Let's talk CLASS BALANCE [Archive]

Zuranthium

05-12-2011, 08:38 PM

I have much to say about class balance. While I love classic EQ, there is no doubt that the game was highly imbalanced in many ways, especially from Level 50+ and after the more powerful equipment entered the game. To understand more about my history with EQ, I suggest reading this - http://www.fippydarkpaw.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=11640#p11640 - before reading the rest of my post here (but it's not required to understand what I'm going to be talking about).

My main points of interest regarding class balance:

1.) Are Clerics absolutely REQUIRED for groups at the later levels? It used to be that you HAD to have a Cleric or else you literally couldn't group. Non-Cleric heals were far too inefficient. In my opinion, Clerics should only be a requirement for bosses and possibly a select amount of other game content. Druids should be able to function perfectly fine as the main healer for a party outside of those limited exceptions. Looking at the p1999 Wiki skill list, it appears that Druids are far behind.

Druids were roundly considered one of the most useless classes once the expansions came along. They were called upon for teleports to certain areas to save time and that's it. They weren't able to do ANYTHING else of value and were completely outclassed by Shaman, who had the same level of healing + excellent self energy regen + the most powerful slow debuff in the game + they could do MORE damage (and for less energy expended) because of having a worthwhile Pet and good haste spells and comparable DoT's/DD's + they got other buffs/debuffs that were a bit better (+Attribute buffs of every kind and the Malaise debuffs) and they even got SoW!!!

Having teleports does not balance out getting a Pet, the best slow debuff in the game, other buffs/debuffs that are superior in general, and excellent self energy regen to power all of those abilities even further and more efficiently! In my mind, these classes would only be balanced if:

*Druids could heal significantly better than Shaman...even with heals that were closer to Clerics, the Druid would still not actually be as efficient of a "defensive" character as the Shaman, considering how the latter class gets the best slow in the game and self energy regen to power their heals/debuffs.

*Shaman did not get pets...this is extra free damage that is a slap in the face to the INT casters, as it makes the Shaman capable of doing more damage over time than those classes. Very imbalanced how a powerful defensive class is additionally capable of producing more damage over time than a class entirely dedicated to offense!

2.) Is spellcaster damage (for the spellcasters who should actually be able to do great damage - Magicians, Wizards, and Necromancer) complete shit at the later levels in comparison to melee damage? After Kunark came out, these spellcasting classes took massive hit. Their spell progression became weak in comparison to earlier levels and melee classes got incredible new skills and equipment. Melee classes were doing something like 3x as much damage in comparison to a Magician (unless they had the epic pet, which is hardly a fair consideration and even then it was significantly lower) - a class that had the LEAST amount of utility out of all the casters and was dedicated to DPS! Being able to summon mod rods or perform the occasional Call of the Hero hardly makes a class equally viable.

Wizards had a more specific purpose of at least being able to provide burst damage against very difficult opponents but such a thing was only needed very occasionally. Their DPS over time was embarrassingly weak in comparison to a melee...about 1/5th of what a melee could do.

***In general I would say that part of the problem was mana regen. It's a problem when it starts taking more than 5 minutes to go from out-of-mana back up to a full bar. As characters went up more in level, the spells kept getting more expensive and more and more casts kept being needed to keep up DPS, but innate mana regen didn't rise to compensate. 5 minutes, without any mana buffs, is the absolute maximum space of time it should take to recover a full bar of mana. Any more than that simply becomes a useless grind and, in the case of the pure INT damage dealers, it drastically lowers their capabilities and makes them useless in comparison to melee characters.

The magical RESIST rates of monsters also became ridiculous and that further made magic-based DPS complete garbage. Both of those things (regen and resist) would need to be changed from what they were in original Kunark and Velious in order for the INT damage dealers to actually worthwhile team members. And for Wizards the efficiency of their nukes should really be improved somewhat across the board because I really do not think that their teleports and very occasional need for burst DPS puts them on equal ground with the sustained damage Magicians and Necromancers can do in comparison.

I would also say that the CASTING TIME of spells should be looked into as well. The HP of monsters in relation to player level becomes a wider and wider gap as the levels go up, and yet some of the spells take longer and longer to cast. This further makes INT casters less effective at doing what they are supposed to be good at and the long casting times are simply annoying in general. The spells start becoming ridiculously laborious; it's as if the caster has to take a cigarette break before they can even complete certain spells. This is completely understandable with spells like Complete Heal or Call of the Hero, but not for most everything else.

Rais

05-12-2011, 08:40 PM

Wizards should quad kite to 60.

Akim

05-12-2011, 08:50 PM

Clerics are not useless. you need one or a pally.

Druids and wizards.. a pitty. I've played a wizard anyway.
Shaman was a clear choice on druid for me, but I like the earlier levels as a druid snare dotting.

Are these actual suggestions to change the current system? That would be wrong to, for instance, take pets away from shaman; like you say.

Akim

05-12-2011, 08:51 PM

The harder discussion would be on the melee classes.

Cfred0-

05-12-2011, 08:57 PM

tldr this is EQ not wow, classes arent balanced get over it.

randal.flagg

05-12-2011, 08:58 PM

randal.flagg

05-12-2011, 08:59 PM

tldr this is EQ not wow, classes arent balanced get over it.

Its a discussion, get over it. I don't know why people flame so much... its so pointless and just distracts from a genuinely interesting conversation.

ojamajoe

05-12-2011, 09:01 PM

I'm not sure that the original designers were interested in class balance, in the way people usually think of it. They seem to have instead tried to create a variety of possible experiences, many appealing to very different player types and personalities.

They also had a (much-maligned) "vision", which called for (among other things) rarity for certain race/class combinations; and it appears they utilized the game mechanics to attempt to make that happen.

Although balanced classes are the expectation on entering a modern MMO, Everquest was my first MMORPG and I had no such expectations when I started playing it.

I miss the RPG part...

Swish

05-12-2011, 09:09 PM

1. In my experience up to LoY/LDoN as a shaman, I found that I COULD heal quite effectively and the downtime wasn't too significant with canni and a mount as long as people (with exception of the tank) weren't wanting a full suit of buffs.

As a shaman solo healer at low levels you cannot replace a cleric as a main healer, you can substitute in one's absence but a well twinked tank is going to be a hard time to keep at full health without oom'ing on inefficient heals.

Clerics should be and are the best healers in the game. Druids obviously enjoy the kiting BS that made me never want to play one, and shammies get to kite if they really want to or root-rot. Clerics don't quite have the luxury, and are much more group dependent - which should and does give them the edge over other healers.

If I could pick a healer class to heal my tank, it would have to be a cleric hands down.

a) For the fact that they have the better/more mana efficient heals.
b) Too many uninterested druids/shamans out there who don't WANT to heal or aren't used to doing it, and do a half baked job of it.

Power to the clerics ;)

Zuranthium

05-12-2011, 09:13 PM

Obviously the take-pets-away-from-Shaman thing is not going to be a popular suggestion. But I believe it is necessary to achieve balance given everything else the class is already capable of. If you read about my own experience with playing Everquest all the way back in 1999, you'll see that my first character was a Barbarian Shaman and I became addicted to the game on that character. However, I eventually decided that it wasn't the role (buffing/debuffing/healing) I wanted to play in the game.

I specifically became a Magician because I wanted to do damage, as a caster. If Shaman had pets starting at Level 9 or 14, I would have never switched to a Magician and fallen in love with the class. I would have been perfectly happy on Shaman because I would have been doing a lot of damage in addition to all of my other capabilities. Shamans with pets are overpowered. Considering they don't even get pets until 34, it seems like a rather half-assed addition to the class that the original creators put in the game and didn't think about long enough in terms of class balance.

I'm not sure that the original designers were interested in class balance, in the way people usually think of it. They seem to have instead tried to create a variety of possible experiences, many appealing to very different player types and personalities.

They also had a (much-maligned) "vision", which called for (among other things) rarity for certain race/class combinations; and it appears they utilized the game mechanics to attempt to make that happen.

Although balanced classes are the expectation on entering a modern MMO, Everquest was my first MMORPG and I had no such expectations when I started playing it.

I miss the RPG part...

I understand what you're saying and I'm SO with you on the RPG side of the game. I will totally roleplay when I start with p1999.

However, I certainly believe the original designers were interested in class balance (to some degree at least). If they weren't, then they wouldn't have given Rogues the "Evade" ability after people complained about how completely useless Rogues were because trying to utilize the "Backstab" ability generated enormous aggro and usually only ever result in the Rogue getting smashed. They wouldn't have buffed the poison abilities that Rogues have. They wouldn't have buffed all of the hybrid classes - Paladin/Shadowknight/Ranger - in response to how completely inferior those classes become in comparison to Warriors after Kunark was released.

Akim

05-12-2011, 09:19 PM

I liked playing my sk, war, paladin, and now enjoy my ranger. I didn't like my rogue much. Warrior was bland back then scraping for yaks when I played it. Monk feels too easy almost.

"However, I eventually decided that it wasn't the role (buffing/debuffing/healing) I wanted to play in the game. "
Been there.

Doors

05-12-2011, 09:20 PM

The only thing I'll agree with is that clerics being the only viable healer for kunark 50+ groups, raids etc is kind of lame. It limits your options significantly and makes forming groups harder.

I think if any modification was going to be made, it should be made to shaman and druid heals so anyone who wanted to play something other than a cleric/warrior/enchanter on p99 didn't get shit on just because they weren't as useful.

mwatt

05-12-2011, 09:30 PM

Wow. A lot of work to come up with suggestions that simply will not be implemented. This server is intended to provide the classic EQ experience, with both its beauty and its warts.

Kika Maslyaka

05-12-2011, 09:31 PM

classic class balance sucks...
eq1 class balance sucks in general...
welcome to P99 :D

Volsic

05-12-2011, 09:39 PM

No. You're dumb.

Danth

05-12-2011, 09:40 PM

The problem with healing isn't that Druids and Shamans suck (though perhaps their heals don't scale as much as they should), but rather that Clerics are too good at it. This has the additional result, according to standard EQ class design, of the Cleric being pretty terrible for any job *except* healing, which results in a mandatory class that's pretty crummy outside its area of expertise.

The Warrior suffers the same issue--it dominates its raid main tank role, yet it's rubbish for everything else. Rogues have a little more flexibility thanks to hide/sneak, but not much, and are mostly sub-par for anything except sustained damage dealing.

Most modern MMORPG's have consequently eliminated the notion of the "pure" class that can only do a single job. It's just too inflexible. In the long run, the hybrids won out. It's easy to see why. Remove the 'pure' classes, and EQ's remaining classes are pretty well balanced within their roles. Shadow Knights and Paladins are pretty similar as tanks; Druids and Shamans are both about equal as healers (albeit with vastly different secondary functions), and most the remaining damage-dealers are pretty close, too. Exceptions exist of course--this post is strictly general--but overall the problem classes in EQ are and have always been the 'pure' classes.

------------------------------------

As far as Project 1999 is concerned, everyone here should be aware of EQ's historical flaws. We have the benefit of hindsight. Class balance problems as they pertain to P1999 therefore take on a different meaning. The phrase, as used here, refers to situations where some class's ability is not replicated correctly, to either advantageous or detrimental effect on the class in question relative to its historic performance.

Danth

aubie

05-12-2011, 09:44 PM

Zuranthium

05-12-2011, 09:50 PM

Wow. A lot of work to come up with suggestions that simply will not be implemented. This server is intended to provide the classic EQ experience, with both its beauty and its warts.

The "classic EQ experience" is something that was ever-changing. Most everyone agrees that everything pre-Luclin is considered "classic EQ". But at what point within that spectrum should THIS game, p1999, be defined? It is a very important question. Rogues were complete shit at one point in classic. Paladins, Shadowknights, and Rangers were also shit for a very long time after Kunark came out and didn't get buffed until well after Velious.

I'm not sure exactly what balances are in place in the game right now, but I'm assuming that Rogues do in fact have "Evade" and the the Hybrid classes have the post-buff stats from the Velious era at levels 50+.

The only thing I'll agree with is that clerics being the only viable healer for kunark 50+ groups, raids etc is kind of lame. It limits your options significantly and makes forming groups harder.

I think if any modification was going to be made, it should be made to shaman and druid heals so anyone who wanted to play something other than a cleric/warrior/enchanter on p99 didn't get shit on just because they weren't as useful.

