's how I'd play one, at least. Since Qeynos is a more tolerant society, Inquisitors will be residing in Freeport. The name for Clerics who are found in Qeynos is... something that will be revealed down the road.

Fri Oct 24, 2003 08:14 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=123752&highlight=#123752

Moorgard wrote:

Every race can be an Artisan. There are some races that are completely excluded from one adventure archetype or another. Barbarians, for instance, still do not practice any form of the Mage arts, as that kind of intellectual pursuit does not fit their culture and history. Not all races follow the same traditions as they did in EQ, however. Having your gods disappear and seeing your world broken into pieces will have that effect on you. I'm not at work at the moment so I can't look at my class tree, but I'm pretty certain that only one race is excluded from two adventure archetypes. Certain races may only have one path if they wish to pursue a given archetype, however. During our discussions on finalizing the class tree, we all had to justify our position on why a given race could or couldn't be a certain class. I think we came up with very sound reasoning for them.

Fri Oct 24, 2003 08:47 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=123776&highlight=#123776

Moorgard wrote:

Lycrist of Lanys wrote: So... 2 class revelations per month, and ~25 to go so... Hmm .... about 1 year until Beta! Actually, I'm not certain I'll reveal any more classes until I give you the rest in one giant lump. Doing so would kind of mess up what I've got planned. We'll see.

Tue Oct 28, 2003 04:26 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=126607&highlight=#126607

Moorgard wrote:

Dersaik wrote: It has to be diverse enough to where each final choice is different from some other subclass. You left out the unstated requirement for such a system: that each final choice has to be perfectly balanced against every other in the hearts and minds of the playerbase. If class X is different from class Y, there must be compelling reasons to play each. If you're talking about a Mage versus a Fighter, then no problem--their skills are different enough that there's clearly a reason for each to exist. But when you start looking at members of the same archetype, it gets exponentially more complicated. Because it doesn't matter how minor the difference is between X and Y at that point--any difference that can be parsed, or that players can attach emotional significance to, will cause a backlash of complaints. You can completely avoid the problem I listed above by allowing all characters to become the same via a skill-based system. The problem then isn't really solved, but rather has its focus shifted; instead of making sure classes are balanced, you have to make sure skills are. The issue with having a wide array of class choices is that there's only so far you can go with totally unique abilities before you run into overlap. Then you see situations like the bickering between clerics, druids, and shamans that came up in EQ, as well as recurring complaints about bards (which are arguably the one class in EQ that is based entirely around overlap). Overlap of primary skills breeds jealousy, especially when one class can claim that its secondary abilities don't make up for the degree to which their primary skills overlap with someone else. Our method is to base the game on five roles, each of which provides unique and necessary functions. As I've said, the differences within an archetype are about how that job is done, not how well it is done. Is this distinction enough for you? That's a matter of personal taste. Fighters take damage, deal damage, and hold a mob's attention. Every Fighter is charged with that responsibility, and must do it as well as any other. Some will use spells, some will use arts; some will use avoidance, some will use mitigation; some will wear heavy armor that makes them look like a walking tank, others will wear much lighter armor. Will the sub-classes within an archetype look different? Yes. Will they have different types of quests? Yes. Will they share some skills? Yes. Will they have unique skills? Yes. Will one sub-class be better at its main role than another? No. The biggest distinction will always be at the archetype level. The class level breaks it down further into specific ways of performing the core function. At the sub-class level it becomes more a matter of refinement and flavor, of using specific skills and abilities to form a distinct persona. Debating matters of refinement and flavor, of course, is difficult and problematic until the game is released. Will the system be what you want it to be? That can't really be answered until you can see it in action for yourself.

Thu Nov 13, 2003 08:11 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=135506&highlight=#135506

Moorgard wrote:

Since it seems so quiet around the boards today ( ), I thought I'd give you something bright and happy to chew on. Mage: The caster. Mages inflict mystical damage, control crowds of opponents, and provide buffs and mana replenishment to their comrades. ==Sorcerer: The expert of all forms of mystical damage such as nukes, damage over time, and debuffs. ----Wizard: Master of the arcane arts, tapping into the elemental powers of fire and ice. ----Warlock: Evil counterpart to the wizard, drawing power from the forces of poison and disease. ==Enchanter: A caster who uses magical forces to beguile and control the enemy. ----Illusionist: Uses mystical power to confound and overpower foes. ----Coercer: Takes over the minds of the weak and uses them to his benefit. ==Summoner: Mage who uses summoned pets to inflict damage upon opponents. ----Conjuror: Summons forth powerful pets from primal mystical sources. ----Necromancer: Calls forth servants from beyond the grave and commands them in battle. This shameless act of good will brought to you by the Save the EQII Community Manager Foundation. And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

11/13/03 9:50pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=59602190&start=59613510

Moorgard wrote:

There are no class restrictions based on gender. "Warlock" was probably the class name we debated most. We went back and forth between warlock and witch, with people discussing the historical meaning of each and which worked better for our game. Other names were also considered, but none evoked the image of dark magic that these two did. Ultimately, we thought that witch had too many broomstick & pointy hat connotations, so we went with warlock.

Thu Nov 13, 2003 08:54 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=135537&highlight=#135537

Moorgard wrote:

rblwthtcs00 wrote: has anyone noticed that the final 2 classes per each branch are the same, just 1 good and 1 evil. That's true in some cases, but definitely not all of them. Ratongas are an evil race, yet they can be every sub-class of mage. High Elves are a good race, yet they can be either sub-class of enchanter. I had already stated that monks can be good or evil. There's no all good or all evil formula; which sub-class you can be is variable by race. And as I've said, there are some paths that will prove more challenging than others, partly because they go against expectations.

11/16/03 6:57pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=59701917&start=59728516

Moorgard wrote:

You can debate the merits of numbers all you want. But consider this... A monk and a paladin are very different--nobody would debate that. But there is a point in the game where they have exactly the same abilities. So what do you call that phase of their development? Or the paladin and shadow knight, who have the exact same abilities for quite some time, then take very different paths. What do you consider the time when they're both crusaders and function exactly the same? Argue semantics, but I think that considering each phase its own class is perfectly valid. And even if you don't, we've made the structure of our class tree perfectly clear for a very long time, even if all the names aren't filled in. I'd hardly consider that deceptive in any way.

