Why is it class based?

[Kezz]

"Why, oh why, oh why?"

I've seen a few reasons offered in the meeja that are available for watching, but they're all BS. AFAICT, it's "Because other shooters have classes."

Classes are the scourge (along with "level-based progression" (by which I mean you get tougher and better every time you get a "level"), but it doesn't look like they're falling into that trap) of "development systems" in any game. They're a lazy excuse for wooly thinking.

[Karrade]

As far as I know, you can play as many classes as you want with one character.

It is to specialise tree's of progression out, extend the life of the game, and promote teamwork over zerging.

That is the why I have in mind.

Is that bad or good? Up to you playing it to decide.

[ChipMHazard]

Defined roles and better balancing are my two main thoughts on it.
I certainly don't see it as a lazy system.

[Kezz]

You can swap between classes anytime you want, yes. At a gear terminal, AFAICT. Which is more liberal in terms of allowing you to change your certed role than PS1. But you are confined within the straitjacket of whatever class you are at a given point. Which artificial restriction is aggravating to many: see the proliferation of "hybrid" class choice availability in most games; players want to be able to tweak their abilities to the way they want to play, not be restricted.

Why is specialisation good? Why is Jack-of-Trades not a viable choice?

Classes don't extend the life of the game, available skill picks do. Doesn't matter whether the usability of that skill pick is limited by an arbitrary selection of other skills/equipment that can/have to be used along side it, or not.

Forcing people into classes does zip all to promote teamwork over zerging. The zerg will still cert into Assault/Max and not stand still for the Medics/Engineers to heal/reconstruct them. And they'll be Light Assault so the Medic has zero chance of keeping up because he's got no jetpack. Teamwork is promoted by dynamics, not static choices like classes.

Why is "Defined Roles" better?

Sure it's easier to balance things if you don't have to worry about "killer combinations" that you didn't think of. To an extent. That's why it's a lazy approach to design. Checks and balances should be built in to the dynamics of the game.

[exoteror]

In PS1 you could be an assault, medic, engineer and tank killer in one class but having that you would generally not have much access to a MAX, tanks, AMS, aircrafts due to cert limits.

PS2 you can only play 1 class but switch any time you want. What will count is how you progress your Certifications and can upgrade any cert no matter the class you are playing.

So you can't go all rambo anymore but you arn't tied down either.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Kezz

You can swap between classes anytime you want, yes. At a gear terminal, AFAICT. Which is more liberal in terms of allowing you to change your certed role than PS1. But you are confined within the straitjacket of whatever class you are at a given point. Which artificial restriction is aggravating to many: see the proliferation of "hybrid" class choice availability in most games; players want to be able to tweak their abilities to the way they want to play, not be restricted.

Why is specialisation good? Why is Jack-of-Trades not a viable choice?

Classes don't extend the life of the game, available skill picks do. Doesn't matter whether the usability of that skill pick is limited by an arbitrary selection of other skills/equipment that can/have to be used along side it, or not.

Forcing people into classes does zip all to promote teamwork over zerging. The zerg will still cert into Assault/Max and not stand still for the Medics/Engineers to heal/reconstruct them. And they'll be Light Assault so the Medic has zero chance of keeping up because he's got no jetpack. Teamwork is promoted by dynamics, not static choices like classes.

Why is "Defined Roles" better?

Sure it's easier to balance things if you don't have to worry about "killer combinations" that you didn't think of. To an extent. That's why it's a lazy approach to design. Checks and balances should be built in to the dynamics of the game.

Classes can be customized to better fit ones play style and fulfill different roles within that class.
Of course if you want to have heavy weapons you don't want to pick a LA.

Matter of opinion. I prefer specialization. Specialization allows players to find their niche in the game and make a name for themselves.
Also hybrid builds, while popular, seldom seem to be viable when compared to a more specialized classes.

I don't see why having classes will shorten the game's lifetime.
You can still spec into different certs within your class.

I would argue that it does more for teamwork as players will have defined roles. Organized players will use medics and engineers to their full potential, if zerg players care about their stats in any way they will also learn to do so.
Medics aren't supposed to keep up with LAs. However if the LAs succede in gaining a foothold the rest of the team will obviously catch up. Also there are transports in the game, so the LA might not always sever as vanguards.
Perhaps you should wait until you've tried the game before you make generalizing statements on how people will play. You may be right or you may be wrong.

Why not? It's easier to balance, allows for more unique playstyles, makes it easier to recognize support classes if you need them.

What if it's just an overall better system?

[jabber]

classes means variation. opening up the classes will lead to less variation (points at rift)

[Kezz]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Classes can be customized to better fit ones play style and fulfill different roles within that class.

