For those of you who have had the pleasure to play most of the classes in both these great games, which class per game did you like the most ? In some respects it may be like comparing apples to oranges but for the most part they are close enough to make a comparison. I'll start :
For me .....
VG Warriors versus EQ Warriors : Winner= VG
VG Paladins versus EQ Paladins : Winner=EQ (close call though)
VG Dreadknights versus EQ Shadowknights : Winner= VG (another close call)
VG Rangers versus EQ Rangers : Winner= VG (though I loved EQ's rangers back when EQ/AM3 was overpowered )
VG Bards versus EQ Bards : Winner= EQ (Oddly I miss the old days when you had to be a skilled song weaver. I loved my VG Bard though.)
VG Rogues versus EQ Rogues : Tie. VG Rogues could do more, but I loved EQ version of hide/sneak and the simplicity of the class.
VG Monks versus EQ Monks : Tie. VG Monks could do a lot more and combat was more interesting, but I loved EQ Monk feign death so much.
EQ Beastlords : Winner by default. Popular class for a good reason. Nice buffs/FUN to play.
VG Cleric VS EQ Cleric : Tie.
VG Shaman VS EQ Shaman : Tie. I loved both Shammies to death but for different reasons. Super fun. Second favorite healers .
VG Disciples : Win by default. Uber solo class and fun in groups too.Never ran out of healing power.
VG Bloodmage: Win by default. My favorite healer of all time in any game. Loved that class to death (often literally). Want a Pantheon version ;)
VG Sorcerer versus EQ Wizard : Tie. Loved ports and quad kiting and lots more in EQ, but so much to love about VG's version too.
VG Druid versus EQ's Druid : Winner= EQ. Enjoyed both versions and loved VG's fairy pet and other tricks but EQ Druid = 2nd most pure fun class ever.
VG Psi versus EQ Enchanter : Winner= EQ . LOVED both classes, but EQ's version was really special to me.
VG Necro versus EQ Necro: Winner= EQ by far. EQ's necro is my favorite pure fun class of all time in *any* game for soloing. So many tricks.
My favorite classes in general from the bunch are :
1. VG's BloodMage tied with Bard in general (though I prefer EQ's)
2. Shaman in general.
3. EQ Necro.
4. EQ Druid (loved PLing people) .
5. EQ Enchanter tied with EQ Beastlord.
Favorite races: EQ Dark Elves, EQ Wood Elves, EQ Gnomes, VG Halflings, VG Goblins, EQ Trolls.
Not gonna go into great depth on this one but I'd like to chime in,
In almost all cases the VG classes were more fun to play on a day to day basis but the EQ content dictated group synergies between classes with simplistic yet deep strategies that were also very enjoyable to me.
Kiz~
For me .....
VG Warriors versus EQ Warriors : Winner= VG
VG Paladins versus EQ Paladins : Winner=VG
VG Dreadknights versus EQ Shadowknights : Winner= EQ by far
VG Rangers versus EQ Rangers : Winner= EQ (Back when they were a ranged class)
VG Bards versus EQ Bards : Winner= EQ
VG Rogues versus EQ Rogues : EQ
VG Monks versus EQ Monks : VG
EQ Beastlords : Winner by default.
VG Cleric VS EQ Cleric : VG
VG Shaman VS EQ Shaman : VG (I liked the bubble heals and also the different types of buffs gotten from patrons)
VG Disciples : Win by default. Uber solo class and fun in groups too. great to have in a raid for patch healz
VG Bloodmage: Win by default. medium dps with high heals is fairly op
VG Sorcerer versus EQ Wizard : Tie.
VG Druid versus EQ's Druid : Winner= EQ. the heals and utility of the EQ druid make it head and shoulders above the VG nuker
VG Psi versus EQ Enchanter : Winner= VG the VG psi was a much more intuitive class to play, and had fun nukes too.
VG Necro versus EQ Necro: Winner= VG the VG necro was a fun class to play without being too OP, and had utility for groups that didnt make it nessesary to solo all the time
My favorite classes in general from the bunch are :
1. Shaman Bubble heals and added dps make the Rakuur shaman one of the most fun healers to play.
2 Paladin AOE tanking is ~ffffuuuunnnnn (and makes you look soo awesome)
3 Shadowknight plate armor necro (need i say more?)
4 Beastlord only reason it didnt get #1 is because it didnt get monk Feigndeath (mmmm BL with FD drool...)
I have to say I played a Psi in Vanguard and a enchanter in EQ and I don't think the two even compare on a crowd control basis. The Vanguard devs, like all developers that followed EQ, appeared to start from a premise that EQ had it wrong with the enchanter and crowd control was a problem, and needed to be significantly limited. So on just an objective basis the EQ enchanter was a more powerful crowd control class. Because of that I think they were more valued in a group and thus in that sense more rewarding to play as well.