11/18/03 5:54pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=59795658&start=59834471

Moorgard wrote:

Nope. Wizards and warlocks have similar lines of spells in terms of raw power, it's just that the source of their magic is different. So the wizard gets spells based mostly around fire and ice, while the warlock gets mostly disease and poison spells. For a hypothetical example: if a wizard gets a fire nuke for 1000 damage at level X, then a warlock is likely to get a nuke of the same strength based on poison. Both types of sorcerers specialize in all forms of magical damage, including nukes and DoTs. One is not inherently more powerful in one of those categories over the other.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 01/20/04 06:19 pm ::

Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:34 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=150211&highlight=#150211

Moorgard wrote:

Scouts are also about movement. They're the ones who can guide you through dangerous dungeons--and, perhaps more importantly, they're the ones who get you out again. In terms of combat, they have opening moves that can give your party an advantage over your opponents, as well as attacks of opportunity in the fight. But in our game, fighters do greater overall melee damage.

Fri Dec 05, 2003 03:39 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=151212&highlight=#151212

Moorgard wrote:

Ulrick28 wrote: I wonder if this is one way of figuring out parts of the class tree It's not.

12/21/03 10:08 PM
Stratics

Moorgard wrote:

We've discussed the idea of weapon specialization, as it is a nice way for characters to distinguish themselves from one another. The problem with this in a game where loot is so important is that you risk allowing people to make a choice that they might regret later because they feel they can't be the best at their class. For example, say one paladin specializes in mace while another specializes in sword. For those two paladins to be equal, there needs to be a line of equivalent maces and swords that are obtainable with the same effort and degree of commonality. If there is a mace that does more damage or is equivalent in power but easier to obtain, then the mace-wielding paladin immediately becomes preferable and the sword user feels cheated. Variety at the expense of perceived inequality is not a trade anyone is going to like in the long run. Of course, careful itemization could allow this to work, but it would take a considerable effort. Think about all the classes and potential weapon types and level ranges we'd have to do this for, and you see that it is no trivial task. I'm not saying specialization isn't a possibilty at some point, merely pointing out that it isn't as simple a concept as it might first appear.

Mon Dec 22, 2003 01:21 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=160289&highlight=#160289

Moorgard wrote:

CanisLupos wrote: What exactly is the "core" ability that all Mages share? Dealing mystical damage, enhancing the mental capabilities of their party, and crowd control.

Mon Dec 22, 2003 02:03 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=160313&highlight=#160313

Moorgard wrote:

Different types of mages may have different ways of restoring mana to their party members, but they all share that core function.

Mon Dec 22, 2003 05:57 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=160528&highlight=#160528

Moorgard wrote:

ho... ho. Happy Holidays! (If the pages come up blank, keep trying... servers are being flaky today.)

12/22/03 3:01pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=61529152&replies=28

Moorgard wrote:

ho... ho. Happy Holidays! (If you get a blank page, keep trying. Our servers are being flaky today.)

01/05/04 06:11 PM
Stratics

Moorgard wrote:

Sub-classes are, ultimately, about flavor and style--not power. Both the mystic and the defiler will have the same level of healing potency so neither will be preferred in a group over the other. Their spells may have different names and visual effects, but will provide comparable results.

01/05/04 06:17 PM
Stratics

Moorgard wrote:

You will. All mage classes have nukes and DoTs. The summoner's primary offensive power, though, comes from their pets.

12:42am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63530282&start=63575498

Moorgard wrote:

One of the scout's primary functions is creating vulnerabilities in the opponent. These vulnerabilities allow both themselves and their groupmates to increase their damage output. A scout my allow the party to take a foe by surprise, weaken them during the course of the fight, or set up a coup de grace that ends the battle.

2/1 12:42am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63530282&start=63575498

Moorgard wrote:

One of the scout's primary functions is creating vulnerabilities in the opponent. These vulnerabilities allow both themselves and their groupmates to increase their damage output. A scout my allow the party to take a foe by surprise, weaken them during the course of the fight, or set up a coup de grace that ends the battle.

2/3 8:09pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63683041&start=63724200

Moorgard wrote:

Pets are the principal form of damage for the conjuror and necromancer. As such, we don't see the need for an experience penalty regardless of how much damage the pet does. Keep in mind, though, that pets aren't intended to tank mobs. While pets will be close to the caster in level, they won't have anywhere near the hitpoints of a player character. Mages aren't tanks, so pets won't be able to fulfil that role either. Summoners get direct damage and AE spells, but they don't have the variety (or efficiency) that sorcerers get of those damage types.

Fri Feb 06, 2004 02:27 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=203168&highlight=#203168

Moorgard wrote:

Wow! I wasn't sure how people were going to react to the any race/any class announcement. We sort of expected a division between old school pencil & paper roleplayers who opposed the idea and other gamers who loved it. I gotta admit, the idea took a while to sink in for me. But once I thought about the potential for really personalized characters while maintaining the strong theme of good vs. evil, I became very excited about it. We do intend to make switching sides a challenging path, and there is only one chance to do it. Those who take this road will probably have to depend upon friends for support, because there's going to be a period of time where neither city is going to accept you. I'm glad you've liked the new info that's come out this week. I'm going to be writing up something good for eqii.com this month as well, so keep your eyes peeled! Hopefully that will finally get Onyxraven off my front porch... I'm taking Friday off because it's my birthday. Hmm, it just occurred to me that this arrangement is backwards; I get older and you guys get the presents! That's so not fair.

Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:55 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=208103&highlight=#208103

Moorgard wrote:

Behunts wrote: How do we know that all races will have the same base stats? They don't. Characters start out with lower base stats than they did in EQ. Additionally, we have an item creation plan to manage how +stat items enter the world. In other words, base stats will have a significant impact on your character's abilities. Thus I think that the truly oddball race/class combos will be rarer than a lot of people think, though the option is there if folks want to play them.