Operative term: within that class. Why have the restrictions? If I want to play a Medic who sacrifices some of my healing ability for the ability to keep up with the LA, or be an LA who has some basic revives/heals at the expense of my hitting power to keep my LA squad moving, I can't.

Of course if you want to have heavy weapons you don't want to pick a LA.

Why have that restriction? If the Jetpack Armour has fewer slots, the "glass cannon" chaingun-armed jumptrooper will have to make tactical choices as to when to apply his enhanced firepower, compared to the Heavy Assault armour wearing guy with the chaingun who has tons more ammo, and the armour to hang about in the combat zone.

Specialization allows players to find their niche in the game and make a name for themselves.

What if their ideal niche would be "somewhere between Engineer and Medic"? The proliferation of hybrid classes in all class based systems from granddaddy D'n'D to Rift is eloquent testimony to the desires of players. They want to bridge gaps and create their own way of doing things. Nothing about the class system proposed for PS2 shows there will be any potential for that.

Also hybrid builds, while popular, seldom seem to be viable when compared to a more specialized classes.

So? It's a player choice. And I'd dispute it in any case. For the purposes they're designed for, good hybrid builds are both effective and popular. Take DPS with a self heal: very common levelling build in other MMOs, for good reason. Sure, that build won't be as valid when you're in a team situation and there's a specialist healer, but that's not what the build is about.

I don't see why having classes will shorten the game's lifetime.
You can still spec into different certs within your class.

Didn't say it would. In the same way that classes, per se, have nothing to do with extending the lifetime of the game.

I would argue that it does more for teamwork as players will have defined roles. Organized players will use medics and engineers to their full potential, if zerg players care about their stats in any way they will also learn to do so.

You can have defined roles without having cookie-cutter classes. And you can provide "atchetyopes" or "templates" to help those struggling to find their feet.

Medics aren't supposed to keep up with LAs.

Why not? Wouldn't it be interesting to play a fast-moving "emergency response" or "Strike team" medic? I think it would be.

However if the LAs succede in gaining a foothold the rest of the team will obviously catch up.

So when the LA JJet up the outside of a building, they have to hold their 'bridgehead' while the rest of the team assault through the levels of the building to reach them? Good luck getting anyone to wait that long to respawn.

Also there are transports in the game, so the LA might not always sever as vanguards.

Who said anything about "always being vanguards"? If all you can do is put words in my mouth, your arguments must be even weaker than they look.

Perhaps you should wait until you've tried the game before you make generalizing statements on how people will play. You may be right or you may be wrong.

General statements are all that can be made. My surmises about how people will play are, indeed, just surmises, but do you really believe that having classes will change peoples' mindsets about cooperation? I have some bottom lands you may want to consider investing in... Those who are going to cooperate will cooperate whether there are classes or not. Those who will zerg will zerg regardless. I am on, I think, firmer ground about what they like to do, having seen it in many game environments with what has come to be considered an "RPG style" character development system, and that is to be able to pick and choose what they want to be able to do from a broad range of combinations.

If it turns out that the best way to be a Medic, in general, is to wear the Medic Armour, carry the Medic Shotgun, a medical applicator and First Aid Grenades (and the relevant certs), then many people will do that, but others will find niche worth in wearing the Light Assault Jetpack armour, the MedApp and an Assault Rifle and Revive Grenades (or whatever). A skill-framework based system allows that choice, and allows people to get a deserved name for themselves as, in this broad brush example, a kick ass assault medic who can keep a Jump Squad going to the objective.

Why not? It's easier to balance...

Easier. By no means impossible. Games like EVE have broad variations in what you can do at any one time. Some combos are wierd and work for some people. Others are incredibly niche. And there are standard builds too to fall back on if your experiment doesn't work.

...allows for more unique playstyles...

So restricting the choice of combinations of skills makes more unique playstyles? That's some mathematics you have there.

...makes it easier to recognize support classes if you need them.

Or if you want to shoot at them? If someone wants to be the best pure medic they can be, they'd likely be in the medic armour with its medical bells and whistles. If they forgo that visual distinction, that's something they have to deal with in creating their effective playstyle. And they make enemy snipers have to observe what is actually going on in order to single out the corpsman.

What if it's just an overall better system?

Better for whom, and in what way?

Originally Posted by jabber

classes means variation. opening up the classes will lead to less variation (points at rift)

Classes mean everyone in a given class is exactly the same, or at least heading up the same path (points at every cookie cutter build ever created).

[MrBloodworth]

Because open certs is to much for some to handle in the target audience.