The problem I have with this analysis in general is that there isn't a context against which to make the judgement. At the very least you'd have to qualify this by saying whether you're talking about a group or solo setting. I suspect if you confine the comparison to a group setting and judge at least partially on how valuable the two classes were to a group the analysis changes some. If you are talking strictly ease and enjoyment of soloing then it's another comparison altogether.
Kayd said:
I have to say I played a Psi in Vanguard and a enchanter in EQ and I don't think the two even compare on a crowd control basis. The Vanguard devs, like all developers that followed EQ, appeared to start from a premise that EQ had it wrong with the enchanter and crowd control was a problem, and needed to be significantly limited. So on just an objective basis the EQ enchanter was a more powerful crowd control class. Because of that I think they were more valued in a group and thus in that sense more rewarding to play as well.
The problem I have with this analysis in general is that there isn't a context against which to make the judgement. At the very least you'd have to qualify this by saying whether you're talking about a group or solo setting. I suspect if you confine the comparison to a group setting and judge at least partially on how valuable the two classes were to a group the analysis changes some. If you are talking strictly ease and enjoyment of soloing then it's another comparison altogether.
this thread isnt about which one was right or wrong but about the much more subjective question of which one YOU enjoyed most. noone is attacking one or the other, just listing which classes they personally liked better (and sometimes the reason why)
While I only played VG sparingly, I felt that when I did play it this comparison could hardly be made, because in VG the majority of your time could be spent alone, you could progress all the way to max level, by yourself. If I was forced to make the comparison I would cite VG's spammy combat and lack of resource management, and would pick EQ in almost all cases.
But since Pantheon is going back the EQ way of having all encounters tuned towards groups, and resource management being a major thing, I would love to see some VG classes in this setting so that I could properly judge whether or not they are better than EQ in that setting.
Obviously, for magician its a clear win for EQ :) And my main in VG was a disciple, so no real comparison to EQ with that one.
For the classes I played in both games:
- Shaman: EQ (although I very much enjoyed the VG variant as well)
- Dread Knight: VG (but again, very close)
- Cleric: VG (Lightbringer, anti undead cleric, seriously fun!)
- Sorc: EQ (but only played them at low levels in both games)
- Enc/Psi: EQ (I never played an enchanter in early EQ, only did so a few months back, but I really enjoyed the class then. Although, again only to mid levels in both games)
- Druid: Gameplay-wise I prefered the VG druid. I think THE big point for the EQ druid were the ports, otherwise the class wasn't soo great.
- Monk and rogue: Only played those classes at low to mid levels in both games. But I must say I very much prefer the simple melee classes from EQ.
Only recently tried a necro in EQ (never did in VG), and I must say the class is also very enjoyable. Somehow I never found the VG necro very appealing however.
I think we have to remember however that all VG classes could solo, and this may influence our opinion of the classes. Its the same with EQ today, with the mercenaries every class can solo. This totally changes how many classes feel (for me).
The healers in VG just got it right. Choice of patron and pet for Shammy. Unique (at the time) heal through damge Disc. Unique and brilliantly designed BM (whoever came up with this was a genius) and well Clerics....
Only game I ever played a healer in as main and loved each and every one of them!
Gethlaen said:
The healers in VG just got it right. Choice of patron and pet for Shammy. Unique (at the time) heal through damge Disc. Unique and brilliantly designed BM (whoever came up with this was a genius) and well Clerics....
Only game I ever played a healer in as main and loved each and every one of them!
I have to say i agree with you 100 %
I thought the classes in Vanguard were the proper evolution from EQ. Melee classes needed a few more tricks and tactics especially, as only being able to autoattack, disarm, bash, kick or backstab left their gameplay a little rudimentary. Will agree with Rallyd though, I loved the aspect of classes that had us managing our resources a little more instead of just going with rotations of abilities in Vanguard.
The healers in Vanguard were particularly stellar. Its actually interesting because the goal in Vanguard seemed to be creating several classes for each role to facilitate balanced groups which leads me to my biggest concern for Pantheon's class system: there is only 1 primary healer class and 11 other classes that will undoubtedly be vying for the most efficient group. Does it not remind you of certain problems in EQ?