Tue Feb 10, 2004 01:16 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=208239&highlight=#208239

Moorgard wrote:

There are some people who play for stats. These folks will say, "I want to be the best mage possible." They will see that the Erudite has the highest intelligence and pick that race regardless of looks or roleplay style. There are others who play for character. They want to be a gnome bruiser no matter what the stats are. If they have more challenges along the way so be it; they're about the journey, not the end result. We're striving for a balance between those two extremes. We don't think there's anything wrong with some races having advantages in certain professions, and we aren't afraid of some race/class combos being more challenging than others. In part it is those very challenges that help make playing a nonstandard race rewarding for the people who do so. But while we're okay with the road less traveled not being as easy, we don't want the final destination to be punitive. If you make it so an Erudite will always be a significantly better mage than an ogre due to an imposed statistical difference, that can cause the player to see all their extra effort as simply wasted. If the ogre player has done more quests, killed more boss mobs, and worked harder to improve his character while the Erudite doesn't put in as much effort, should the Erudite be the better caster simply by virtue of race alone? It's something of a balancing act that may not please all players, especially the most passionate about one viewpoint or the other. But we think the effort to strive for such a balance is worthwhile, and will do our best to make it something that adds fun and variety to the game.

Tue Feb 10, 2004 01:30 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=208699&highlight=#208699

Moorgard wrote:

CanisLupos wrote: Perhaps the more recent quote superceeds the previous statement by MG, but I am just trying to be certain. To be clear, it does. Unless I make a huge blunder and say something that's just flat-out incorrect, my newest posts supercede older ones. I always post the most current and correct information I can, but keep in mind that we are still in development so things do change. That was the case with race/class combos, and it will be the case with other things that will be discussed at a future date. Suffice it to say that we have a thing or two up our collective sleeve that we think you're going to be very excited about.

Tue Feb 10, 2004 02:06 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=208745&highlight=#208745

Moorgard wrote:

There is no plan to have race-based restrictions that preclude the use of common items for a given class. In other words, iksar can indeed wear plate. Racial restrictions on items will be minimal. The only plan for them at this point is for unique or flavor items. For instance, one might find a long-lost dwarven axe that only dwarves may use. If and when cultural recipes are introduced in the future there would likely be racial restrictions on the resulting items, but the vast majority of items you'll discover or create in the world will be usable by any race.

Tue Feb 10, 2004 02:37 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=208787&highlight=#208787

Moorgard wrote:

Good races and evil races don't have a choice about which city they go to. Both will have the chance to switch sides before they pick a sub-class, but until then their fortune lies with the only city that will accept them. Neutral races and those who can decide whether they will be good or evil will have the freedom to go into either city until they declare citizenship. At that point they essentially announce themselves as either good or evil. Again, they have a single chance to switch sides before declaring a sub-class. Some sub-classes will only be trained in Qeynos, some only in Freeport, and some will be in both cities. The general goal is to have about a third being exclusive to each city with a third of them being available in both. Which will go where? I'll let you debate that subject for a while.

Wed Feb 11, 2004 01:47 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=209350&highlight=#209350

Moorgard wrote:

spanky5844 wrote: Unless that includes tradskill classes. Which would be available in both citys reducing the amount of other classes available to both Sorry, I should have made that clear. I was talking about adventuring sub-classes, not artisans. Note that I did not say the good/evil/neutral division was exactly in thirds. But we tried to keep it close to that.

2/12 11:27am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=64184796&start=64201330

Moorgard wrote:

As usual, Utk sums it up well. The basic idea is that race isn't the ultimate determining factor whether you're good or evil--your career choice is, at least about 2/3 of the time. Race often determines where you start out, much like one's place of birth in the real world. But we're giving your character one opportunity to switch sides if that's how you want to play it. Rather than giving neutral races all the choices and giving few to the good/evil ones, we decided to give everyone choices. I understand that some traditional RPGers don't like the ARAC idea. There's really no way to say one approach is right and the other is wrong; it comes down to two different playstyle preferences. Initially the idea raised flags for me, but what won me over is the fact that the good vs. evil concept still holds true, and in ways is enhanced by ARAC. Lucan is essentially saying, "I don't care who you are or where you came from. If you want to aid me in dominating this world, you can live within my city's walls." Antonia is saying "You may have been born into evil or supported it in the past, but if you can prove that your true wish is to help rebuild Norrath then we will accept you as an ally." From a design standpoint, this approach (as well as the branching nature of the class tree) lets us spread out important choices throughout a character's life. We don't want you to have to make all the major decisions at character creation. While a lot of longtime RPGers are used to pre-planning their character's path, the majority of gamers don't necessarily keep those kinds of strategies in mind when rolling a character. This way experienced gamers can still pre-plan all they want but newer gamers won't feel the pressure to decide their fate all at once.

2/12 5:53pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=64184796&start=64225153

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "I guess any race could be a Shadowknight (for example). But I couldn't be "good" and be a Shadowknight. Is that an accurate statement?" Yes, that is correct. Quote: "Did you just copy paste what you just posted? I coulda swore I read that exact same thing somewhere else." I don't think so, but who knows. It is the nature of my job to say the same things over and over again. That's why I like good moderators, because they handle a lot of that work for me.

Mon Feb 16, 2004 02:28 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=213745&highlight=#213745

Moorgard wrote:

Kokichi wrote: Just to add, I do believe that Moorgard recently posted that not every race can become every class because of social restrictions. I believe the example he gave was that a Barbarian, although it can become a mage, cannot become a Wizard, or something like that...he said it doesn't fit into their social structure, thus it's not possible. Sooo maybe we won't be seeing a High Elf become a Shadowknight if it "doesn't fit into the social strucutre". You got confused because someone quoted an earlier post I made in which I talked about barbarian race restrictions. That post was made long before I made the ARAC announcement, thus that older post is no longer valid. To be absolutely clear: Any race can be any class. As long as you are willing to do what it takes to become that class, there are no mechanical restrictions stopping you from doing so.

Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:07 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=217891&highlight=#217891

Moorgard wrote:

Cusashorn wrote: Maybe each class of preist (Class, meaning both of it's sub-classes apply) will have DIFFERENT rez effects from each other. You're on the right track. At the priest level you get a basic non-combat rez. Later on at the class and sub-class level there are different types of rez spells. None of these will be better all the time, but certain ones will be preferable under certain circumstances. So a cleric doesn't rez better than a druid or shaman, just differently. The type of rez spell you most want cast on you may vary. Resurrection is classified as a secondary ability of the priest, not a primary role. As such, certain non-priest sub-classes will be able to perform the basic non-combat rez. But priest sub-classes will be the only ones with in-combat rez abilities.

Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:01 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=218372&highlight=#218372

Moorgard wrote:

Monks won't be running around naked. They are fighters, and fighters use gear. Monks and bruisers will be wearing armor and using weapons.

Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:45 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=218653&highlight=#218653

Moorgard wrote:

CanisLupos wrote: Good question, but I think the answer is as simple as the possible fact that the gme will most likely allow us to try out the various Archetype roles before choosing one, as you do not choose your Archetype prior to entering the game. Only race and appearance and name. The various NPCs on the Isle of Refuge probably give you quests that will allow you to test the abilities of the various Archetypes so we can make educated decisions on which we'd like to play. Bingo.

2/23 11:01am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=64784308&start=64785359

Moorgard wrote:

No, they have not.

Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:49 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=219806&highlight=#219806

Moorgard wrote:

Necros will still have nukes and DoTs. It's just that their primary (and most efficient) attack will come from their pets. Wizards and warlocks get the most efficient damage spells because that's their primary form of attack. Wizards draw their powers from fire and ice, warlocks draw it from disease and poison.

Tue Feb 24, 2004 09:42 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=220387&highlight=#220387

Moorgard wrote:

All scout classes will have stealth abilities, including the bard types. Those brief descriptions in the puzzle are meant for flavor only. One or two sentences can't sum up all the roles or abilities of a class, so please don't draw too many assumptions based solely on what they say. More detailed info will be coming down the line.

Wed Feb 25, 2004 03:03 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=221062&highlight=#221062

Moorgard wrote:

Commoner is the only point where you can test the basic abilities of all archetypes. After you choose a path, your knowledges become set and you essentially lose the ability to do certain things. That is, if you decide to become a fighter you can no longer cast the mage spell you learned, and so on. Apart from that exception, as you advance through the class tree you do not forget the things you learned at earlier stages. For example, fighters know how to use swords. If you choose to become a brawler, you stop gaining further knowledge in wielding swords. So a monk or bruiser could use a low-level sword that they have enough knowledge to equip, but it would essentially be useless for them to do so because they would be doing damage as if they were a level 9 fighter at best.

Thu Feb 26, 2004 01:02 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=221886&highlight=#221886

Moorgard wrote:

MV wrote: If they allow Paladins to rez and in theory paladins can tank as good as warriors and monks don't you think this would be too much of an advantage? Nope. Because all sub-classes get some kind of crossover secondary ability from another archetype. This doesn't make any one kind of fighter preferable in all situations, but rather adds versatility to the group. A skittish priest may want the security of grouping with another class that can rez. However, there will be sub-classes from each archetype that can rez. And there may be some other secondary skill that benefits the group more in a certain situation than having another person who can rez. The idea is to add diversity and flavor, not to lock any one sub-class into always being the preferred one.

Thu Feb 26, 2004 01:08 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=221893&highlight=#221893

Moorgard wrote:

RihkotixInvisifists wrote: Hmm... sages are probably the artisan archetype subclass that gets rez skills. Oops. I should have said adventure sub-classes get crossover secondary abilities. Artisans are exempt for a reason, which you will learn when we reveal more specifics about them.

02/25/04 11:20 PM
Stratics

Moorgard wrote:

What you're talking about is a double-edged sword. If you make it so certain classes aren't as needed for groups, then certain classes won't be needed in groups. While you open up options for one set of players, you limit the options of others. Our solution is to require certain roles for optimum success, but we increase the number of players who can fill those roles. So rather than wanting a specific class of tank, you'll know that any fighter can fill the spot you need. Your reputation and skill will determine how often you get groups, not what class you happened to pick on the day you bought the game.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 03/08/04 11:03 am ::

Thu Mar 04, 2004 05:39 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=227702&highlight=#227702

Moorgard wrote:

Don't panic--we aren't getting rid of artisans. The Q&A will explain the situation.

Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:01 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=228084&highlight=#228084

Moorgard wrote:

Cyenn Garamonde wrote: They just ruined all tradeskills and made it EQLive once again. Nope. The only effect of this change is that instead of requiring two characters to play both an adventurer and an artisan, you can do it with one. It still takes just as much time to gain levels as an artisan. This change wasn't designed to make the game easier on anyone. If you want to get level 50 as both an adventurer and a crafter, it will be just as much work as if they had to be two separate characters. The only thing this does is reduce the need to make an alt. I suspect it will make more people try out tradeskills as well, which we see as a good thing. We're putting a ton of work into making our artisan path fun and rewarding. Just want to adventure? Fine. Just want to make stuff? That's cool too. Want to do both? Have at it!

Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:09 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=228095&highlight=#228095

Moorgard wrote:

Nismo wrote: If I can have a smith and a warrior as the same character, and I get myself a purple dragon hide of uber flames, instead of thinking, "I'll need to search for a smith to craft me a fine breast plate!" I will instead think, "I'll need to go find the rest of these components to make myself a fine breast plate!" See, reduces interaction. Not at all. In the old system, that player would have just used an alt to make the BP for him. A player that wants to do it all would have been just as able to do so before this change.

Fri Mar 05, 2004 02:09 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=228341&highlight=#228341

Moorgard wrote:

I think a lot of the concern in this thread is based on thinking about how tradeskills work in EQ. "This change means I can get my fighter to 50 and max my smithing so I never have to worry about buying gear again." Not true at all. Becoming a smith or a sage isn't about raising a couple key skills; it's about advancing a character through many levels of content. Whether your adventure class is level 5 or level 50 will not impact your ability as a crafter. Having a high-level adventure class and a low-level artisan will not provide much direct benefit, because the gear you make won't be of any use in your adventuring role. You'll still be dependent upon high-level artisans to obtain appropriate gear. Look at the opposite scenario. Get an artisan to level 50 and you can make great gear for yourself as you start out as an adventuerer. But how are you going to get the components? You won't be able to go out and kill stuff to obtain the best components yet, because being a level 50 artisan won't help you in that regard. So you're still dependent upon other players in a significant way. The players who benefit most from this system are the ones who keep their adventure and artisan levels pretty much equal. But look at the effort they'll be putting in: it will require the same amount of experience as if they were levelling two separate characters simultaneously. That's a lot of work to end up with two level 50 characters. It won't be easy to do, and it won't be something that a lot of players try at first. Those that do are likely the ones who would be making alts anyway. I realize that at first glance this change seems monumental, but in many ways it is actually pretty subtle. I don't think this will have a significant economic impact. The biggest change is that it opens up more content to more players, which I consider a good thing.