That's more than the "only thing you agree with" if you also feel that every class shouldn't be shit on when it comes to finding groups. After Kunark came out, the classes that were viable for groups, in addition to the Holy Trinity you just mentioned, were Shaman, Bards, Monks, and (at Level 55, with dual backstab) Rogues. Some time after Velious came out, Shadowknights, Paladins, and Rangers also got buffed and became viable at that point.

But that still meant Magicians, Necromancers, Wizards (for exp groups), and especially Druids were not desired very much.

A friend of mine played Everquest with both of this parents - they played 6 characters altogether and were able to do much of the content in the game without ever participating with a guild. Their setup was Warrior, Monk, Cleric, Shaman, Enchanter, and Wizard (only because they needed a teleport character and Wizards were at least better than Druids). They would routinely laugh at Guilds who would wipe against content that those 6 could handle themselves. Specific classes very much had a monopoly on the game and it became very unfun to play the other classes.

garyogburn

05-12-2011, 10:06 PM

Zuranthium

05-12-2011, 10:11 PM

EQ is fair, but what most people don't understand is that "fair" does not mean "equal". Decide what you want to do, and pick the class that will come closest to accomplishing that. The problem occurs when you pick the class you want, and then are dissatisfied with what the class can do. If this project is to survive, the devs will not kowtow to the masses. There exist games that do what you wish...search them out.

It's not about "kowtowing to the masses" - it's about seeing original Everquest through as it was supposed to be. Updates were made to the game CONSTANTLY. When the game first came out pets were deemed too powerful (especially Necromancer pets because they could dual wield and, at the time, weapons with low delay also improved their base attack speed) and they were subsequently nerfed. Rogues were deemed too shitty and they were subsequently buffed. Lots of items in the game were modified. Etc, etc.

When Kunark came about, class balance become completely lopsided because the developers were focusing on trying to create new content in order to make more MONEY. They were not focusing as much on how the changes introduced with Kunark completely messed up the game they had originally created. Don't get me wrong, I actually love the content in Kunark, but that expansion very much screwed up the game in many ways.

Now that we DO have control over how to balance the game, we are able to fix the problems that were not taken care of before. People should be happy for changes that shape the best possible kind of classic EQ experience. Again, Everquest was always changing. There's no point in trying to say "that's not classic EQ?!?!" - such a statement does not have reasoning behind it. Any opinion should be backed with reasoning as to WHY a specific change would negatively hinder the game or why a specific change would BENEFIT the game.

I'm not trying to implement the removal of corpse runs, or the addition of in-game maps, or something retarded like that. What I'm trying to do here is offer my expertise as to how we can create the best EQ possible.

Just look at other threads here: the developers are openly welcoming ideas as to how something like Plane of Knowledge, which was by far the worst thing to ever happen to the game, could actually now be incorporated into this version of the game such that it is simply a very special and hard-to-reach area for high level players only. It's great to see that there is freedom with regards to ideas being considered. Personally, I think Plane of Knowledge is complete shit from a design standpoint (the zone should look far more mystical than it actually does) and should never be in the game. There's simply no point to that zone at all.

Kika Maslyaka

05-12-2011, 10:22 PM

the thing is- the people who run P99 are not interested in making a better game, they want things exactly how they suck... err were back then :D

gnomishfirework

05-12-2011, 10:40 PM

You are directing this to the wrong people.

EQLive has addressed many of your issues. Problem solved.

Zuranthium

05-13-2011, 12:11 AM

Gonna have to disagree with shaman pets being OP. Sure, they provide free damage, but the 55 pet (the last pet we get on this server) Is hardly better than the 49 pet, and will do about half the damage of the 50s mage/necro pets.

Shaman pets allow shamans the choice to use slow while soloing. Given two weapons they do some damage, but soloing is very slow, especially with kunark mobs. Our buffs make them surprisingly resilient, but hell, I can tank mobs that are slowed, too.

But heres a question: how much does Torpor change the healing game for shamans?

Shaman were the only class that could solo the roaming dragons in Velious. The pet may be weaker than the Magician/Necro pets but it still provides a considerable amount of extra damage for the Shaman (more than having a whole extra DoT line) at little extra expense and when soloing against mobs where it can hold aggro/survive, that means the Shaman also doesn't have to spend energy on root or engage in melee themselves.

Again, the pet allows them to provide extra damage to a group that is comparable to an INT caster when you combine it with their other damage capability and mana-regen (and that's not even taking into account HASTE, which buffs up the damage for the Physicals in the party if a better one is not present), and they get SoW, and they get heals, AND they get amazing debuffs.

Without the pet, a Shaman could still solo just fine. They would no longer be one of the best solo classes in the game from Level 34+, but they would still be better off than many other classes. Improve their self-only melee buff line such that they would be more effective at soloing by using slow + DoT's + swinging their weapon, if soloing capability is a concern.

I mean, if we are going to talk about classes not being able to SOLO very well, then we better talk about Warriors and Rogues. The latter especially get the short end of the stick. I do believe that out-of-combat regen should be increased for the "Physical" based classes, FYI. The Bandaging skill should be buffed to allow for that in a such way as to require some effort.

But, back to your last question, the Cannibalize becomes more and more powerful for a Shaman as they go up in level. Each cannibalize skill becomes more efficient and the heals the Shaman has to heal themself from the health lost from cannibalize keep getting more efficient as well. Which is why I said that even IF the Druid's healing capabilities were vastly improved, they still wouldn't be as good of a defensive character as a Shaman on their own because of the fact that, in addition to the Shaman's superior energy management, the Shaman's slow debuff will prevent FAR more damage over time with that one cast than any single healing spell a Druid could cast.

However, IF the Druid's healing capabilities were indeed improved considerably, then that means they could fill in for a Cleric in many instances. The Cleric would still be a better healer than a Druid, they would still have better defensive buffs, and they would still be essential for parts of the game, and they would still have the very important Ressurect line...but they would no longer be necessary for the majority of the higher level content. When you want to go fight a GOD or some other especially hard boss or area, then it's perfectly acceptable for the game to require you to have a Cleric (or multiple) in order to win. But you shouldn't need a Cleric just to go fight through any given higher level dungeon. When that happens, the game becomes "Well, there's no Clerics available, so it looks like we can't play today".

Kika Maslyaka

05-13-2011, 12:28 AM

all good points. Too bad The Vision is too fucked up to allow deviation

I really liked how they set up healers in EQ2 - everyone had their own style. Cleric had direct heals and reactive heals, druid was heal over time, and shaman prevented damage with runes.

And yeah I totally agree than having just ONE mandatory healer out of 14 freaken classes is dumb beyond believe.

Ennoia

05-13-2011, 01:13 AM

Its a discussion, get over it. I don't know why people flame so much... its so pointless and just distracts from a genuinely interesting conversation.

It's so pointless to discuss class balance because that's how the game is/was/always has been.

odizzido

05-13-2011, 02:19 AM

A shaman and a necro can do some pretty decent healing. Necros can heal for 125 a tick forever, and with a shaman slowing harder mobs and healing when needed you can take some pretty tough camps. Obviously a cleric is better than both classes combined...most of the time....but I don't think a cleric is required for post 50 kunark dungeons with most areas.

Anyways I think it is pretty fair. If you want to do the most DPS you pay the price of being useless outside of a group.

The only two classes I feel got the shaft are rangers and wizards. Wizard nukes are not really that much better than mage nukes, and mages get a badass pet. Ports, while nice, certainly do not make up for this. Rangers are pretty much rogues with no backstab. The spells they get instead are next to useless.

Zuranthium

05-13-2011, 03:06 AM

It's so pointless to discuss class balance because that's how the game is/was/always has been.

Several people keep making that statement, but that statement is a blatant lie. There is no such thing as one set "that's how the game is/was/always has been."

Again, I will say: Class balance, as well as a multitude of other game features, changed many times during the Classic era. This very server has constantly made specific decisions as to how it wants things to be. This very server is not an exact replica of Everquest at ANY point in its history. This server is trying to replicate an original EQ experience in the most fair and effective ways possible. When we first played EQ, a lot of the flaws didn't really matter because the game itself was so enrapturing. Now that we no longer have the "ignorance is bliss" perception towards the game, steps should be taken to make it the best game it can possibly be with regards to recapturing the ESSENCE of what original EQ was.

Anyways I think it is pretty fair. If you want to do the most DPS you pay the price of being useless outside of a group.

The game is inherently ABOUT being in groups, though. You can't even solo very well at the higher levels. How is it fair that melee classes do 3x the damage, or more, of caster classes whose primary roles are to deal damage? Also, Shadowknights can solo quite well, so that ruins the argument you've put forth (note - I am not attacking you, just trying to set forth the facts here).

Aprio

05-13-2011, 08:38 AM

It's moot, the "class balances" you discuss about the other wisdom classes being able to heal effectively were not implemented on live till PoP. P99 stops at Velious (thank god). If you want to heal effectively play a cleric. Don't moan that your not as good as the cleric because the cleric sure as heck isn't screaming about being able to solo like a beast.

The game has classes that will do what you want, read the class descriptions maybe?

Fryhole

05-13-2011, 09:38 AM

I've been itching to comment on this since I saw the thread the other day. I had a 55 druid that I retired around mid-Velious.

You're right, you pretty much can't solo heal a group (or possibly a bad group) - you need to adapt. Throw another priest class in, or grab an enchanter - a decent one which will control your groups pace. (and double your MP regen) This game was designed with trade-offs in mind. If you have any kind of advantage over another class, you usually pay for it. The druid IS the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, and that's just how it is, paid for in full.

It's all about the play style you're looking for - if you want an extremely mobile priest class that can solo incredibly well (esp with ES vambraces & the AoE lightning staff), cast big nukes and evac you don't really have a lot of choices. Things are even better outdoors.

- You can solo extremely well (root rot, quad kite, porcupine)
- Very high mobility
- Decent nukes
- Big game hunter (tracking & killing rares)

Trade offs
-No resurrection
-Not going to be the MH on a raid
-Can do almost anything another class can, except not as good
-Most likely not going to solo something that summons

I think the changes you're looking for are only going to see the light of day if you start your own server.

This server is trying to replicate an original EQ experience in the most fair and effective ways possible.
You might think this, but it's not the case.

Extunarian

05-13-2011, 09:39 AM

Maybe I don't play my character right, but at pretty much any given level from 1-54 a mage of equal level could solo more efficiently than my shaman.

At 54 my pet tops out at level 36, hits for 51 and costs 500 mana. Since the mana cost is so high you don't want him dying so you toss on regrowth & talisman, and his DPS is so low you need to give him STR+haste. You also need to slow every mob the dog will tank, and then root because the pet can't out-agro our Slow, so suddenly your 'manaless dot' is kind of expensive to maintain. Did I mention it hits for 51? Sometimes?

A 54 mage gets to choose from a level 46 water pet, air pet or earth pet, but probably will just chain cast his level 42 fire pet of facerape with built-in DS for 200 mana a pop.

Necros too are more efficient than shaman when it comes to bringing down single mob after single mob after single mob.

Of course a druid doesn't need to worry about a pet because they just quad for 3 minutes and then turn into a tree and go do the dishes for 6 minutes. I'm not even sure why you would want a pet for quadding. And though I've never parsed it, I would bet that a druid's DS adds more DPS to a group than a wimpy shaman pet.

Basically, you can always overlook the deficiencies of another class and think 'wow my paladin would be so much better if it just had feign death. SK's are so overpowered!' but you'd be discounting the price they had to pay in another area for that skill.

Extunarian

05-13-2011, 09:41 AM

Also, as far as mages getting screwed, I was just in a group with 4 mages, a druid and myself and we basically walked through chardok. The druid and I pretended to do stuff, but we really weren't.

Dynaguy

05-13-2011, 09:55 AM

Messianic

05-13-2011, 09:56 AM

This is actually a pretty decent discussion, all things considered. It's relatively moot to how p99 is going to progress, but definitely neat.

I hadn't done parsing, but I always suspected wizard damage in a group was incredibly minuscule compared to sustained melee dps from a rogue or even a ranger. I enjoy the class, but pretty much all we're super-efficient at is AoE and raid burst damage.

To me, i'm completely unconcerned about class "Balance" if we mean balance in the sense that WoW has created. I want some classes to be helpless without other classes. I want some classes that are overpowered soloists. I want the variety. I like super-specialized classes (like wizards) with a completely unique flavor.