Also, Battlefield does it.

Originally Posted by jabber

classes means variation. opening up the classes will lead to less variation (points at rift)

You could not be more wrong.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Kezz

Operative term: within that class. Why have the restrictions? If I want to play a Medic who sacrifices some of my healing ability for the ability to keep up with the LA, or be an LA who has some basic revives/heals at the expense of my hitting power to keep my LA squad moving, I can't.

I do remember something about classes being able to cert into some sort of healing at the expense of something else. But I don't remember which class this pertained too.
But generally speaking no, no jump jet medic.

Originally Posted by Kezz

Why have that restriction? If the Jetpack Armour has fewer slots, the "glass cannon" chaingun-armed jumptrooper will have to make tactical choices as to when to apply his enhanced firepower, compared to the Heavy Assault armour wearing guy with the chaingun who has tons more ammo, and the armour to hang about in the combat zone.

Because allowing any class to use jump jets might prove to be imbalanced. Same reason they removed ammo from LAs.

Originally Posted by Kezz

What if their ideal niche would be "somewhere between Engineer and Medic"? The proliferation of hybrid classes in all class based systems from granddaddy D'n'D to Rift is eloquent testimony to the desires of players. They want to bridge gaps and create their own way of doing things. Nothing about the class system proposed for PS2 shows there will be any potential for that.

Too bad for them then. A jack of all trades isn't a niche.
You're right it won't be like old D&D where you could multiclass to your hearts desire. Good thing to as they could become vastly overpowered.
Unless a game is specifically designed around players picking more than one class at a time then chances are it won't work. PS2 isn't being designed around that.

Originally Posted by Kezz

So? It's a player choice. And I'd dispute it in any case. For the purposes they're designed for, good hybrid builds are both effective and popular. Take DPS with a self heal: very common levelling build in other MMOs, for good reason. Sure, that build won't be as valid when you're in a team situation and there's a specialist healer, but that's not what the build is about.

Which is the problem. They aren't competitive enough. They're fun but in the end they almost always end up loosing out to more specialised classes. You might also end up creating a "must" build, again balancing.

Originally Posted by Kezz

Didn't say it would. In the same way that classes, per se, have nothing to do with extending the lifetime of the game.

Balanced and fun gameplay mechanics will obviously be what will make the game last for years, be it either system. A skill based system won't extend a game's life anymore than a class based system.

Originally Posted by Kezz

You can have defined roles without having cookie-cutter classes. And you can provide "atchetyopes" or "templates" to help those struggling to find their feet.

Except no one seems to stay with those templates for long. Which brings up my concerns again.

Originally Posted by Kezz

Why not? Wouldn't it be interesting to play a fast-moving "emergency response" or "Strike team" medic? I think it would be.

Because they won't have access to jet packs, that should be obvious enough. If they wanted medics to be able to keep up with LA they would have given them jet packs.
There are a lot of things that would be interesting, some unfeasible and others simply not being what the devs want for their game.

Originally Posted by Kezz

So when the LA JJet up the outside of a building, they have to hold their 'bridgehead' while the rest of the team assault through the levels of the building to reach them? Good luck getting anyone to wait that long to respawn.

So? In your scenario the rest of the team would be pressing on from their side and the LA would be serving a harrasing/flanking role. Waiting to respawn? Do you mean revive?

Originally Posted by Kezz

Who said anything about "always being vanguards"? If all you can do is put words in my mouth, your arguments must be even weaker than they look.

They are basicly meant to be akin to vanguards, well that and flankers/harrassers. Their role will obviously change depending on the circumstances.
Careful now I have treated you with respect so far, so don't start spoiling the mood. Don't agree with me? Fine. But since this is all opinion based I CAN guarantee you that my opinion is as just as valid as yours.

Originally Posted by Kezz

General statements are all that can be made. My surmises about how people will play are, indeed, just surmises, but do you really believe that having classes will change peoples' mindsets about cooperation? I have some bottom lands you may want to consider investing in... Those who are going to cooperate will cooperate whether there are classes or not. Those who will zerg will zerg regardless. I am on, I think, firmer ground about what they like to do, having seen it in many game environments with what has come to be considered an "RPG style" character development system, and that is to be able to pick and choose what they want to be able to do from a broad range of combinations.

And I probably have the same amount of gaming experience to back up my claim that classes help promote teamwork. If they provide proper incentive for players to play their roll then you will play their roll.
You're right in that those who want to play with others will play with others and those who don't care about others will just to do their own thing. However the gameplay itself tries to promote teamwork, which might help make players more willing to cooperate with other players.

