Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novastar
But all warriors don't have to be the same either. Different styles and techniques based on skill learned.....Correct?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tagad
I'll bet you a coke that we dont use a branching system.

~Tagad

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke
In that interview with Gamespot they both used the terms Class and Subclass multiple times. Jeff in particular. If I was a gambling man I would say that Vanguard will most assuredly have a branching system. I forget the exact words that Jeff used and I can't replay the video due to this being my work computer but he said almost exactly that each player will pick a class and then further sub class and specialize from that main class.

So what I'm saying is, I'll bet you a coke

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fammaden
I hope its not like that weird marshmallow fluff stuff that comes in a glass jar because I never liked that stuff too much. Maybe if the fluff was a marshmallow base with a raspberry flavor added or something then I would like it better. I don't know if adding flavor to fluff would substantially alter the fluff archetype beyond what it was intended to be though. I wouldn't want the people who enjoy plain fluff to feel disenfranchised by a new overpowered flavorful fluff archetype. Perhaps the new flavored fluff would end up being the same as plain fluff for all intents and purposes and we would be right back to the beginning with people who never liked marshmallow fluff "enjoying" a "new improved" fluff that was only differentiated by a superficial new flavor despite the fact that it actually conformed to the classic fluff archetype. It is all very confusing. Hopefully there will be a rainbow of opportunities at the end of this rocky road that does not make players feel like they are vanilla cookie cutters no matter what toppings they choose for their archetype.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zerorocky
Rywan, I'm thinking it will be more like that then EQ2. Classes will be given a primary role (remember, that's all we really know at the moment), though they will go about them with more variety then EQ@ does. I hope.

oh, and if Brad or someone reads this... I really really really hate the term "fluff". Makes it sound like these abilities are stupid and pointless. We don't need pointless abilities. Heck, every spell in everquest had a point, even low level "fluff" spells like Minor Illusion or Flash. Just a thought I had, because I think Brad said the dreaded F-word in one of the two recent interviews. Could be wrong though, my memory ain't what it once was...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian
At last I understand...the possibilities...I can just see all the fragmenting prisms as different people journey all around the world and each class finds its little niche and thus...its moment of heroism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eteric Rice
So more in this line?...

Lets just pretend for a minute that Knights and Paladins are the only classes in the game.

And lets say that Knights have special abilities that allow them to slay dragons easier, and Paladins have abilities that allow them to say... Slay undead (this is an example, I know this isn't how classes usually work)...

Your group wants to take out a Drake, which would be a dragon type, in this situation a Knight would tank better, and be more powerful against the drake.

But, later your friends want to run over and take on some undead... Then a Paladin would be the best bet, because he has better tools for the encounter, correct?

I just want to see if I get the idea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigdogchris
I know you can't do it but it would settle so many people if you could give actual game information say, about two Vanguard tank types and actually explain how they are different.

Would saying, the difference between a EQ Paladin and EQ Shadowknight be about as close as you can give an example of how Vanguard 'heavy armored fighters' will be the same?

---