Sat Mar 06, 2004 11:55 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=230366&highlight=#230366

Moorgard wrote:

Knifes wrote: Bleyd wrote: Why, when time is of the utmost essence in the development of this game to be released, did they feel that they NEEDED to make this change if this change was so small and inconsequential? Only MG could answer that. And I did, in the original Q&A. I've addressed the economic issues brought on by this change in what I consider a reasonable fashion. You can debate the "might be" scenarios ad infinatum, but no theories can be proven right or wrong until the game has been live for a while. A lot of what is being debated at this point is the emotional response to the change, and that's something I can't give a definitive answer to because it's a matter of personal perspective. I suspect that some of those who dislike the change feel that way because they see it as taking away some exclusivity they were looking forward to. They knew going into the game that they would never be the most uber adventurer on their server, but maybe, just maybe, they could be one of the most uber artisans. They could look forward to winning the respect of those uberguild adventurers because they would be providing something that the uberguild itself could not. But the artisan was never intended to be an easy path to advancement, and it still isn't. The plan was and is to make being an artisan every bit as challenging as being an adventurer, just in a completely different way. And the reality is that people who play more will always experience content at a faster pace, so the powergamers would have made their own artisans even if they were required to make them separate characters. I've made it clear you can still be just an artisan without advancing as an adventurer. I've made it clear we aren't cutting any content for the artisan. The only effect of this change from a gameplay perspective is that it allows any character to be both an adventurer and an artisan. Yet all of these statements are pointless if you only view this change from an emotional perspective. It's awfully hard to debate that kind of reaction, so all I can say is to judge for yourself once you play the game.

Sun Mar 07, 2004 01:27 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=230442&highlight=#230442

Moorgard wrote:

Drakenred wrote: That one action basicaly saved everyone who wanted to traidskill 4 charater slots (since you would need 4 slots to be able to master all artisan classes)... You seem to be implying that we eliminated the artisan tree and simply made one class out of it. We didn't. The tree is still there, and you still have to progress through it. If you want to play every artisan sub-class, you still need four characters to do so.

Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:07 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=231123&highlight=#231123

Moorgard wrote:

Something that you probably don't realize yet is that you never give up being your archetype. What I mean is, even though you stop being called a fighter after level 3, you continue to gain abilities as a fighter. There is a list of arts and abilities that all fighters share all the way up to level 50 which are central to fulfilling the fighter's key role. Since the fighter is all about dealing physical damage as well as taking or redirecting it, all classes and sub-classes gain a common set of abilities that include such things as taunting and ways to redirect damage away from other party members. You gain many more individually defined abilities at class and even more specialized skills at sub-class, but you always keep expanding upon your basic archetypal abilities. That's what I mean when I say balance happens at the archetype level. The same principle applies to all other archetypes as well.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 03:28 pm ::

Tue Mar 16, 2004 06:50 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=238754&highlight=#238754

Moorgard wrote:

Venamous wrote: This implies that maybe melee classes will keep an eye on a "power" bar. I think that would be a very wise strategy. Thane wrote: So instead of +10 mana items that only mages want, we have +10 power items that all classes will want. Interesting! Yes, it is.

Wed Mar 24, 2004 07:06 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=244287&highlight=#244287

Moorgard wrote:

I wouldn't classify this as a change, as I believe I've hinted at this idea before. At any rate, it comes down to the definition of "reasonable level," which we will tune through testing. Keep in mind how adventure archetypes work: you gain certain abilities at the archetype level that you never lose, but you gain specialized abilities at the class and subclass level that are unique to your choices. Artisans will work the same way in that you don't forget something you learned before, but you won't continue to advance your skills in some areas based on your class and subclass choices. As I said, we'll be tuning this in practice. While we want all artisans to have a certain amount of versatility, it's not going to be a case where everyone can make the exact same items of the exact same quality.

03-26-2004 10:45 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=917#M917

Moorgard wrote:

Crusaders (paladins and shadow knights) receive spells at the class and subclass levels, but they continue to expand upon the arts they receive as fighters. Bards work the same way in the scout tree.

03-26-2004 11:15 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=918#M918

Moorgard wrote:

Thessik_Irontail wrote: For example, if all warrior classes tank equally well, then why would a berzerker or a monk deal more damage then a guardian? It would then be safe to assume that all warrior classes do NOT tank equally well but well enough that they can all fill the role of tank (kind of like how you would take a paladin for tanking IF a warrior was not present in EQ). No, that would be a very unsafe assumption. A couple of them, in fact. We are not balancing classes the same way they did in EQLive. We balance the classes at the primary roles of the archetype, meaning that all subclasses of the same archetype do their main jobs just as well as the others. There is no fighter subclass designated to do a lot more damage than another at the expense of tanking; that would not be balanced. Monks are not intended to vastly outdamage paladins, nor are guardians intended to tank better than bruisers. At the same time, the fact that all subclasses have different ways of fulfilling their primary roles means there will be some circumstances where one subclass has an advantage. Rough edges like this are intended, as they add to diversity and can sometimes drive the passions of players. Without those differences, we might as well never go beyond the four adventure archetypes because subclasses would all be exactly the same. So yeah, there will be threads about how his class is better than my class, and how her combat art is better than my combat art. That kind of debate is inescapable. Reading the EQ message boards for so long has prepared me for the inevitable.