Originally Posted by Kezz

If it turns out that the best way to be a Medic, in general, is to wear the Medic Armour, carry the Medic Shotgun, a medical applicator and First Aid Grenades (and the relevant certs), then many people will do that, but others will find niche worth in wearing the Light Assault Jetpack armour, the MedApp and an Assault Rifle and Revive Grenades (or whatever). A skill-framework based system allows that choice, and allows people to get a deserved name for themselves as, in this broad brush example, a kick ass assault medic who can keep a Jump Squad going to the objective.

Except that's not how the system is going to work. A skill based system is also much harder to balance in a competitive game.

Originally Posted by Kezz

Easier. By no means impossible. Games like EVE have broad variations in what you can do at any one time. Some combos are wierd and work for some people. Others are incredibly niche. And there are standard builds too to fall back on if your experiment doesn't work.

This isn't EVE and EVE isn't an FPS or even an rpg like Darkfall. It makes sense in some genres and not so much in others. Not that they don't work in the latter genres, just might be harder to balance them right.

Originally Posted by Kezz

So restricting the choice of combinations of skills makes more unique playstyles? That's some mathematics you have there.

If you allow players to pick and choose what they want then they are probably going to choose that which is the most optimized solution. Thus making them less unique in their playstyle, while classes forces a player to adapt to a certian type of playstyle. The problem with giving a varity of choices to a player is again to make sure that each choice is just as good as any other without becoming too powerful in combination with others.

Originally Posted by Kezz

Or if you want to shoot at them? If someone wants to be the best pure medic they can be, they'd likely be in the medic armour with its medical bells and whistles. If they forgo that visual distinction, that's something they have to deal with in creating their effective playstyle. And they make enemy snipers have to observe what is actually going on in order to single out the corpsman.

You are going to be able to identify medics from other classes simply because they are medics.
You won't be able to look like a medic if you're a HA.

Originally Posted by Kezz

Better for whom, and in what way?

Better in the long run for everyone playing the game. I have already clarified why it might be a better system.

Originally Posted by Kezz

Classes mean everyone in a given class is exactly the same, or at least heading up the same path (points at every cookie cutter build ever created).

They will not be exactly alike, some classes might have less variation than others (although we still don't know what certs each class will have available). Down the same path/role? Sure, I can see that for some classes. However there is a vast difference between an actual infiltrator and a sniper.

We will have a much better understanding of how each class can be customized come beta.
Also it should be noted that although I prefer specialization it doesn't mean that I prefer one system over the other. Even if PS2 was going to use the more open cert system from PS1 I would still specialize as much as possible.
I understand the reasons behind choosing a class based system, with cert variation within said class, over an open cert system. In the end I would be fine with either system.

Edit: Goddammit I shouldn't type when I'm tired...

[JesNC]

Originally Posted by Kezz

Easier. By no means impossible. Games like EVE have broad variations in what you can do at any one time. Some combos are wierd and work for some people. Others are incredibly niche. And there are standard builds too to fall back on if your experiment doesn't work.

EVE doesn't balance around skills or equipment or classes. EVE balances around cold hard ISK.

Sure that buffer tanked tengu works great, but to fly that you have ratted/mined/schemed you ass off beforehand - and most of it will just be gone when you find your better.

That won't work with PS2's gameplay model of massive conflict everywhere. Especially with F2P, when people are broke after the first few hours they'll just turn their backs and never return.

[Synapse]

Because it's easier to balance. Dev's dont want to do that and are making something else good with their time. This won't change.

End of story. Get over it.

[PredatorFour]

I sypmathise with you Kezz, its a shame they went down this route but who knows they might be able to change it in the future updates Apparently todays gamers don`t seem to be reet clever so they need to make it simple for them to understand/enjoy. They also don`t have much patience either so sancs have gone too, 2 mins to get in a fight is just wayyyy too long !

[Littleman]

The flaw with open choice systems is that there is always the optimum setup, and somehow restricting options as one makes choices defeats the purpose of free-form setups and actually begs the question of why not going with a class system anyway?

It's a losing argument, OP. You're just upset over the concept, though the balancing act to prevent someone from setting themselves up to be 100% self-sufficient achieves the same purpose classes do, only it's more convoluted and less clear-cut.

[The Loverator]

Originally Posted by Kezz

Why is it class based?

It's so in Order to prevent People running around with Camouflage, PLUS Rocket-Launcher,
PLUS Sniper, or Stuff.

Or to prevent having Medics with Jetpacks, or Medics who can set Turrets (Engineer-Skill),


it's just so that unique Classes are present, which get loved for their unique Feeling and Plot. ; 3



greetings, LV.