Interesting thread, and my .0005 cents worth:
VG Warriors versus EQ Warriors : Winner= VG, this really is due to VG having a much more mature mechanics. EQ warrior was a one button class, unfair comparison.
VG Paladins versus EQ Paladins : Winner= NA, I hate Paladins, so goody two shoes, always trying to save the endzone layer and such crap.
VG Dreadknights versus EQ Shadowknights : Winner= VG, I love Sk in EQ, was my main for the entire 6yrs, but dreadnight gets the nod.
VG Rangers versus EQ Rangers : Winner= VG, I did not like the EQ ranger, however Ranger was my release class in VG, 7th ranger to 40th in Vanguard.
VG Bards versus EQ Bards : Winner= NA, Not a bard player.
VG Rogues versus EQ Rogues : Winner=NA, Not a rogue player.
VG Monks versus EQ Monks : Winner=NA, Not a monk player
EQ Beastlords : Hate this class, poor design, poorer execution, lets all make a new dev pet class, a shaman but cooler, we are bored of given dev love to druids.
VG Cleric VS EQ Cleric : Winner=NA, Not a cleric player.
VG Shaman VS EQ Shaman : Winner=VG, thought the spiritual connection made the difference, three classes in one. This is the closest of all of them to choose.
VG Disciples : My favorite healer class, loved it, even if it was horridly OP broken.
VG Bloodmage: Pretty much the most unique healer ever, a necromancing life sucking healing machine.
VG Sorcerer versus EQ Wizard : Winner=EQ, not sure why but it just felt likea true wizard shoudl be.
VG Druid versus EQ's Druid : Winner=NA, Dont play druids.
VG Psi versus EQ Enchanter : Winner= VG, as much as I liked enchanters in EQ, the PSI is the best class in any MMO I have every played. Required more skill and better control to rule the battle field.
VG Necro versus EQ Necro: Winner= VG, loved both, but nod goes to Necropsy skill and Grafting to abomination pet, truely awesome! This was the second closest choice to make.
EQ Magician: I loved the EQ mage and it is my second favorite EQ class. I felt the summonor idea was missing in Vanguard, no trinkets?? WTF!!???
My favorite classes in general from the bunch are :
1. Vanguard PSI: Hands down my favorite MMO Class.
2. Vanguard Dreadknight: SK was great, but dreadkngiht just a little better
3. EQ Shadowknight: Played for 6yrs, of course its going to be here on the list
4. Vanguard Ranger: My release character for Vanguard, was the 7th to reach 40. Loved it.
5. Vanguard Disciple: Never much cared for healers, shamans were OK, but this class changed all of that!
Well I can't really compare because any comparison needs a similar and controlled environnement.
In my 2 years VG I was solo all the time. I found groups perhaps 10 times in all if so many.
In my EQ years I spent at least 80 % of my time in groups.
That's why, for almost every class I played I had more fun with it in EQ than in VG.
The few comparisons I could make would be.
Necro : winner EQ hands down. In EQ I was really a master of undead and a killing machine. In VG much less so.
Paladin : Winner EQ. I simply felt much more paladinesque in EQ. In VG a lonely paladin saving nobody was rather ridiculous.
Enchanter : Winner EQ. I think that the Psi was quite well designed but the EQ enchanter had such an added value with jewelcrafting that it can't be beaten. Every time I started a new character on EQ I always created an enchanter and started immediately jewelcrafting.
Ranger : hard to compare. They were bad in solo both in VG and EQ. The fletching and foraging in EQ would make me lean again more to the EQ ranger
I didn't play a monk in VG but a disciple. This one was a great soloing class. In EQ I played a monk but I guess one can't compare these 2, they were quite different but I enjoyed them both.
My all time preference goes to the EQ enchanter - CC spells, utilities and the awesome trade skill made it fun at every moment.
Then a long time nothing and then approximately sharing the second place are the EQ ranger and the EQ necro.