03-28-2004 12:54 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=22158#M22158

Moorgard wrote:

I know that nerfs are disheartening to players; I've personally experienced plenty during my time in EQ. Nobody likes them. Believe me, it's also a bummer for the designer who comes up with a really cool feature that he or she thinks the players will enjoy to see that work changed or abandoned because some unforseen circumstance makes it far more powerful than intended. Ultimately we're responsible when something gets nerfed, not the players. But despite the perceptions and anger of some, nerfs aren't done arbitrarily or with malice; they are done only when we feel it is important for the health of the game. If I honestly thought it would help, I'd personally write a letter of apology to every class that gets nerfed or changed in some way that saddens or angers customers. But the reaction to nerfs is often an emotional one based on the individual's attachment to his class, so the best efforts on my part would ultimately be seen as excusatory or hollow by some people. And as has been evidenced over the years, those people tend to be extremely vocal about their feelings of betrayal. We've put a lot of thought into the design of our class tree, and our hope is that the plan to balance classes at the archetype level will result in fewer major balance issues which require nerfs. That said, we can't foresee every possible mistake or potential loophole, so nerfs are pretty much unavoidable. All I can say is that we will do our best to be responsible about them and make sure major changes are well thought out. It's my job to convey your reactions back to the team, and you can rest assured I'll be doing exactly that.

04-05-2004 11:51 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=34372#M34372

Moorgard wrote:

Klapton wrote: 1. Is a Scout really necessary in a group to activate the Combat Wheel? 2. Is there any advantage to having TWO Scouts in your group? 1. No. You can activate and complete heroic opportunities without a scout at all. You can even get them solo. Scouts, however, will have the ability to shift from one heroic opportunity to another. 2. Having more damage output is an obvious advantage.

04-06-2004 12:20 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=scout&message.id=1649#M1649

Moorgard wrote:

There won't be twisting. Songs will behave like spells.

Wed Apr 07, 2004 11:04 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=253052&highlight=#253052

Moorgard wrote:

Nobody played a ranger at FanFaire, so how would they know? No one was even close to making it to the subclass level. If you are asking about scouts, they used arts and abilities. Dirty Tricks is an example of the former, whereas Sneak and Hide are examples of the latter.

Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:15 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=253818&highlight=#253818

Moorgard wrote:

Colmino wrote: What can I say to this? A level 65 Wizard in EQLive doesn't "need" more than eight slots, but at such a level, why insult their efforts by forcing level 1 versatility on them? A good Wizard would be able to make very good use of extra slots. Sit down and memorize a new spell in a pinch? Dead meat. So, it makes sense, both in practical terms and blunt logic, to allow higher levels more spell slots. From a storyline standpoint, I can make just as many counterarguments about why someone should not have more than eight slots. "It takes great concentration to use magic, and even a highly skilled caster can only wield so many of these powerful forces at one time." "In the heat of battle, there is far too much cacophony for a caster to concentrate well enough to memorize a whole new selection of complex spells." I could go on citing reaons just as you could go on citing contrary reasons, and neither of us would be really right or wrong. Ultimately it's a gameplay reason that decides this matter, not a storyline one. We want spell selection to be a tactical element of combat, just as weapon selection is for a melee person or opponent selection is for a group or raid. We want you to be entering combat with finite resources, not having access to every single spell at the touch of a button. You should have to plan a bit and make smart decisions. And yes, sometimes you should lose because you made the wrong one. That's all part of what makes victory sweet. If there is a strong argument as to how gameplay would be enhanced by the addition of more spell/art slots, I'd be happy to hear it.

Fri Apr 09, 2004 02:18 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=254123&highlight=#254123

Moorgard wrote:

kizmit wrote: I ask MG to take a look at the spell sets and look for those spells that will become absolutely necessary in order to optimize your caster's performance. If there are 8 must haves then players will figure this out and you will have a situation where most utility spells will get unused simply for want of an extra spell slot. (Excellent point--this is just the kind of thing I meant when I asked for gameplay reasons for more spell slots.) We have kept issues like this in mind when designing the spell system. Certain core functions of the class will be treated as abilities; that is, they will be accessed through hotkeys and won't require memorization slots. So priests will have heals that are hotkeyed, mages have nukes that are hotkeyed, etc. This should allow some of the more unusual or unique spells to be used more often. We definitely want subclasses to show their individual qualities whenever possible.

04-12-2004 10:24 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=scout&message.id=1908#M1908

Moorgard wrote:

Our bards are different from the EQLive variety. They still sing songs, but these will work much like a standard spell. There won't be twisting as there was in EQ. Moving this to the Scout forum.

04-12-2004 10:58 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=44537#M44537

Moorgard wrote:

Melee do indeed get some AoE-type arts.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 06:41 pm ::

04-21-2004 10:35 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=54102#M54102

Moorgard wrote:

Thumpy wrote: I think they need to make Spellbooks an inventory item to caster classes instead of just making it a part of your character's attributes. Keep in mind that we don't really have a spellbook per se; we have a knowledge book that every class uses. It holds spells, combat arts, abilities, and tradeskill recipes. There are separate tabs for each category, and of course separate pages for each of them. That said, there can certainly be books used as inventory items, much like there are in EQLive. However these would not replace your knowledge book, which is indeed part of your character.

04-22-2004 09:58 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=55465#M55465

Moorgard wrote:

Actually we discussed this issue again and examined some of the feedback about it, and we're trying out another idea in the latest build of the game. I don't want to go into details yet because it's in testing and subject to change, but so far it seems like a good plan. You'll probably hear about it after E3.

04-29-2004 04:48 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=65701#M65701

Moorgard wrote:

Keep in mind that the mana bar is actually the power bar, which is something every player is going to be concerned about. Power is a resource every bit as crucial as hitpoints are to the success of a battle. Fighters and scouts need power to perform their combat arts. For instance, the fighter's job is to hold aggro. Since aggro is managed significantly through the application of certain arts, poor fighters who waste their power unwisely and can't hold aggro will become known for their shortcomings. But really the key reason that we're showing the power bar is that one of the mage's crucial roles is performing power replenishment--heals, if you will. If the priest begins to run out of power during a crucial fight, it falls to the mage to keep the priest up and running. If the scout needs power to perform a crucial move against the enemy, it behooves the mage to make sure the scout has the juice to be able to do that. In short, playing a mage isn't just about dealilng damage. Mages are healers of the mystical variety, and they play a huge part in how the other people in the party do their jobs.