Malrubius

05-13-2011, 10:07 AM

Extunarian

05-13-2011, 10:13 AM

I hadn't done parsing, but I always suspected wizard damage in a group was incredibly minuscule compared to sustained melee dps from a rogue or even a ranger. I enjoy the class, but pretty much all we're super-efficient at is AoE and raid burst damage..

This should be true...but then who else is going to burn down that bad pull and save the raid or group from a wipe? Not the monk or rogue! The burst dps + evac is a nice insurance policy for any group deep in a dungeon.

stormlord

05-13-2011, 10:18 AM

Wow. A lot of work to come up with suggestions that simply will not be implemented. This server is intended to provide the classic EQ experience, with both its beauty and its warts.Part of the enjoyment being here is in reviewing what has happened over the past 12 years and what we can learn from it. I don't think anybody wants to change p1999. I want it to stay the way it's because I like it that way. But I like the freedom to discuss things and be critical of this game just for academic reasons.

Deathrydar

05-13-2011, 10:19 AM

I am one of those people that say, to hell with balance! EverQuest was created with one thing in mind: A huge variety of possibilites! Those possiblities are only a reality if you broaden your horizons, and to achieve that, you have to stray away from the "staus quo", for a lack of a better word.

I, for one, love the fact that there are classes like Wizards that are OP with damage over other classes and there are classes that are CONSIDERED weak, like the Ranger. This seperates the men from the boys because if you can play a Ranger well, then you rock! If you can't play a Wizard well, then you may be border-line retarded.

To me, choosing a race and class is like choosing the difficulty level in a regular video game. You want easy mode? Play a Halfling Druid. You want a hard experience? Play a Human Rogue. You want a difficult experience? Play an Iksar Shadow Knight.

No other game (Except VanfailGuard) has the vast race and class selection that EverQuest has. Do you know why? Well, probably because it wouldn't be possible to balance all of these races and classes even if you tried.

Bottom line: EverQuest allows you to select your own difficulty level. And in an MMO, it doesn't exist anywhere else!

Messianic

05-13-2011, 10:19 AM

This should be true...but then who else is going to burn down that bad pull and save the raid or group from a wipe? Not the monk or rogue! The burst dps + evac is a nice insurance policy for any group deep in a dungeon.

True, but it's just as valid to say that the sustained DPS over the course of the group might have prevented the need for burst dps or evac anyhow... ;)

NickN8N

05-13-2011, 10:21 AM

Druid and Magician are the easiest classes in the game to level, there has to be a penalty of some sort for having it so easy.

stormlord

05-13-2011, 10:23 AM

stormlord

05-13-2011, 10:29 AM

Druid and Magician are the easiest classes in the game to level, there has to be a penalty of some sort for having it so easy.Geez, why did you skip over necro. As long as you're careful where you go (lot of people hate you) then it's a breeze and also very convenient since you can FD at any moment to go afk and be safe.

Shadey

05-13-2011, 10:32 AM

Geez, why did you skip over necro. As long as you're careful where you go (lot of people hate you) then it's a breeze and also very convenient since you can FD at any moment to go afk and be safe.

Now I have to agree and disagree with you here. Yes Necro's are kings of soloing. But to play a Necro well isn't a breeze. :)

The same could be said about all classes. But we all know there are really good players at their class and really bad ones (and some in the middle too). If it was a breeze for each of us then everyone would be exactly the same on their char.

Orruar

05-13-2011, 10:41 AM

Shaman were the only class that could solo the roaming dragons in Velious. The pet may be weaker than the Magician/Necro pets but it still provides a considerable amount of extra damage for the Shaman (more than having a whole extra DoT line) at little extra expense and when soloing against mobs where it can hold aggro/survive, that means the Shaman also doesn't have to spend energy on root or engage in melee themselves.

...

But, back to your last question, the Cannibalize becomes more and more powerful for a Shaman as they go up in level. Each cannibalize skill becomes more efficient and the heals the Shaman has to heal themself from the health lost from cannibalize keep getting more efficient as well. ...

Quit while you're ahead, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

- My pet costs 750 mana to summon. With a 4 level range, I try to get one of the top 2 pets to use. This means on average, I spent 1500 mana to summon this pet. I don't want him to die, so I have to buff him with Kragg (375 mana), regrowth (300 mana every 18 minutes), and then buff him with str every hour and haste every 11 minutes so that he'll do 30 dps instead of 20. Then I need to slow anything I'm going to kill, so there's another 250 mana per mob. Hardly "little extra expense".

- Did you seriously suggest that shaman pets can hold agro? I can give my pet 2 stun whips, and I'll still pull agro by sneezing. If I want my pet to hold agro, I'd have to wait about 90 seconds before slowing, and I better not even consider dotting.

-No intelligent shaman heals themselves so that they can canni more. Unless you're talking torpor, doing that is rather pointless. Our direct heals are barely more mana efficient than canni, and when you factor in lost mana due to missing med ticks, you actually lose mana from that deal. Even if you work your ass off and only canni/heal between med ticks, all this extra work leads to extra mana regen of around 3 per tick.

Dynaguy

05-13-2011, 10:45 AM

Dr4z3r

05-13-2011, 10:47 AM

We cannot deliberately change anything away from classic, for one blindingly obvious reason.

What Verant/Sony did is an objective standard.

Everything else is not.

Zuranthium

05-13-2011, 03:07 PM

You're right, you pretty much can't solo heal a group (or possibly a bad group) - you need to adapt. Throw another priest class in, or grab an enchanter - a decent one which will control your groups pace. (and double your MP regen) This game was designed with trade-offs in mind. If you have any kind of advantage over another class, you usually pay for it. The druid IS the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, and that's just how it is, paid for in full.

1.) "Throw another priest class in"?? This statement doesn't make sense. A Shaman and a Druid together simply can not heal through most of the higher level content. If you "throw a Cleric in" then that speaks to the exact problem I was talking about - you NEED a Cleric to simply play the game at higher levels (and not just the very top end content). This is wrong. And once you have the Cleric in your party, a Shaman (or any melee class) is going to be at the front of the line for another other spot in the party before Druids are.

2.) Druids are not even a true jack-of-all-trades, Bards are, and there was almost never a case at higher levels where a group would take a Druid over a Bard. Just speaking from personal experience here. Jack-of-all-Trades means you can perform almost any given role in a pinch. Druids can not mesmerize. Druids can not provide huge amounts of party wide regen. Druids can not slow mobs. Druids generate far less damage than a Bard who wants to be offensive. Quite simply, Druids have teleports. And that's it. Not something a party actually needs. Maybe when they are done fighting, as you've sat LFG watching them for hours, they will give you some money to teleport them to the nearest city. Gee, that sure does sound like a fun role to play.

It's all about the play style you're looking for - if you want an extremely mobile priest class that can solo incredibly well (esp with ES vambraces & the AoE lightning staff), cast big nukes and evac you don't really have a lot of choices. Things are even better outdoors.

Druids don't cast big nukes. The Wizard is the only class capable of nuking at higher levels. Nukes from any other class are simply minor amounts of extra DPS. The amount of HP mobs have and the resist rates they have make nukes continually worse as you go up in level, to the point where non-Wizard nukes are complete trash.

I'm not sure what value the moniker of "priest class" is even supposed to have, given that Druids can NOT act as the defensive glue of the team. Again, Clerics become absolutely necessary. In the times where they aren't absolutely necessary, a Shaman is still the only other viable Priest class if you don't have an Enchanter. As I've said, the Shaman's vastly superior mana regeneration and their best-in-game slow spell allows them to prevent a MASSIVE amount more damage over time than a Druid. A Shaman on their own is literally as effective of a defensive character as 4 Druids put together. That is the power of their slow. If you have an Enchanter around to provide the slow, then MAYBE a Druid can possibly act as Priest for certain areas, but it's still a vastly inferior setup to having a Shaman because the Shaman's slow is better than the Enchanter's and they have more energy to utilize.

So, going back to the "what you're looking for", Druids can quad-kite and they can travel extremely well. And....yeah. That's it. That is not a complete class. What does it matter if you can quickly travel anywhere if nobody wants to group with you? You certainly can not quad-kite in the majority of the areas of the game either. Quad kiting in fact limits you to only fighting in a handful of areas in the game, if that is supposedly what a Druid is "meant to do" (and it's NOT - the game designers specifically said they never intended for Druids and Wizards to be doing that), which pretty much goes against the whole awesome mobility thing Druids had going for them.

Zuranthium

05-13-2011, 05:12 PM

Lack of class balance is one of the biggest charms of this classic server. I like to feel special in the role I've chosen, knowing that I can do things that other classes just can't do, or can't do as effectively.

Look at WoW, where everyone gets their panties in a bunch when a patch has nerfed the shaman to heal for 1% less HPS than a druid, or a rogue does 1% less DPS than a hunter. It's a nightmare for every game designer to make every DPS spec do exactly the same DPS, and every heal spec heals the same HPS. And what have they gained? A bunch of generic classes that can basically all do the same, just with a different name.

Balance is boring.This. I've used the term "balanced to death" to describe other MMORPGs out there.

Once you've completely balanced everything you might as well be playing a word processor.

Indeed, balance is boring.

I agree with this, but what you speak of is not what I'm envisioning. I simply believe every class should be viable. The classes I've spoken of are not viable for a group that's trying to tackle difficult content at higher levels. It is possible for all of the classes to have a unique feel and still be worthwhile. The balance I speak of is not trying to balance everything so that every class is "perfectly" level, but rather balancing the classes so that when you go to form a group it's not a case of "Hey, we NEED a Warrior. Hey, we NEED a Cleric. Hey, we NEED an Enchanter". Certainly you should need certain classes for certain areas of the game, but for the large majority of the content no specific class should be required.

--------

A 54 mage gets to choose from a level 46 water pet, air pet or earth pet, but probably will just chain cast his level 42 fire pet of facerape with built-in DS for 200 mana a pop.

Perhaps something is different in this version of the game but chain-casting the fire pet didn't work when I played. The fire pet would often not cast his damage shield as soon as you summon him and he wouldn't cast it when engaged in battle (which is right when you summon him if you're chain casting). Chain-casting pets was a rather worthless endeavor unless you were specifically trying to solo something where your pet can't live long enough before you nuked the mob down, and in those cases you would chain-cast the Earth pet and have to spend mana on casting your own damage shield each time as well.

Of course a druid doesn't need to worry about a pet because they just quad for 3 minutes and then turn into a tree and go do the dishes for 6 minutes. I'm not even sure why you would want a pet for quadding. And though I've never parsed it, I would bet that a druid's DS adds more DPS to a group than a wimpy shaman pet.

6 minutes? Go higher. It's more like 12 minutes to regen your mana, given how it takes casters longer and longer to natural-regen from OOM to full bar as they go up in level. Every single cast of Lightning Blast takes a full minute for a Druid to regen, plus they have to spend mana on the snare, plus they have to pick off the mobs at the end because mobs never die evenly when you're Quad Kiting. Druids "turning into a tree" doesn't increase their mana regen until the Level 59 tree spell and even then it's not a great downtime reliever.

As for a Druid's DS, that is one of the more useful things they offer to a group and it is admittedly more damage than the Shaman's pet IF you aren't just fighting low/mid blue-cons. However, the Druid is still going to be doing less damage with DoT's as compared to the Shaman DoT. And Shaman get haste. And Shaman get the best slow in the game. And Shaman get incredible self mana regeneration.

--------

Did you seriously suggest that shaman pets can hold agro? I can give my pet 2 stun whips, and I'll still pull agro by sneezing. If I want my pet to hold agro, I'd have to wait about 90 seconds before slowing, and I better not even consider dotting.

If you're farming very low blues, the pet will hold aggro (as far as I remember), if slow is not used and you wait a little bit before applying the Poison DoT.

My pet costs 750 mana to summon. With a 4 level range, I try to get one of the top 2 pets to use. This means on average, I spent 1500 mana to summon this pet. I don't want him to die, so I have to buff him with Kragg (375 mana), regrowth (300 mana every 18 minutes), and then buff him with str every hour and haste every 11 minutes so that he'll do 30 dps instead of 20. Then I need to slow anything I'm going to kill, so there's another 250 mana per mob. Hardly "little extra expense".