Im not going to do a break down of every class even thought i have played everyone in both games at one time or another (up to GoD in EQ anything that came after i havent played ). Im just saying how i feel. Both games had its pros and cons. Now having said that i just wanted to say its really hard to pick one game over the other. Yes i did leave EQ for Vanguard but it wasnt because of any certain class it was all because of combat. I just always felt more in control of what i was doing in VG combat compared to EQ. People say oh VG spam fest , well i say if you did just spam you werent doing end game at any point in the game or any content that took skill or a group. If you where then others where carrying you. I will also say that majority of EQ content also took a group and skill to but in a different way. Now im not saying what i feel is the word its just my opinion but in VG it took everyone knowing what they are doing at all times and EQ it took people knowing what they are doing at certain points and the rest was auto atk and waiting on refresh . Now i only played EQ from launch to GoD so i cant speak of the game after that , just stating my opinion of it until that point in game. Alot will also say well you could solo most of vanguard and you couldnt in EQ. Well vangurd was at one point alot harder then what it ended up being. If you only played then end of VG then you got SoE water down version trying to cater and bring in more players in. Ok im getting off subject. What im saying is i cant really compare class to class in 2 games that play completely different. Both are great games its just comes down to what style of play do like over the other. EQ limited abilites certain skill builds for certain fights or VG access to all abilities at all times and actually using you abilities not waiting on refresh and auto atk.
I think the posters who are making the point of not being able to compare the characters due to a basic difference in playstyle of the game itself are over thinking this.
yes, if you use the marker of which class soloed better, or which parsed more dps i can see it being problematic. but i think the intent of this thread was more in line with the Flavor of the classes. the type of abilities, the feelings that were evoked while playing the class, the sense of actual unity with your avatar, how the class interacted with a group. you know the stuff you cant parse.
when i am comparing class design between the two games i try to remind myself of the essence of the class. not individual abilities so much. (although its hard not to think of those huge class defining abilities when comparing) to make my point here i will run through my thought process of the paladin comparison.
VG Paladin. the basic essence of the class to me is "AOE Tank" I can hold aggro on multiple targets simultaneously. with just a few group heals after initial engagement, and a well timed aoe taunt its fun and engaging to keep 4-5 mobs on me while the group and i mow em down one at a time. and i can even be a decent source of dps once in a while by stacking forced crits and a few other abilities making me temporarily able to paur damage on even non undead mobs.
EQ Paladin. the most basic essence of the class is "Cleric with high defense and heals that dont amount to much" I can use heals to help hold aggro, but honestly if i use taunt and bash its not needed. I can pull using pacifyat low levels. if the mobs arent immune to stun i can use stun rotations to reduce the healer's burden. I have buffs that are beneficial as long as no clerics are around. if we are fighting undead well then i can Faceroll undead.
Result IMO: VG Paladin Win! Fatality!
and this is mostly due to the VG paladin having his own unique focus on tanking groups. and it did help that tanking several mobs at a time was Mad Fun.
*Edit in the above comments about the class these are my own personal thoughts on the classes and are not intended to start a discussion on which class is better, the intent is to show how i personally compare the classes in such different games.
Gawd said:
I think the posters who are making the point of not being able to compare the characters due to a basic difference in playstyle of the game itself are over thinking this.
yes, if you use the marker of which class soloed better, or which parsed more dps i can see it being problematic. but i think the intent of this thread was more in line with the Flavor of the classes. the type of abilities, the feelings that were evoked while playing the class, the sense of actual unity with your avatar, how the class interacted with a group. you know the stuff you cant parse.
when i am comparing class design between the two games i try to remind myself of the essence of the class. not individual abilities so much. (although its hard not to think of those huge class defining abilities when comparing) to make my point here i will run through my thought process of the paladin comparison.
VG Paladin. the basic essence of the class to me is "AOE Tank" I can hold aggro on multiple targets simultaneously. with just a few group heals after initial engagement, and a well timed aoe taunt its fun and engaging to keep 4-5 mobs on me while the group and i mow em down one at a time. and i can even be a decent source of dps once in a while by stacking forced crits and a few other abilities making me temporarily able to paur damage on even non undead mobs.
EQ Paladin. the most basic essence of the class is "Cleric with high defense and heals that dont amount to much" I can use heals to help hold aggro, but honestly if i use taunt and bash its not needed. I can pull using pacifyat low levels. if the mobs arent immune to stun i can use stun rotations to reduce the healer's burden. I have buffs that are beneficial as long as no clerics are around. if we are fighting undead well then i can Faceroll undead.
Result IMO: VG Paladin Win! Fatality!
and this is mostly due to the VG paladin having his own unique focus on tanking groups. and it did help that tanking several mobs at a time was Mad Fun.