04-30-2004 03:13 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=66927#M66927

Moorgard wrote:

Innate regen of hitpoints and power is percentage based. Spells that heal either hitpoints or power--regardless of whether they are regenerative or resolve instantly--do so by set values, not percentages. That is, an instant heal that restores 500 health will work the same on a fighter as it does on a mage. If we used a percentage system for heals, then such spells would always be more efficient when cast upon the player with the largest pool. This would lead to potential balance issues, as well as situations where a healer might say "I don't want to waste power on you because your hitpoints are too low. Just stop taking damage." I'm not saying we'll never have any kind of percentage-based heals, but they won't be the primary method of healing.

05-04-2004 08:48 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=75397#M75397

Moorgard wrote:

The wonderful thing about the Moorgard Index is that it collects everything I say. The frightening thing about the Moorgard Index is... that it collects everything I say. The major reason I put up the FAQ section was to collect the most current and accurate information available, since I knew the Index included stuff that is out of date. And yes, as I've said before, new information always supercedes older information. Unless I screw up.

05-05-2004 11:32 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=priest&message.id=2063#M2063

Moorgard wrote:

No, our fury class is open to both males and females, and has nothing to do with the characters from Greek mythology.

05-06-2004 05:56 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=priest&message.id=2096#M2096

Moorgard wrote:

Please keep in mind that you don't just install EQ2 and pick a shaman or a druid. You evolve through the class tree naturally, making informed decisions along the way. EQ players who want to check out our game will probably research the various subclasses and have a path picked out, but my personal belief is that they may change their minds as they experience EQ2 for themselves. Looking at abilities and stats on paper (or a website) is far different than actually playing and seeing how the various professions are unique.

05-08-2004 04:09 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=83209#M83209

Moorgard wrote:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the ARAC system, and I can understand how some players wouldn't like it. But the fact is that it's one of the aspects of our game that is most solid and concrete--that is, it ain't gonna change. When the idea was first proposed I had my doubts, but I don't anymore. I think it's a very cool system that allows for a lot of flexibility in how you play your character. And in fact, ARAC has become a prominent point that our marketing department will be using to promote the game.

05-16-2004 05:42 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=scout&message.id=3639#M3639

Moorgard wrote:

I wouldn't expect one branch of the scout tree to get a faster runspeed buff than any other scout does. We are not duplicating EQ bards in this game.

05-18-2004 10:26 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=103256#M103256

Moorgard wrote:

Correct. Archetypes and classes are trained in both cities. It is only at the subclass level that the good/evil aspect comes into play. It is still the plan that 1/3 of the subclasses are Freeport only, 1/3 are Qeynos only, and 1/3 are in both. Assassin falls into the evil side of things and is available in Freeport only. So anyone wanting to be an assassin would have to become a resident of Freeport before the subclass level, either from starting as an evil race or by betraying Qeynos.

05-18-2004 11:06 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=103334#M103334

Moorgard wrote:

No. That is part of the class-specific info we'll be releasing later. Consider the assassin info a treat.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 08:45 pm ::

05-28-2004 10:22 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=117816#M117816

Moorgard wrote:

The EQLive version of the beastlord would not translate over into our game. I think it's safe to say that we won't introduce a subclass that has all those capabilities. We could, of course, create a class that does fit into our archetype system and call it a beastlord. After all, that's essentially what we did with monks, paladins, warriors, clerics, druids, shamans, necromancers, etc. One issue, however, is that the classes listed above are common fantasy names, so the fact that we redefine them in our own way is to be expected. Beastlord is a much more specific title that isn't as common, and just using the name without having analagous abilities might not satisfy fans of the EQ character anyway.

06-02-2004 11:31 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=123440#M123440

Moorgard wrote:

Keep in mind that the first 50 levels are about building the basis of your character. In a game that can expand as much as ours we don't want to introduce too much complexity early on. After all, we're already looking at 24 adventuring subclasses, which is a hefty amount of choice as it is. After someone has progressed from archetype to class to subclass and has worked all the way up to level 50? Sure, in the future we can provide more variation because the foundation of necessary knowledge will be there. But the goal will be to introduce variety for the sake of fun, not for the sake of complexity. Because at the end of the day, nobody wants to be the worst and weakest example of their profession; they want to be the best and strongest. But there can't be one without the other, and we're not particularly keen on creating such a situation in the early life of a brand new game.

06-04-2004 01:56 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=124717#M124717

Blakely wrote:

This is a very interesting and clever thread, and I have been reading and pondering it for the last hour or so, and I have a few comments regarding the issue - I should be sleeping, but this is certainly more interesting /grin. A fundamental premise of EQ2's design is *you* being a hero in the world of Norrath. In the context of EQ2, a hero is not defined just by their strength, their agility, their intelligence, or any other attribute, but rather by their character, skill, style, and determination to overcome the challenges that are presented. We as a game provide the stats - You as a player provide the character, skill, style, etc. As a general rule, EQ2's game systems and content have been designed around the principle of *player participation*. What this means is that your character, as you define them, is an extension of you as a player that you use to *participate* in the content. What will set you aside, make you unique, make you relevant to the world, make you a legend, will be *your skill* as a participant in the world. The race, archetype, class, subclass of the character you play will certainly influence your contributions, style, abilities, etc., but how you use that character with the tools provided and evolve your tactics will define you as a hero in the world. In that sense we are allowing you a tremendous amount of flexibility to develop your character through the items in the game. You as a player will develop tactics which will evolve with you as you develop your skill over time - instead of making a permanent commitment to stats within each of the characters you play, you can morph the stats on your character at will, equipping them in the best manner for the tactics that you elect to use given the situation (and we are going to be throwing a lot of different challenges your way /grin) - this then becomes your *style* and the items you acquire will be naturally suited to that style. To me, this premise, coupled with ARAC, will allow for a wide variety of interesting and flawed characters to develop and find their place in the world, but bottom line, you will be known by your actions and how you participate in the content - to me this is one of the things I am most excited about in EQ2 - action!. I think back to my experiences in EQLive - A night with a bad cleric is a bad night - where as with a different player playing the same character, it would be a completely different experience - but not once would I consider that the good cleric was better because they put more points into wis over str, etc, but rather how they played the game and used the resources they had. In EQ I saw many deaths on raids where the cleric broke the heal chain and sent everyone running for cover - and an extra 5 points in a stat would not have helped prevent that at all - so they developed a reputation based on actions, not stats - think about the legends on your server, gear certainly helps, but how they play is much more influential to their characters reputation. EQ2 is about action in your adventure, stats will give you more tools, but how you use them is much more important to your characters development. So in order for skill and style to stand out as character defining attributes, as game developers we needed to level the playing field a little to make this a reality. As a person who has had the privilege of playing EQ2 for an extended period of time, I already know who I want to play with and who I don't. Our content is very challenging, and it will be quickly evident who the heroes of the shattered lands will be =). Thanks again for your continued passion about EQ2 - this community is the best one out there hands down - I have been especially impressed with the positions presented on both sides and I hope my 2cp will give you some more things to chew on and help to clear up where we are coming from. Back to lurking before MG and Faar take away my posting privileges =) .... Cheers. JB