The cost to summon is negligible. That is simply part of the set-up time when you log in and then you have the pet for the remainder. Kragg doesn't need to be cast at all. Why would you waste mana on that? That would only be needed if you're trying to camp a specific monster solo who is particularly difficult. You do cast Shroud of the Spirits, along with Deliriously Nimble and Stength, though. Altogether that is 400 mana per hour. Hardly anything at all. Alacrity only costs 100 mana every 12-14 minutes (it lasts 11 minutes and doesn't need to be active when the pet isn't actively in combat). Regrowth is more expensive, costing 260-some mana every 18 minutes, and you often need to spend 220-ish on the slow once per monster, but that's not too bad considering this next part I'm about going to talk about (plus, IN A GROUP you don't need to give the pet defensive buffs and you're going to be slowing anyway - which results in the pet being quite a bit of "free" damage):

No intelligent shaman heals themselves so that they can canni more. Unless you're talking torpor, doing that is rather pointless. Our direct heals are barely more mana efficient than canni, and when you factor in lost mana due to missing med ticks, you actually lose mana from that deal. Even if you work your ass off and only canni/heal between med ticks, all this extra work leads to extra mana regen of around 3 per tick.

The extra mana regen is far more than 3 per tick. LOL!!! Only at the lower levels of cannibalize and healing efficiency is a Shaman going to get that little of a benefit from the skill. At the higher levels, with Chloroblast and being Alt specialized, it certainly is worthwhile to constantly canni inbetween med ticks and then start Chloroblasting yourself between med ticks when you get low on health. Cannibalize III is a 1.85 health-to-mana rate. Chloroblast is something like a 2.85 health-to-mana rate. You of course have Torpor (Regrowth in this case, the lower-level version that is not as powerful, since I'm not even talking about a Level 60 Shaman where Cannibalize IV and Torpor make things even MORE eficient) and natural health regen on top of that.

All in all, you can Cannibalize 8 times for every single cast of Chloroblast you need to do. Which means over the course of 9 ticks, you are gaining about 160 extra mana when also subtracting the little bit you need to expend on casting Regrowth every 20 minutes. The natural mana regen a caster has at this level is 21 per tick. With the Cannibalize system going, the Shaman is gaining an extra 17 mana per tick - This is an 80% increase in mana regen a Shaman has over another caster working off of natural regen. That is a freaking HUGE difference.

Hamahakki

05-13-2011, 06:35 PM

Zuranthium is clearly an old school EQ player with some good ideas but this thread misses the point.

The intent of Project 1999 is to recreate EQ as it was during the first couple of years following its launch. This means replicating the original game as closely as possible, not creating some custom content which is different but attempts to recapture the "spirit" or "feeling" of the original game.

Adding or removing class abilities, globally tuning mob strength or cast times, and increasing or reducing the damage and healing capabilities of classes are all off the table. Whether or not they would be an improvement is immaterial.

Fryhole

05-13-2011, 06:56 PM

The class is meant to fill a role when another 'pure' class isn't available. Sorry it's not what you wanted - pick something else then. Not gonna bother quoting your responses and countering them because it's clear you didn't take the time to do the research either. /thread

Zuranthium

05-13-2011, 07:54 PM

The class is meant to fill a role when another 'pure' class isn't available.

And it completely fails at doing so. I agree that should be what the class is capable of doing and I believe that IS what the game designers wanted the class to be capable of, but with the way the game is currently programmed that simply isn't what the class is capable of doing at the higher levels. The Druid absolutely can not fill in as the healer. The druid absolutely can not fill in as a separate form of defense (ie - debuffs to monsters, especially the very import slow mechanic, or some other significant form of damage prevention). The Druid absolutely can not fill in as DPS. The Druid absolutely can not serve as crowd control (in most cases).

Not gonna bother quoting your responses and countering them because it's clear you didn't take the time to do the research either.

Research? I lived Everquest from its earliest (non-beta) days and my mind is perfectly capable of recollection. And FYI, before posting my thoughts, there are some details that I have in fact still gone back to check anyway.

Kika Maslyaka

05-13-2011, 08:04 PM

one thing I agree on for sure, is that during classic timeline, Druid is a jack of HALF-trades, rather than jack of ALL trades :D

It wasn't until time of PoP, when druids truly could substitute for cleric as a 3/4 healer, or could contribute some decent (not good as true dps classes, but still decent) DPS to the group

Nivar Quartz

05-13-2011, 08:29 PM

Taryth

05-13-2011, 09:10 PM

Zuranthium

05-13-2011, 09:21 PM

Once again, that's not what I am attempting to do. Please read carefully.

Spud

05-13-2011, 11:25 PM

Again, I will say: Class balance, as well as a multitude of other game features, changed many times during the Classic era. This very server has constantly made specific decisions as to how it wants things to be. This very server is not an exact replica of Everquest at ANY point in its history. This server is trying to replicate an original EQ experience in the most fair and effective ways possible. When we first played EQ, a lot of the flaws didn't really matter because the game itself was so enrapturing. Now that we no longer have the "ignorance is bliss" perception towards the game, steps should be taken to make it the best game it can possibly be with regards to recapturing the ESSENCE of what original EQ was.

Not true!

This server is ALL about replicating EQ as closely as possible through Velious, down to each nerf and patch.

Now... its not a 100% replica, perfect is not possible, there are certain limitations due to the eqemu coding. We're not forced to stare at our spell book while meding, but otherwise the dev team follows the EverQuest's patch history as close as possible.

Also I will echo what others have said say that the unbalanced nature of the classes makes this game interesting, it adds depth to the gameplay and makes specialized classes fun to play etc.

Can it be frustrating at times to be the Ranger who gets made fun of constantly in /ooc and is left out of groups? Sure but when you get to level 60 it makes the accomplishment that much more rewarding.

On live I played a cleric and could easily get in a group within minutes of logging on. But I was always jealous of the utility of the druids. I wanted DoTs, i wanted SoW, i wanted INVIS, i wanted to teleport, track and the ability to solo!!

So when p1999 came around I rolled a Druid. Now I can't complain when I have trouble finding groups when at the same time I can solo stuff naked.

BTW I mained healed a Karnors group for hours today at level 53. Once we get Superior Heal we are at least a viable backup option for MH if there is no cleric around.

Zuranthium

05-13-2011, 11:54 PM

Not true!

:confused: :confused: :confused:

How is it not true? Class balance factually changed throughout classic EQ.

Also I will echo what others have said say that the unbalanced nature of the classes makes this game interesting, it adds depth to the gameplay and makes specialized classes fun to play etc. Can it be frustrating at times to be the Ranger who gets made fun of constantly in /ooc and is left out of groups? Sure but when you get to level 60 it makes the accomplishment that much more rewarding.

And what about the people who want to play those classes and not feel like they are crap? If you want to make the game harder for yourself you can specifically avoid the less easy zones as you adventure and try to level.

Adds depth to the gameplay? I really can't agree with that at all. Adding depth to the gameplay would be something that makes players interact more or something that makes the game require more skill. Playing a shitty class doesn't make the game require more skill, it just means you won't actually be able to go adventure and fight where/when you want to as a result of being undesirable for groups.

BTW I mained healed a Karnors group for hours today at level 53. Once we get Superior Heal we are at least a viable backup option for MH if there is no cleric around.

I'm sorry but Karnor's isn't that demanding. Wait until you level up more and get into the hard zones. The content becomes so difficult that you MUST have a Cleric and you MUST have a buffed up melee (and only a Warrior or Monk suffices because, if "the timeline" is being followed, then Paladin's/SK's can't tank at that level and won't be able to until well into Velious). Often you MUST have a crowd controller as well.

After you've gotten up there with the Kunark content and are getting discouraged about just how little you're able to do, it only gets worse with Velious. The Holy Trinity of Warrior-Cleric-Enchanter becomes even MORE of a requirement there, as the monsters' resist rates and stats reach even higher heights of ridiculousness.

Harputluyuzz

05-14-2011, 07:04 AM

Thanks for share

Dynaguy

05-14-2011, 08:57 AM

The extra mana regen is far more than 3 per tick. LOL!!! Only at the lower levels of cannibalize and healing efficiency is a Shaman going to get that little of a benefit from the skill. At the higher levels, with Chloroblast and being Alt specialized, it certainly is worthwhile to constantly canni inbetween med ticks and then start Chloroblasting yourself between med ticks when you get low on health. Cannibalize III is a 1.85 health-to-mana rate. Chloroblast is something like a 2.85 health-to-mana rate. You of course have Torpor (Regrowth in this case, the lower-level version that is not as powerful, since I'm not even talking about a Level 60 Shaman where Cannibalize IV and Torpor make things even MORE eficient) and natural health regen on top of that.

All in all, you can Cannibalize 8 times for every single cast of Chloroblast you need to do. Which means over the course of 9 ticks, you are gaining about 160 extra mana when also subtracting the little bit you need to expend on casting Regrowth every 20 minutes. The natural mana regen a caster has at this level is 21 per tick. With the Cannibalize system going, the Shaman is gaining an extra 17 mana per tick - This is an 80% increase in mana regen a Shaman has over another caster working off of natural regen. That is a freaking HUGE difference.

Chloroblast is not in the game. Don't know when it will be. but atm superior healing is our best heal, with an efficiency of 2.3. Also, canni 3 takes 100 hp, wiki is incorrect, so it's less efficient than you think. And our Canni 4 is actually less efficient than 3. So things aren't as awesome as you make them out to be. :) Ofcourse with torpor, this is all moot anyway. :)

Seems to me you have more of a beef with shamans being very powerful, than actually wanting druids to be useful? Or why the explicit comparison to shamans? You can run this comparison with a bunch of other classes as well, and the conclusion would be the same.

Nagash

05-14-2011, 11:27 AM

I'm sorry but Karnor's isn't that demanding. Wait until you level up more and get into the hard zones. The content becomes so difficult that you MUST have a Cleric and you MUST have a buffed up melee (and only a Warrior or Monk suffices because, if "the timeline" is being followed, then Paladin's/SK's can't tank at that level and won't be able to until well into Velious). Often you MUST have a crowd controller as well.

After you've gotten up there with the Kunark content and are getting discouraged about just how little you're able to do, it only gets worse with Velious. The Holy Trinity of Warrior-Cleric-Enchanter becomes even MORE of a requirement there, as the monsters' resist rates and stats reach even higher heights of ridiculousness.

On Live, I main healed as a shaman in Sebilis or Chardok (during Kunark era) or places like Kael during Velious and that was with no outside healing help and no one else but me to slow our targets. Some friends have done it with a druid or even with a paladin (yes my good lad, a paladin, now how's that for a roxorz pally?). This doesn't mean you don't have to tweak your group composition or strategy but it is most definitely doable. Note that I speak of tweak, as in small adjustments, not having to stick to a rigid group composition without which it would be impossible. EQ has been build around the concept of group and around the concept of having a lot of possibilities to make an efficient group.
I already highlighted that in another post of yours but you chose to ignore it. Learn to play before QQing.

At some point, the holy trinity became prevalent as it was the most effective way of doing things (group wise) but it was in no way mandatory, nor was it the only workable group backbone. I never had a problem finding a group, nor did any of my friends and none of us was a "server superstar" whose renown alone would have granted them a slot in a group. So yes, you will find some morons who think that nothing can be done without the holy trinity but you have the choice to ignore these dickheads and to give your attention to the rest of the population of the server. If it goes the way it was on Live at the time, the non-stupid population will more than outweight (in numbers) the others. It is a matter of choice, YOUR choice.

And if you want something so different, as I also highlighted in your other post, you have plenty of options as it is blatant that this server is not what you are after:
- go on another server
- make another server (you might be very successful and have a lot of people coming on it, who knows :))
- go to Live (when they re-open huhu) and play with no maps or any outside help

As already been very rightfully said by someone else, I will not bother quoting all your other points and refute them as it is obvious that you haven't made any research prior to posting. That would be easy but way too time consumming seeing how you can write two or three incoherent posts in the time I type one answer.

Grizzled

05-14-2011, 12:48 PM

This game was designed for each class to have a role. It was not designed like WoW to hodge podge people together and be able to do anything. The class imbalance is there for a reason. Take SK PAL and WAR. If the warrior coiuld get snap agro like sk or pally, then there would be no need for either of the 2 when all tanks would be warriors who can raid tank and never lose agro in a group. The same goes the other direction. If sk and pally's could take a beating like a warrior from a raid mob, there would be no need for warriiors at all. If we balance the classes, then we now have WoW. Why use a Warrior when a druid(whatever the class was called) in bear form can tank just as good.