*Edit in the above comments about the class these are my own personal thoughts on the classes and are not intended to start a discussion on which class is better, the intent is to show how i personally compare the classes in such different games.
That is partly the problem, outside of raiding you barely ever got to see how your character performed in VG in a group environment, groups were simply unnecessary to get to max level and achieve a level of gear required to raid. VG was very WoW-ified sometime between beta and launch, then went pretty much pure solo quest grind when Sony got their mitts on it and did it dirty.
I say VG's combat was spammy, and I don't mean pressing the same ability over and over, since that is ludicrous to suggest about any MMORPG. What I mean is there was no resource management, you didn't need to conserve, so you tended to use an ability every single time your global cooldown was up, much in the way WoW's combat was managed. I would venture to say classic WoW had more resource management than VG ever had.
Since this is the case... I tend to dislike judging classes in that environment, because I dislike that form of combat and if I did judge them I'd give them all F's based on that.
The closest EQ got to spamming was Flying Kick or Backstab... Kick for warriors was never spammed simply because it was an interrupt and was saved for such. I like a system where using abilities is a decision that needs to be thought out before the fight, the 8 spell gems helped this, and they are carrying it over to Pantheon. I also like when those abilities are dramatic and make a huge difference in the fight, but cannot be used frivolously.
Rogue backstab is the best example of this, in VG you tended to spam abilities like this to do moderate damage on a consistent basis during a fight, same is said for WoW. EQ had a different approach, while Backstab did pop rather quickly when you were fully hasted, it was still at least a 5 second cooldown, and did much more damage to compensate.
I would like to see a system where I could technically backstab 10 times in a row in a fight if i had proper gear and resource pools, but that would create a large waiting period between fights to charge back up, or would limit me to auto attacking for the next 5 fights, alternatively I could backstab 1-2 times per fight and keep my energy high for oh crap moments where we pulled too many and I need to assassinate an enemy quickly as a form of CC.
I also don't think that a group should ever be able to handle tanking 4-5 mobs at one time, no tank should be able to maintain tanking more than 2 mobs within 10-20% of their level range for very long. I don't mind if classes have multi-tanking abilities, that is fine and can be used as a strategy when it is pertinent, raiding or possibly some double or triple healer mutt groups, but it shouldn't be the norm.
Rallyd said:
Rogue backstab is the best example of this, in VG you tended to spam abilities like this to do moderate damage on a consistent basis during a fight, same is said for WoW. EQ had a different approach, while Backstab did pop rather quickly when you were fully hasted, it was still at least a 5 second cooldown, and did much more damage to compensate.
.
I agree with this paragraph 100%. I often did conserve mana in EQ (didn't have energy for skills then), for these purposes. If melee's weapon skills also were placed into 8 spell/skill gems and were based off of stamina/energy, etc., I would do the same for them.
Rallyd said:
That is partly the problem, outside of raiding you barely ever got to see how your character performed in VG in a group environment, groups were simply unnecessary to get to max level and achieve a level of gear required to raid. VG was very WoW-ified sometime between beta and launch, then went pretty much pure solo quest grind when Sony got their mitts on it and did it dirty.
You needed a group in EQ as much as you did in Vanguard.... Never if you just wanted to kill in the out doors, I knew many people back in the day that reached 65 with not a single group, I also knew a few in Vanguard to do the same. However if you wanted to see dungeons at the level you were designed too, well then you needed a group, in both games.
Your blaming poor play on the designers, well no it is the players. Some players in both games would sit in a little corner and pull single mobs all day and whine the game was a grind and that it sucked to level. Always had great pity for these folks myself, as they just did not get it.
For me, levelling was a gravy bonus on seeing content. I grouped most of my way thorugh EQ on my half a dozen characters and almost all of my way on my near two dozen Vanguard characters (I had three accounts, and only ever boxed to harvest to fill open group slots). I hear all the time that there were no groups in VG, but that was not the case at all. harder to get than EQ back in the day? yep, but with a little work it was not hard, I have three accounts of characters to show, most are last two yrs of the games operation. Try to get a group now in EQ? You can solo in a day with potions and a merc to 70.
As far as Vanguard getting wowified? Played EQ lately, last 7 or 8 years in fact? VG was dumbed down over time no question, same as EQ was, same as EQII was. I hated it as much as you did I suspect, but that does not change the fact that from 1999 days you could solo in EQ as easily as VG, just back then took a little longer in EQ. But that was also changed, many times.
Wowification hit all of these games, and hard.