06-14-2004 07:55 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=4974#M4974

Moorgard wrote:

The only classes that base their power on more than one stat are crusaders and bards. Monks do indeed draw their power from strength. They're true fighters whose job is to tank and inflict melee damage.

06-15-2004 11:35 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=5003#M5003

Moorgard wrote:

Crusaders base their power on STR and WIS, bards base theirs on AGI and INT.

06-24-2004 07:54 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=6092#M6092

Moorgard wrote:

Monks are good. To become a monk, you must pledge loyalty to Qeynos. Bruisers are evil. To become a bruiser, you must bow down before the Overlord. As mentioned above, an iksar must betray Freeport to become a monk. While iksar monks were popular in EQ, blame this change on the fact that they have become increasingly brutal and savage over the last 500 years.

06-24-2004 10:45 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=5996#M5996

Moorgard wrote:

Exactly. I suspect once people see bruisers in action this won't be a very big issue. Bruisers get cool armor--think studded leather straps and such. They also do a bit more melee damage than monks while having many of the same abilities. It may be more of a challenge to roleplay a disciplined bruiser, but since when are roleplayers afraid of challenges? In short, I think iksar bruisers are going to be quite formidable.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/04/04 08:49 am ::

06-29-2004 10:39 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=6690#M6690

Moorgard wrote:

Monks and bruisers can use the same types of weapons. And yes, they both dual wield, but keep in mind that our implementation is quite different than what you see in EQ.

06-29-2004 10:48 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=priest&message.id=4384#M4384

Moorgard wrote:

Tanking is the role of the fighter. Aside from content designed for soloing, priests don't have the tools necessary for it. While clerics can wear heavy armor and thus mitigate damage the best of the priests, they have the lowest hitpoints. Shamans wear medium armor and have more hitpoints than clerics, while druids wear light armor but have the most hitpoints of the priests. No priest can approach the melee damage output of the fighter or the scout, nor can they rival the magical damage of the mage. Doing damage isn't their role.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/12/04 06:01 pm ::

07-10-2004 04:17 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=7284#M7284

Moorgard wrote:

There are many incorrect assumptions in this thread because people are relying too much on what they know of monks in EQ. Aside from looks and the carryover of some skills and arts that have the same names, our monks are considerably different. While all fighter subclasses won't have the exact same hitpoint totals or damage output, those difference will be minor and will be balanced to add flavor rather than create disparity or undesirability in groups. There will certainly be nothing like the difference between monk and warrior hitpoint totals in EQ. In our game, monks are tanks. Monks will tank in groups; monks will tank in raids. There will be situations where they are the preferred type of tank, as well as situations where another fighter subclass might be more advantageous. But monks will have all the tools to do the job while still having a unique appeal.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 08/01/04 03:45 pm ::

07-13-2004 01:14 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=151426#M151426

Moorgard wrote:

Will any quest or in-game trial ever give you the full picture of what it will be like to play your subclass for 30+ levels? No, of course it can't. What we can do is give you a flavor of it, and make your choice feel more organic than simply picking a class name from a dialogue box. While it's no guarantee of future happiness, the larger goal is just to make the class and subclass selection process itself feel empowering and kinda cool.

07-13-2004 09:30 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=fighter&message.id=7593#M7593

Moorgard wrote:

I am pleased to report that we don't plan on having any extra weight restriction on brawlers or their subclasses.

07-21-2004 09:44 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=156483#M156483

Moorgard wrote:

Nazguran wrote: Do you think a druid, or a couple of druids will be able to cover in a raid situation if there is no cleric online? You're thinking in EQ terms. Templars, inquisitors, wardens, furies, mystics, and defilers ALL perform the role of priest, whether in groups or on raids.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 08/01/04 07:19 pm ::

07-26-2004 10:43 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=159396#M159396

Moorgard wrote:

Waerloga wrote: It seems that there is a difference in the gaining of Hit Points amongst the Archetypes. Correct. Quote: A Human Fighter, if he is a Brawler, will have GREATER HP’s than if he was a Crusader or Warrior I never said that. In fact, monks and bruisers do not have the highest raw hitpoint totals among fighters. Quote: A Dwarven Priest, be she Druid, Shaman, or Cleric will have 3 different values for HP’s Correct, assuming you mean that the exact same dwarf would have three different raw hitpoint totals depending which branch of the priest tree she followed. Quote: HP's = ((Archetype base) + (Armour restriction gain) + (Stamina bonus value)) x a per level modifier. Nope. To put it simply, raw hitpoints are based on your profession, your stamina, and your level. Each profession (archetype, class, and subclass) has a hitpoint modifier. That modifier is not dependent upon what kinds of armor you wear; it just happens to work out that way for the priest classes. Quote: A Dwarven Priest should have the same HP's wether shes a Cleric, Druid, or Shaman. Why? Different professions have different disciplines and practices, and thus train their bodies differently. By the same token, one could argue that a dwarf fighter and a dwarf priest should have the same hitpoint totals, which may be arguably more realistic but is undesirable from a gameplay perspective. Hitpoint variances within classes and subclasses are part balance and part flavor. It's simply the way we decided to design this particular system.