Class balanceing is what killed EQ. when shamans and druid got CH and minor rezzes. Clerics were no longer really necissary for groups, and they were a class that had to group. when they balanced the classes on live for CLR DRU SHM, the soloing classes got more powerfull. and non soloing classes weaker. Just my 2cp but wtf do i know:D

Harm

05-14-2011, 01:20 PM

Shaman were the only class that could solo the roaming dragons in Velious.

Not true at all. I personally fear-kited everything that I could land fear on in Western Wastes before Luclin came out. And outside of the SK Epic, I had shit for gear.

I stopped reading this thread in the middle of page two because you went from "discussing class balance" to "lets balance P99". Discuss class balance? Sure. Things were very unbalanced. Luclin AAs made things a lot better. Balance P99? Hell fucking no. You don't want to play a class that ends up on the short side of the stick? Then don't play one. Its your choice, there are no surprises here. The only surprise would be if you were to succeed in your attempts to balance P99. It should remain unbalanced. You're free to create your own Balanced Classic emu if you want. I might even play on it, it would be fun. But that's not why I'm on P99.

Fryhole

05-14-2011, 01:28 PM

And it completely fails at doing so. I agree that should be what the class is capable of doing and I believe that IS what the game designers wanted the class to be capable of, but with the way the game is currently programmed that simply isn't what the class is capable of doing at the higher levels. The Druid absolutely can not fill in as the healer. The druid absolutely can not fill in as a separate form of defense (ie - debuffs to monsters, especially the very import slow mechanic, or some other significant form of damage prevention). The Druid absolutely can not fill in as DPS. The Druid absolutely can not serve as crowd control (in most cases).

Research? I lived Everquest from its earliest (non-beta) days and my mind is perfectly capable of recollection. And FYI, before posting my thoughts, there are some details that I have in fact still gone back to check anyway.

I was there too. Tracking, SoW & teleports were things this class had that caused trade offs. I'm sorry you don't feel that travel and exploration don't justify the trade offs, but that's how it is. I hear what you're saying, however, things are going to stay within Brad McQuaid's lovely vision on p99.

Zuranthium

05-14-2011, 05:05 PM

This game was designed for each class to have a role. It was not designed like WoW to hodge podge people together and be able to do anything.

*sigh*, yet again not understanding what I wrote. I specifically said each class SHOULD have a role. I do not want EQ to be like WoW, at all, so stop trying to make that comparison.

Not true at all. I personally fear-kited everything that I could land fear on in Western Wastes before Luclin came out. And outside of the SK Epic, I had shit for gear.

I wasn't talking about random monsters in WW, I specifically said the Dragons. When I played, only Shaman were capable of soloing some of the content in WW.

The class imbalance is there for a reason. Take SK PAL and WAR. If the warrior coiuld get snap agro like sk or pally, then there would be no need for either of the 2 when all tanks would be warriors who can raid tank and never lose agro in a group. The same goes the other direction. If sk and pally's could take a beating like a warrior from a raid mob, there would be no need for warriiors at all. If we balance the classes, then we now have WoW.

You don't understand the meaning of the word "balance" as I am using it. Every class is supposed to be different and unique. Yes! And you should need certain classes for certain areas of the game. Yes!

But it comes a problem when you need certain classes for EVERY area of the game at higher levels and when other classes are SO weak that they become completely worthless. For example, look at what you just said - "There would be no need for Warriors if a Paladin or SK could ever take a beating." The game balance post original-EQ was such that there was NO need for Paladins and SK's. How is it at all logical that there should be NO need for Paladins and SK's in the game, and Warrior's being necessary 100% of the time, rather than there being times where each class shines depending on the situation?

Paladins and Shadowknights (and Rangers) were essentially worthless in comparison to Warriors at the higher levels until they finally received the much-needed buffs that were given to them into the Velious era. You don't seem to understand that, when Kunark came out, the game balance drastically changed. Warriors were always the best tanks at Level 50 in original EQ, and necessary for Dragons/Gods, but they were never necessary for any other area of the game. When Kunark came out, the skills for each class were not properly balanced and only the Warrior's attack and defense improved as they leveled past 50. Paladins and Shadowknights (and Rangers) were left with abysmal attributes and were so far inferior to Warriors that they were never viable.

The balance of the game mechanics was so bad at one point, in fact, that even though Rangers were doing FAR less damage than Warriors, they would still pull aggro away because of how doing a greater number of attacks via Dual Wielding generated more hate than a Warrior who was attacking much less frequently with a Two-Handed weapon, even though the Warrior was doing twice the damage of the Ranger sometimes. In an attempt to balance this out, they introduced "Jolt" to the game in the Kunark era. It reduced hate on the Ranger so that they could stand there and do their pathetic amount of damage without drawing aggro. It wasn't until well into Velious that much-needed buffs were given to the Hybrids and they were able to actually be useful (and yet the Warrior was still the most in-demand tank, so it didn't shift the game in the way you seem to fear it would).

I hear what you're saying, however, things are going to stay within Brad McQuaid's lovely vision on p99.

Do you seriously think everything that happened post Original EQ (but before Luclin) was completely within Brad McQuaid's vision? See, that's the problem here. Much of what is considered "classic EQ" strayed from how the game was originally envisioned as a result of trying to push content out for $$$. The game became very unbalanced as a result of creating new levels, gear, skills, and content that were not properly thought out but rather rushed into production.

Zuranthium

05-14-2011, 05:16 PM

On Live, I main healed as a shaman in Sebilis or Chardok (during Kunark era) or places like Kael during Velious and that was with no outside healing help and no one else but me to slow our targets.

How is that relevant to what I said? Being able to main heal the entrance areas to those zones, which are not the hardest zones to begin with, hardly means you were able to main heal for the majority of the content. Moreover, you did it as a SHAMAN. I specifically said Shaman could main heal some areas of the game at the later levels because of how powerful their slow was and their mana regeneration. Druids, however, could not. Unless you are talking about a group being able to kill 1 blue-con monster every 10+ minutes because the Druid has to burn their entire freaking bar of mana just to heal through one monster. Such a thing is hardly means you are being effective and is in no way desirable.

At some point, the holy trinity became prevalent as it was the most effective way of doing things (group wise) but it was in no way mandatory, nor was it the only workable group backbone.

You are 100% wrong, unless you are just talking about random exp groups where you are kill easy monsters. I'm talking about a 6-man group actually being able to take on some of the harder (not "hardest", where it's certainly fine to require specific classes to be able to beat it) content of the game.

Nagash

05-14-2011, 05:25 PM

*sigh*, yet again not understanding what I wrote. I specifically said each class SHOULD have a role.

Guess what genius, they do.

I wasn't talking about random monsters in WW, I specifically said the Dragons. When I played, only Shaman were capable of soloing some of the content in WW.

Hmm chanty, hmmm necro, hmmm magician, all during Velious era.

And you should need certain classes for certain areas of the game. Yes!

No you shouldn't and you don't. The only exception being clerics in a raid, that's it. You can rant all you want, this is a fact.

But it comes a problem when you need certain classes for EVERY area of the game at higher levels

You don't (baring in mind the exception I've noted above).

Paladins and Shadowknights (and Rangers) were essentially worthless in comparison to Warriors at the higher levels until they finally received the much-needed buffs that were given to them into the Velious era. You don't seen to understand that, when Kunark came out, the game balance drastically changed. Warriors were always the best tanks at Level 50 in original EQ, and necessary for Dragons/Gods, but they were never necessary for any other area of the game. When Kunark came out, the skills for each class were not properly balanced and only the Warrior's attack and defense improved as they leveled past 50. Paladins and Shadowknights (and Rangers) were left with abysmal attributes and were so far inferior to Warriors that they were never viable.

Really, I'll tell that to all the pally and sk I knew who were MTing in raid before (and after) Velious. They needed more heal to paliate the lack of the defensive discipline and a bit lower AC and HP (that's one area where you can use druid/pally/shaman for example) but it was perfectly doable and has been done countless time. I'll also tell that to some pallys I know who could MH a standard group grinding during Kunark and Velious.

C'mon man, keep digging, you can do better.

Misto

05-14-2011, 05:27 PM

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/7253/sabc.jpg

stormlord

05-14-2011, 05:29 PM

I've already mentioned it once. But not many people gave attention to it. Is it FUN to play a specialized class (like a cleric, a warrior, a rogue) that does the same thing over and over and over again? Personally, I do not think it's. One person here, at least, said that it was just my preference. So it's my preference that it's not fun to do the same thing over and over again? I thought that humans, in general, like to have options and like to have different things to do so as not to get bored. I thought that humans do not like to grind or camp or farm.

The move towards homogenous classes, if that's what it's, could just reflect the reality that people are too bored with anything else. They like options. They like it when a problem presents itself and they have an array of choices in how they respond. It's not because they want the game to be simpler, it's because they want it to be more complex!! Think about it. More options just means more things to do instead of repetitiveness.

Maybe this is why some people are altahollics. They want options but have to reroll. Maybe games that have classes that're more flexible and/or more homogenous is just a reaction to this desire for choices.

Imagine a class that has all of the skills/abilities of every class in EQ. Now that would be easy-mode, wouldn't it? In the same thought, it would also be incredibly complex to learn. How much do you want to bet that some people would enjoy it? All along we've been told that people want this because they want the game to be dumber, but I think ti's just the opposite. People don't want to get bored with their class. That's all.

We need to ask ourselves: do we invest more in grinding or learning when leveling up?

Sometimes to me I feel we grind for options. But shouldn't we have options from the start? Why should i have to WORK to make my game complex enough to interest me? Why do I have to reroll to get more flavors?

It's like the interesting game is there but it's locked behind a whole bunch of grinding. So in the end ti's like a company is selling grinding, but the carrot is the interesting (complexity) part. The problem is we only get little nibbles of the carrot, it's always dangled in front of us just out of reach. All they want is our money?

Dozey

05-14-2011, 05:39 PM

Most players like to have some flexibility. I still believe my having picked a ranger as my first class in 1999 was the reason I enjoyed everquest. Another reason is I never achieved a high level so never got to experience hell levels or long corpse runs. But anyway, I think that most players want to be able to do a little bit of everything, they just don't know it yet. There might be a few players who like to specialize, but the problem is that once you've done it your only alternative is to reroll. I think that a better solution would be to have a more flexible and changeable class system. Perhaps even a skill-based system. We have to admit these many yeasr later that maybe people just don't enjoy playing a group-dependent character that's stripped of diversity.

Where's the interest in a class that always does the same thing?

Being flexible just means having choices. More things to do means not getting bored.

While new to this particular everquest server, I played eq from about the start of velious until some post god expansion I can't remember the name of. I've also played almost every major mmo that didn't have a final fantasy in it's name or was aion. Most all the way to max lvl (usually in a pitifully sad amount of time after playing eq) and raided in a couple. I greatly dislike the homogenized classes you get in most of the "modern" MMO's and actually feel that EQ achieved something closer to class balance than most of current mmo's have. You weren't balanced because you all did the same thing, but you were balanced because you couldn't do the exact same thing as "class x" regardless of what "class X" was. And almost always there was something you wanted to do that you needed "class x" for. That was more of a check and balances sort of balance as opposed to a teeter totter sort of balanced ( edit: ) and honestly I like it better. In response to the person above me, every class does the same thing over and over in most mmo's. That sounds like not liking mmo's more than not liking the specialized role system. To illustrate this point, no matter how they balance wow rogues, everyone (who wants to actually raid endgame content) picks the spec and rotation that gets the most dps. It's figured out within hours of any patch that changes it, and everyone is that by the end of the day. That is not more options, it's just fake options, sort of like believing a game that has all the non-linear areas full of instakill mobs isn't linear.

edit2: there's the same option to play a not-the-best class and do something in EQ too. you can decide to play a dps enchanter. it's not going to be terribly different from a holy dps priest in wow success wise. Or a dps dominator in rift, or .... you get the idea. The option to suck at something you're not best at is always there. I do dps sololing as an enchanter, my pet (if root actually holds) tanks as an enchanter. That doesn't mean i feel that i should do that for groups, but I CAN do that well enough to solo. Most classes (other than rogues clerics and warriors all of whom get bonus xp in tribute) can do this. I would rather have a much more defined group role that not everyone can do so that I have a reason to join groups rather than be able to do any of those things as well as other classes.

Zuranthium

05-14-2011, 06:30 PM

Guess what genius, they do.

They don't, though. As I've specifically talked about, many of the classes as they are balanced post original-EQ do NOT offer anything viable to a group in comparison to another class.

Hmm chanty, hmmm necro, hmmm magician, all during Velious era.

They weren't able to beat the specific monster I am talking about. Only Shaman could. (Well, a Magician chain casting the epic pet is a different story, but that's hardly relevant given how inaccessible such a thing is)

No you shouldn't and you don't. The only exception being clerics in a raid, that's it.

Without a very specific setup it was literally IMPOSSIBLE to group in the majority of the high-end content areas of the game. You did NOT play during those eras if you believe so.

Also tell that to some pallys I know who could MH a standard group grinding during Kunark and Velious.

Once again, completely irrelevant. A grinding group is not high end content. You are also missing the point of efficiency and practicality. As I said in my other post, sure a Druid CAN heal through some areas, but only by expending an entire bar of mana for one single monster and causing a ridiculously massive downtime for the party. Nobody wants to play like that.

Zuranthium

05-14-2011, 06:39 PM

That was more of a check and balances sort of balance as opposed to a teeter totter sort of balanced.

This is a wonderful way of putting it! Thank you! Game balance should be such that there are checks and balances where every class is useful because they offer something different, not because every archtype can do the same thing exactly as well as each other class within that archtype.

Nagash

05-14-2011, 06:40 PM

So much stupidity and incoherence beats me... I hereby declare you Troll Champion...

ojamajoe

05-14-2011, 08:08 PM

2nd most hilarious thread. The new one about the maps is better, though...

DaddyBear

05-15-2011, 05:26 PM

Do you Like BEAR ?

snwbrdr642

05-29-2011, 07:12 PM

i dont give a shit about class balance i just want to play the game exactly as it was when it was released.

Rais

05-29-2011, 07:41 PM

Class balance came into effect when they put focus effects on items,and gave wizards critical spell effect.

Casters were always behind melee in terms of DPS/Damage for raids, and groups. That's why they mainly ended up as a soloing class. Quad kiting,fear kiting, ect. Groups just didn't want them.

Doors

05-29-2011, 07:45 PM

Well timed wizard burst is great for groups. As far back as I can remember, in classic EQ people really didn't care all that much for min maxing. That shit exists now since the WoW era. As long as you didn't go afk every 5 minutes and didn't get the group killed or ninja loot, you were always welcome in a group no matter what you played.

Grizlor

05-29-2011, 07:49 PM

This thread sucks and you should feel bad for making it.

Zuranthium

05-29-2011, 08:03 PM

Casters were always behind melee in terms of DPS/Damage for raids, and groups.

Not true. Prior to Kunark, Magicians and Necromancers did significantly more DPS against non-raid content than melee classes. Wizards still had shitty DPS but they were actually NECESSARY to kill the high-end boss mobs in the game because melee damage was far below what it would become in Kunark and every other caster would simply get resisted by bosses (and pets were useless, getting AoE feared away and doing almost no damage against bosses to begin with). Wizards were also necessary for even accessing some of the high-end content because of their teleports being the only way to get there.

Class balance turned to shit in Kunark because non-melee damage became absolutely terrible, the Wizard teleports weren't necessary, Hybrid skill caps became screwed up in comparison to the other melee classes, and Druids in general became even crappier whereas Shaman became absolute beasts with the ever-increasing efficiency of their mana regeneration capabilities and the increase of power in their slow line.

Grizlor

05-29-2011, 08:08 PM

We get it. You hate shamans. Go cry about it on your livejournal.

Can some mod shitcan this thread already? It belongs in RnF, not general.

Zuranthium

05-29-2011, 10:41 PM

I don't hate Shaman at all. I'm sorry if you don't see or don't care about the balance problems that I have been talking about.

It comes down to the kind of difference you see in addition vs. multiplication. The higher you go in numbers, the farther the gap becomes. 2 + 2 is the exact same thing, in outcome, as 2 * 2. 3 + 3 is significantly lower than 3 * 3, however. 4 + 4 is only half of 4 *4. So on and so forth.

A Shaman's power becomes exponentially stronger as they level. A 66% slow spell is actually twice as potent (100% stronger) in comparison to a 33% slow spell. A Shaman's mana regeneration capability becomes stronger and stronger as well because, in addition to the mana regeneration spells themselves becoming more efficient as they go up in level, their ability to recoup the health lost becomes more efficient as well.

This is actually just fine for a Shaman because, despite being much less efficient with those abilities at the lower levels, their healing spells are more comparable to a Cleric's at those levels and Shaman also receive the all-important SoW at a low level. So they are really a completely viable class at any level, without the pet. The addition of the pet gives them extra damage they don't at all deserve. In terms of FLAVOR within this RPG World it also really goes against class lines. Why should a Shaman - a class that is essentially a tribalisitic witch doctor - have a commandable wolf pet and a Druid (who is supposedly a master of animals/plants/nature/the outdoors) instead only have a shitty "Charm Animal" spell that isn't viable in most zones and is generally inferior to the summoned pet to begin with because of the time/mana spent having to constantly recharm and mitigate the pet breaking and attacking you.

And while Shaman are definitely overpowered with the pet, taking the pet away from them doesn't make Druids a viable class at the higher levels. The problem again goes back to additive vs. multiplicative. A Shaman's power increases exponentially at higher levels (as does a Cleric's because of Complete Heal). A Druid's power, however, only increases in an additive manner and it's actually not even a power increase as they get to the higher levels, but rather a significant power decrease. Their DD's do more damage and their DoT's do more damage but those line of spells are actually far LESS powerful than they were at earlier levels because they end up being resisted more and MOBs have so much more HP in comparison (plus, in and of themselves, they are laughable in comparison to melee class damage).

Similarly, a Druid's healing ability becomes pathetic. The higher level healing spells they get are hardly able to compensate for the massive increased damage of MOBs. The Shaman has crap healing at higher levels too but that crap healing is powered by a best-in-game slow line to mitigate damage and amazing mana regeneration to pump into more heals. As I've said before, a single Shaman as a defensive character at the later levels is just as good as 4 Druids put together. In the meantime, while the Shaman is dancing away with that accomplishment, they currently also get to have a pet thwacking away on command for extra damage.

Hence, the changes I've proposed: -pet abilities for Shaman, +pet abilities for Druids, +healing capability for Druids. I would also take away AOE damage spells from Druids (and the AOE snare from Wizards while we're on that subject), as Quad Kiting should not exist unless attempted by multiple characters working together and Druids should instead be utilizing their command of nature when soloing, by having a buffed animal attack things while they stand behind that pet and call upon killer bees (ie - DoT's) or whatever else for extra damage. Even IF the Druid could heal far better and had the pet capabilities, and Shaman didn't have pets, the Druid would still be a less powerful team member at higher levels than a Shaman would be. However, after those changes, Druids would definitely have value and at that point you would be able to say "okay, yeah, Druids are least necessary Priest class for groups at the higher levels but they can solo the best and get teleports."

Rais

05-29-2011, 10:53 PM

Not true. Prior to Kunark, Magicians and Necromancers did significantly more DPS against non-raid content than melee classes. Wizards still had shitty DPS but they were actually NECESSARY to kill the high-end boss mobs in the game because melee damage was far below what it would become in Kunark and every other caster would simply get resisted by bosses (and pets were useless, getting AoE feared away and doing almost no damage against bosses to begin with). Wizards were also necessary for even accessing some of the high-end content because of their teleports being the only way to get there.

This right here discredits anything you say. You tell the thousands and thousands of necros and mages who were left out of groups in Classic eq.

Necros stopped doing mad dps when FS daggers and pet duel welding was nerfed.

Wizards needed because of their teleports to hate/sky and that's why they were desired in groups? Needed to kill high end bosses? Do you even know the resist rate of a Ice based spell from a 50 wizard, on a lvl 56/55 naggy? Wizards sure didn't make or break anything on those high end encounters.

Graffe.com would have been the best place for you to post everyday. Go make your own game with your ideas. You can start your own server.

Zuranthium

05-29-2011, 11:22 PM

Did you not hear me saying PRIOR TO KUNARK?

Necros definitely took a hit when pet attack delay got nerfed but they were very overpowered at that point and the nerf simply brought their DPS down from *vastly superior to any other class in the game* to among the best in the game. Their pet + poison DoT line + other damage abilities gave them plenty of DPS to lend to groups and they had all kinds of other tools to lend support as well.

As for Wizards, sure they still got resisted by bosses, but they could at least land spells (whereas other casters would simply get resisted pretty much always). And in comparison to what melee classes were able to do back in the day, that amount of damage was VERY sought after. I suppose it was wrong of me to say Wizards were absolutely necessary to kill bosses, as having a huge number of Clerics would allow you to eventually win a battle of attrition against bosses, but what Wizards brought to the table there was very much desired. And at the very least you DID need a Wizard to even access a couple of the high-end zones.

Grizlor

05-29-2011, 11:23 PM

Dude my level 49 pet is green to me 75% of the time at level 52, and it double attacks for 51 damage when it isn't busy missing half of its attacks. It has like 2k hp. Go charm something.

If Hellen Keller was a brick wall, she'd be you.

http://roofingbrooklynny.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/brick-wall.jpg

Zuranthium

05-29-2011, 11:50 PM

Please don't use references that are better suited towards what you're doing. Self-mockery isn't useful here.

I'm hardly saying the pet in and of itself is overpowered, I'm saying what a Shaman can do is already very powerful and the pet is an extra ability they should not have and it just makes the class as a whole that much more (over)powered. It doesn't matter if it is a relatively weak pet, it still adds DPS at essentially no cost. This ability also goes against the flavor of what a Shaman should be doing in comparison to a Druid. The fact is, the pet is helpful and that's why you use it frequently. If it wasn't useful then you wouldn't use it...hmm, now where have I seen this before? Oh, right, Druid animal charms.

Doors

05-30-2011, 12:06 AM

the nerf simply brought their DPS down from *vastly superior to any other class in the game* to among the best in the game.

This dumbass quote backed up by absolutely nothing at all brought to you by Zuranthium, troll lord of the forums.

Kino

05-30-2011, 12:08 AM

This thread would have been good if it was posted in 2000. Especially this post (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?p=301848#post301848), which I would have agreed with 11 years ago.

Okay, I got in a post in without writing a novel, or even a paragraph.

Kassel

05-30-2011, 12:58 AM

oh well, what can you do, they are not doing any of the shit you suggested becouse it does not match the purpose of the server.

hrafn

05-30-2011, 03:15 AM

Wizards get a HUGE boost in kunark. I rolled a wizard for lures / bane nukes. Pretty incomparable raw DPS, even if it is just burst. Additionally, the mana regen issue is conquered with the wizard epic / manastone or manarobe.

yes, like everyone that plays a spell caster is gonna get their epic AND a manastone/robe. not everyone has been here since the server opened.

hrafn

05-30-2011, 03:20 AM

This is actually just fine for a Shaman because, despite being much less efficient with those abilities at the lower levels, their healing spells are more comparable to a Cleric's at those levels and Shaman also receive the all-important SoW at a low level.

---------

Why should a Shaman - a class that is essentially a tribalisitic witch doctor - have a commandable wolf pet and a Druid (who is supposedly a master of animals/plants/nature/the outdoors) instead only have a shitty "Charm Animal" spell that isn't viable in most zones and is generally inferior to the summoned pet to begin with because of the time/mana spent having to constantly recharm and mitigate the pet breaking and attacking you.

shamans and druids heal the same til kunark after which druids get better heals. check the spell lists. sorry but i dont think melee want a torpor so they cant do any damage.

also shamans get sow before druids so if any class needs to not get sow it would be druids. its a shaman spell first naturally.

---------

shamans have whats called a spirit/totem animal, hence shamans get a spirit wolf. your right about druids needing an animal companion though.

other than your general stupidity on everquest classes i agree with you about one thing on druids. eq really made druids into pussies. what kind of druid doesnt have an animal companion and can't shape change?

Breuce

05-30-2011, 04:22 AM

Game Class Balance vs. Adherence to the Source Material o noez what do we do? Guess flawed source material winz!

Is there anything in this thread/form of argument that I didn't manage to sum up in that first line?

goodthink

05-30-2011, 07:59 AM

The charm of eq is that:

a) They were never really concerned with the types of balance you are advocating. Each class was it's own bubble and the only time Verant took action towards balancing was when some element of game play violated the specific vision for that class.

b) EQ was damn hard.

Now, what I don't get is how you can come to a server dedicated to emulating a classic server with classic progression and complain that they are too much like classic.

Zuranthium

05-30-2011, 08:08 AM

Thank you Kino. Very much appreciated that.

This dumbass quote backed up by absolutely nothing at all.

Exactly what do I need to back up? I know precisely what I am talking about and if you don't believe me or agree with me, then find evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to waste time doing internet archive searches for supporting evidence about something I am a Guru about and lived through. It doesn't feel like you played EQ when I did, or you simply weren't well informed during that era, as attributed to your knee-jerk (and incorrect) reactionary responses here and now in 2011.

For some time in Classic, the Necromancer pet would outdamage ANY melee class in the game all by itself (although not against bosses. Incidentally, very early in EQ, Necromancer lifetaps were actually 100% unresistable regardless of level and Level 1 Necromancer could go Lifetap a level 50+ MOB if they could get there). That was even after a couple rounds of nerfs to the base damage pets did in general. As a result of weapons lowering pet attack speed without decreasing the damage dealt, a Necromancer pet in even just the mid-30's was essentially acting as a melee class that was dual-wielding 19/19 weapons. The highest level Necro pet was equivalent to dual-wielding 28/19 weapons...which was an entire galaxy more powerful than even the very best weapons in the game at the time (and the vast majority of melee players never saw those weapon). Then on top of that, the Necromancer had all of their other spells. Necromancers were unfathomably overpowered when the game came out and it took a long series of nerfs to bring them in line, with the fix to pet attack delay being the final nerf in the series that put their abilities at the correct level.

After the nerf to pet attack delay, the Necromancer pet was doing approximately 55% the damage it did before the nerf (when properly equipped). Even then, it still put out a significant amount of damage and, when combined with their spells, the Necromancer would outdamage any melee class (except against the very top end MOBs in the game). Magicians were similarly excellent DPS, even before the Magician pet bug was finally fixed and they could dual-wield like the Necro pets could. After the update that allowed Magician pets to dual-wield, they were definitely the KINGS of generating DPS (just not against bosses).

And then Kunark came out and everything the designers had been balancing went to shit.

shamans and druids heal the same til kunark after which druids get better heals. check the spell lists. sorry but i dont think melee want a torpor so they cant do any damage.

Druids do not get better heals. They get ONE heal the Shaman doesn't have, at Level 60, and that heal is awful with its sluggish casting time and less mana efficiency than the Level 55 heal. Shaman are in fact better at healing during several levels in terms of the pure efficiency of the spells themselves, because their regen-over-time line is stronger. Warriors certainly DO want Torpor...after they have killed the pull and need to heal up for the next pull. Healing is not just about keeping people alive during combat but about allowing the team to continually pull.

Since you also seem to have missed the whole point of my argument, here we go again: Shaman have FAR more mana than Druids do. That means they can heal more, even though their direct healing spells themselves are the same. They also have a best-in-game slow line, which means the tanks can actually live against difficult MOBs because they are taking far less damage. Taking less damage also means less mana needing to be spent after combat to heal up. So, I will say it yet again - a single Shaman on their own is as good of a defensive character as 4 Druids put together. And while those 4 Druids sit there spamming their heals to match the efficiency of what a single Shaman can do with preventing/healing damage, that Shaman's pet is adding extra DPS to the group at no extra cost as well. Oh, but Druids get teleports.

Not balanced. Not nearly.

goodthink

05-30-2011, 08:22 AM

not supposed to be

Zuranthium

05-30-2011, 09:03 AM

Yes it is, to a degree, in a "hey, look what I can do, what can you do?" kind of way where the classes are able to do different things and they somewhat equal out in their usefulness overall.

mimixownzall

05-30-2011, 09:34 AM

So, this is just a huge whine thread since nothing will be changed.

BTW: your ride showed up.

http://esarsea.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/waaaambulance2.jpg?w=432&h=324

Kika Maslyaka

05-30-2011, 11:27 AM

Yes it is, to a degree, in a "hey, look what I can do, what can you do?" kind of way where the classes are able to do different things and they somewhat equal out in their usefulness overall.

+1

Taryth

05-30-2011, 12:01 PM

Exactly what do I need to back up? I know precisely what I am talking about and if you don't believe me or agree with me, then find evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to waste time doing internet archive searches for supporting evidence about something I am a Guru about and lived through.

I'm starting to believe you actually are a troll.

The burden of evidence, in any case, would be on the person making the claim/s (you.) The person in the negative position doesn't have to do shit until you provide evidence that supports your argument/s.

Zuranthium

05-30-2011, 01:56 PM

So, this is just a huge whine.

Considering the number of people who can't comprehend the concepts of game theory and game balance and don't want to engage in the intellectual discourse required to participate in the conversation...yes, that might be an accurate description of the responses herein.

The burden of evidence, in any case, would be on the person making the claim/s (you.) The person in the negative position doesn't have to do shit until you provide evidence that supports your argument/s.

When someone is a certified expert they don't have to cite textbook details for how something works. When a doctor tells you, "this is what's wrong with you", you don't get an hour-long biology lesson in addition to your prescription. If you disagree with them, then research it yourself or have another expert cite evidence to the contrary.

Everything I've said has been proven to be correct - such as in the Hybrid thread where many people disagreed with the spellcasting changes I said Hybrids received in Classic and someone then found the evidence and posted it in the "Spells" forum. I've talked about the DoT nerf that was in Classic and people laughed at me...oh look, the designers just now implemented it. I'm not going to spend time running around trying to find the exact internet archives of the game developers talking about EQ back in the day. That's insulting to my expertise. I'm sure the designers on THIS server have found all of those and have them saved, if they want to reference something.

But by all means, continue to believe I'm such a troll and such an uninformed player if you want. That must be why, in addition to all of the knowledgeable claims I've made on the forum, I started playing on this server 2 weeks ago and now have a Level 40 character and 10k in the bank, playing ONLY in Old World zones, and without receiving any outside twinking or PLing assistance. Yeah, I must not know what I'm doing.

Doors

05-30-2011, 02:08 PM

Exactly what do I need to back up? I know precisely what I am talking about and if you don't believe me or agree with me, then find evidence to the contrary.

I don't need to find shit. I never came into this thread saying soandso class was the best dps ever way back. You did. This is why you are a moron. You go around saying shit that is untrue, and whenever you say it you provide zero evidence to support your claims. And this little gem quote:

I'm not going to waste time doing internet archive searches for supporting evidence about something I am a Guru about and lived through.

Shows how much of an egotistical dumbass you are. A guru? Please. If you're going to spout off about shit you're clueless about either provide some background information, some type of statistical data, or shut the fuck up. Nobody takes you seriously because you're a moron in every sense of the word. If this world ran by your standards, companies wouldn't need statistical data to make desicions, they're fuckin guru's man! They just know everything!

Anyone listening to this kid is as stupid as he is. YOUNG GURU.

Doors

05-30-2011, 02:10 PM

This morons actually getting sigged. A guru. Please pull your head out of your ass, you're no better than the average bad playing here.

Doors

05-30-2011, 02:39 PM

When someone is a certified expert they don't have to cite textbook details for how something works. When a doctor tells you...

How the fuck are people missing these GOLD MINE QUOTES. This kid is relating himself to a doctor in everquest knowledge.

Newsflash bro. Doctors earn PhDs. You however are joe nobody from the internet making outlandish claims backed up by absolutely no data.

Can this kid get a custom forum title? Like, Egotistical moron? Would be awesome.

Rais

05-30-2011, 02:51 PM

I think the fact he is ranting and raving over a 1999 game, being played on a EMU server to mimic the classic feel. He wants to change the entire game to how he feels it should be, and wants the devs to do what he says.

Sure he is full of lulz. He should just make his own server and gtfo.

This dude is the classic cry baby back in classic time, crying over how every other class is better than his. Making his guild members tone out guild chat because of his ranting.

Rais

05-30-2011, 02:59 PM

hmm

Doors

05-30-2011, 05:12 PM

Mad props to Rais, someone other than me picking up on this dudes bullshit.

soup

05-30-2011, 05:32 PM

watch out guys we gots a young guru up in here!

Kassel

05-30-2011, 06:24 PM

More like Young Aspergers

Grizlor

05-30-2011, 06:55 PM

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c321/everettowen/OECiv.gif

Ostros

05-30-2011, 07:40 PM

Let's talk CLASS BALANCE

Let's not. You don't actually need to balance classes in EQ, that wasn't the point of the game, and that's not the point of this server. This discussion is therefore not very interesting.

This is the shittiest thread.

Zuranthium

05-30-2011, 10:22 PM

I don't need to find shit.

Yes you do. You are the one who clearly didn't play the game back then, or didn't understand/care about the game mechanics back then, or else you would know about these issues. The fact that you don't understand the issues means that YOU need to study up and learn about them. I'm not going to do the work for you. I'm telling you how the game was and if you disagree then find evidence to prove me wrong (you won't, as I am correct, unless I specifically say my memory is fuzzy about a detail). That's how it's going to be and if you don't like it, don't respond.

If you're going to spout off about shit you're clueless about either provide some background information, some type of statistical data, or shut the fuck up.

I'm hardly clueless about anything I've talked about here. That would be you. The only things you've been able to do in this thread are spout off the words "kid" and "moron". Funny, considering how you are definitely less mature (we only have to look at your avatar to ascertain that). The only thing you are capable of doing is using catch-phrases which are well liked and "cool" on this forum - such as a the "young" moniker. Get some substance to your posts and try some reasoning and actual thought process instead of empty put-downs; you are currently full of ineptitude.

sonofbaal

05-30-2011, 11:12 PM

the more you balance classes, the more they end up being the same, this is fact. The balance must be achieved by taking them as a whole, like yin and yang. Seperate they must be imbalanced in unique areas, but together they form balance.

If you give druids better heals, do clerics get sow? IF you do this the cleric because more like a druid and the druid more like a cleric, and then you just have WoW. I would rather clerics stay clerics, druids stay druids, and together, I like them both.

ziggyholiday

05-31-2011, 12:51 AM

I'm hardly clueless about anything I've talked about here.

Except what the purpose of P99 is, dork.

Zuranthium

05-31-2011, 01:28 AM

If you give druids better heals, do clerics get sow?

No.

*facepalm*

There is a vast difference between proper RPG class balancing (the original intent of EQ) and WoW class equalizing.

It's easier to balance PvE than it is PvP as well. This line of discussion really shouldn't be so difficult.

mala

05-31-2011, 12:32 PM

i didnt read the rest of this as its just kind of running around in circles... but

"The fire pet would often not cast his damage shield as soon as you summon him and he wouldn't cast it when engaged in battle (which is right when you summon him if you're chain casting)." - Zuranthium

thats not how it works on here, the fire pet innately has his DS no matter what, and chain casting the pets is by far the most efficient way of soloing at later levels as a mage. Not trying to sound rude but you should prolly do a lil more research into how things are working on this server before commenting on class balance and such.

Kassel

05-31-2011, 01:40 PM

Lets talk about forum balance.

Extunarian

05-31-2011, 02:07 PM

When someone is a certified expert they don't have to cite textbook details for how something works.

When someone is a certified expert they don't have to cite textbook details

When someone is a certified expert

certified expert

Doors

05-31-2011, 03:16 PM

People like Zuranthium need sterilized. Making claims without any supporting evidence, then demanding people believe him because he is a "certified expert", a young guru if you would.

Then again what did you expect from a guy who, when he found this project, spent the first week here on the forums telling the devs who run it that they were doing it all wrong.

etplante

05-31-2011, 03:23 PM

But dude, he's level 40 with 10k banked after only two weeks. This young jedi master is not just talking the talk, he's walking the walk.

Doors

05-31-2011, 03:26 PM

Good point. I should seek this guru's council about everything in EQ life. As a certified expert, who are we underlings to argue with him?

Hithrohir

05-31-2011, 04:24 PM

1.) Are Clerics absolutely REQUIRED for groups at the later levels? It used to be that you HAD to have a Cleric or else you literally couldn't group. Non-Cleric heals were far too inefficient. In my opinion, Clerics should only be a requirement for bosses and possibly a select amount of other game content. Druids should be able to function perfectly fine as the main healer for a party outside of those limited exceptions. Looking at the p1999 Wiki skill list, it appears that Druids are far behind.

It'll always depend on the content and the rest of the group, but generally speaking, a cleric is not required. Excluding CH (and Torpor, see below), there's not that big a difference in the efficiency of the heals, just the size. Most group content does not require constant CH on the tank, so if you're in Karnor's Castle or something, any priest class can function as a healer. If there's an enchanter and/or bard in the group, there should be no issue with a druid or shaman healing the group.

A note on Torpor is that it's an extremely mana efficient heal to use on the tank provided that they aren't taking burst damage (which slow generally ensures) and aren't hindered by the debuff provided by Torpor. Thus, if the tank is well-geared and a bit over-leveled for the content, a shaman - with their already excellent mana management - can easily heal a group in anything but the toughest content. Torpor is a high-level and rather rare spell, however, so it's likely that the shaman is done with one-group content by the time he has it. I've always considered druids by far the worst of the priest classes for healing as they just don't have anything but their sub-par heals, lacking both a better alternative and a strong mana management tool.

Druids were roundly considered one of the most useless classes once the expansions came along. They were called upon for teleports to certain areas to save time and that's it. They weren't able to do ANYTHING else of value and were completely outclassed by Shaman, who had the same level of healing + excellent self energy regen + the most powerful slow debuff in the game + they could do MORE damage (and for less energy expended) because of having a worthwhile Pet and good haste spells and comparable DoT's/DD's + they got other buffs/debuffs that were a bit better (+Attribute buffs of every kind and the Malaise debuffs) and they even got SoW!!!

Druid is indeed one of the worst classes in the game, together with ranger. They can do a lot of things okay-ish, but that's the issue: you probably never wish to bring a druid, and doing so is generally a compromise when you couldn't find a more focused class. They can be convenient for their SoW and ports, but that doesn't make your group stronger. They have decent utility, lackluster buffs, but much of it is provided by other classes. I can't think of any realistic scenario where a druid's role isn't better served by some other class. It became a nice and easy class for casual solo players, the proverbial suburban mom who just wanted to putter around and not be hindered too much by travel, gear requirments, or the need or inability to group. A well-played druid can serve well in a group or raid, but that player could probably have done better with another class. Some people can't see through this illusion and harbor the misconception that druids are good because they saw a few skilled veterans playing druids well.

Having teleports does not balance out getting a Pet, the best slow debuff in the game, other buffs/debuffs that are superior in general, and excellent self energy regen to power all of those abilities even further and more efficiently! In my mind, these classes would only be balanced if:

*Druids could heal significantly better than Shaman...even with heals that were closer to Clerics, the Druid would still not actually be as efficient of a "defensive" character as the Shaman, considering how the latter class gets the best slow in the game and self energy regen to power their heals/debuffs.

*Shaman did not get pets...this is extra free damage that is a slap in the face to the INT casters, as it makes the Shaman capable of doing more damage over time than those classes. Very imbalanced how a powerful defensive class is additionally capable of producing more damage over time than a class entirely dedicated to offense!

It's kind of a pointless discussion because this server doesn't attempt to balance the game, but if you wanted to make each class a viable healer, you could just give them each an aspect of healing to excel at. Give shamans strong HoTs to complement their buffs and debuffs, give druids fast, mana-efficient heals for emergency and reaction healing, and give clerics the big tank heals and group heals.

I'm not really interested in the spellcaster damage part, but the core of that issue stems from the fact that a) mana regen isn't fast or flexible enough to match melee DPS and b) caster itemization was crap until Velious and didn't become remotely balanced until much later. We're still at a point in the game where caster gear pretty much just gives hp and mana, and none of it affects your actual damage output. That's the design flaw that hinders those classes.

Stormhowl

05-31-2011, 05:09 PM

Jeez, this thread should be referenced on wikipedia or something as an example of an Argument from Authority fallacy.

So. Fail.

Zuranthium

05-31-2011, 06:51 PM

Thanks for that reply, Hithrohir. Good to see some other intelligent, knowledgeable discussion.

The only thing I disagree with you on is Clerics not being required, because my statement was specifically about Clerics being required for high level content. Sure, you can take on most of Karnor's without having a Cleric, but that's a far cry from the hardest areas in Kunark and so many of the areas in Velious. Moreover, without CHeal, it takes far more TIME to tackle content. In many cases, you do in fact become restricted from the content (or it becomes unfun) because of that time/downtime restriction. This is problem. You shouldn't log onto Everquest and hear this in Guild Chat: "Hey, who wants to group?" 30 minutes later..."Hey, anyone find a Cleric yet?" 30 minutes later..."Well, I guess we aren't playing today."

Clerics should be a necessity for killing specific MOBs, not a necessity for simply playing the game at a suitable pace.

thats not how it works on here, the fire pet innately has his DS no matter what. Not trying to sound rude but you should prolly do a lil more research into how things are working on this server before commenting on class balance and such.

I realize that's how it works on here. That's not the way it was in Classic, though. The Fire Pet had to actually cast the damage shield on itself and it often wouldn't cast it immediately after being summoned (and it wouldn't cast it while in combat). Thus, chain summoning Fire Pets wasn't a good soloing method in Classic, although if you had 2 Magicians grouped together it worked because that provided the time to make sure the pet had DS up before sending it in. I'm not sure when they changed the Fire pet in live to automatically be summoned with the damage shield.

Given that this server's goal is supposedly to be 100% (99.9%?) Classic, I don't see any relevance in the latter part of your statement. Classic is the bar and thus I am talking about the way things were in Classic and what should be modified from how it was in Classic, such that the game will be better. As I discussed in another thread, this server will eventually go past the Classic timeline. If you just freeze the game at the end of Velious era, then the server will dwindle.

Players are coming to this server because they want the Classic Everquest experience. They will not mind if details are tweaked here and there to improve the game. They will welcome it, actually. The "Classic Everquest experience" is not in the exact numbers of how the game was coded. Moreover, to continue the server once the timeline runs out, there will have to be new content or shifting content anyway. Which is why I argue that changes for the better should be made sooner rather than later. This server will never be 100% Classic EQ, ever. Not possible. Given that such a thing is impossible, the server should strive to maintain the classic EQ experience without forcing the exact coding of how every little thing was during the actual Classic timeline. Trying to recreate the exact coding does not recreate the classic EQ experience.

But dude, he's level 40 with 10k banked after only two weeks. This young jedi master is not just talking the talk, he's walking the walk.

Level 45 now, without any help at all (and actually spending time helping noobies in the zone), exactly one day after making that post. *shrug*

Stormhowl

05-31-2011, 07:46 PM

If you just freeze the game at the end of Velious era, then the server will dwindle.

Citation needed; appealing to the fear of the server shutting down isn't a wise choice nor is it a good argument for why a server designed to follow what the Classic EQ experience was, should deviate from that.

Players are coming to this server because they want the Classic Everquest experience. They will not mind if details are tweaked here and there to improve the game. They will welcome it, actually.

1) Please do not generalize your opinions across the population of players who come to this server.

2) You do not speak for anyone but yourself.

Who are you to say what people want and don't want?

Moreover, to continue the server once the timeline runs out, there will have to be new content or shifting content anyway.

Why? There's other servers on EQEmu if you want changes like that.

Which is why I argue that changes for the better should be made sooner rather than later.

Why do the changes even need to be made in the first place? Why does "sooner rather than later" matter when it conflicts with the goals of the project?

And your answer had best not be more doom and gloom about the end of the time-line, as that is just an appeal to fear fallacy, and I doubt any of us are interested in that.

This server will never be 100% Classic EQ, ever. Not possible. Given that such a thing is impossible, the server should strive to maintain the classic EQ experience without forcing the exact coding of how every little thing was during the actual Classic timeline. Trying to recreate the exact coding does not recreate the classic EQ experience.

Nirvana/Perfect Solution fallacy. While it can't be a perfect 100% creation down to the finest detail, that doesn't mean something needs to be changed to the timeline.

If you honestly feel otherwise, then back up your statements. At this point in the thread, I cannot see where you learned how to argue... was it 4chan? There's too many logical errors in your reasoning for this to be a serious discussion.

Doors

05-31-2011, 08:11 PM

Don't bother arguing with this guy. He has his head so far up his own ass that anyone else's opinions are deemed wrong, regardless of any validity they have.

Zuranthium

05-31-2011, 08:35 PM

Appealing to the fear of the server shutting down isn't a wise choice nor is it a good argument for why a server designed to follow what the Classic EQ experience was, should deviate from that.

As I've said over and over, trying to photocopy something does NOT recreate the actual experience. If you try to recreate a film shot-for-shot and line-for-line, the copy will be FAR different than the original, even though you followed the exact framework perfectly. Nobody wants to see an attempted copy of a film, except perhaps to just to experiment for the sake o fit. What people DO want to see, though, are films that engage their emotions and their imagination in the same way that other films they loved did.

Trying to follow the exact Classic EQ timeline does not recreate the Classic EQ experience. To recreate the essence of what Classic EQ was, you instead need to create an environment where people are playing the game like it was in the early days and also how it was meant to be played. This means not only fixing problems the original designers knew about and weren't able to fix when Classic EQ was actually happening (or didn't have the understanding/perspective to fix at the time), but also a whole new slate of issues with regards to how people approach the game now in 2011.

Since the "classic timeline" will in fact run out and this server will NEVER exactly be Classic EQ, the server should thus keep the spirit of Classic EQ alive and make beneficial changes now rather than waiting to make changes after the "classic timeline" has run out and people want more content and/or are upset about very, very big problems that were in Classic EQ.

Who are you to say what people want and don't want?

Who is a choreographer to say what dancers/ice skaters should do and what they shouldn't?

Who is a game designer to say how to make a good game and how not to?

Who is a physics professor to say what the best theory is for a mechanics solution and what isn't?

Who is a marketing executive to say how to make more people buy your product and how not to?

Let's not diminish the knowledge people have in the World and the value of learning from history, thanks.

Nirvana/Perfect Solution fallacy. While it can't be a perfect 100% creation down to the finest detail, that doesn't mean something needs to be changed to the timeline.

It's hardly a fallacy. Things already HAVE been changed from the timeline. There are specifically things that will never be Classic on this server, not just because of time/logistic restrictions (which is a real problem - the developers can't do it all), but because the developers specifically don't want to change it to how it was in Classic.

Given that the developers are already specifically changing things from how they were in Classic to improve the game experience of this server, here and now in 2011, I am talking about how things from Classic EQ can be improved to make the game better as a whole for all of us to play.

Pico

05-31-2011, 09:22 PM

aspergers.txt

Hamahakki

05-31-2011, 09:52 PM

Citing specific evidence of how classes were balanced in early classic is going to be difficult, but for what it's worth most of what Zuranthium is saying is pretty much how I remember it and I played from launch day through Velious.

That said, this thread is pointless because nothing is going to change. It doesn't matter what a random player thinks druids or clerics or shamans should have been. This project already has a vision and it is unambiguous.

The argument that p1999 is about recreating the spirit of EQ1 rather than the details is bogus. With a few small exceptions, the leadership of this project have chosen to replicate original EQ exactly, even in the case of bugs which were later fixed on live.

If you really want things to be a certain way, go make your own server. Nilbog and Rogean did it. Coming to this project and expecting your changes to become reality because you declare yourself a "guru" is as useless as it is hilarious.

Ostros

05-31-2011, 10:57 PM

Who is a choreographer to say what dancers/ice skaters should do and what they shouldn't?

Who is a game designer to say how to make a good game and how not to?

Who is a physics professor to say what the best theory is for a mechanics solution and what isn't?

Who is a marketing executive to say how to make more people buy your product and how not to?

Let's not diminish the knowledge people have in the World and the value of learning from history, thanks.

....what?

Are you suggesting that your supposed categorical knowledge of EQ is somehow thoroughly practiced and certified via years in the field and time spent at a university? :confused:

Given that the developers are already specifically changing things from how they were in Classic to improve the game experience of this server, here and now in 2011, I am talking about how things from Classic EQ can be improved to make the game better as a whole for all of us to play.

Right and we're trying to tell you that it's ultimately, and entirely useless. I'm sure everybody on this server (including myself) has a load of wonderful ideas as to how we could unfuck this server. Unfortunately for you our particular devs aren't interested in this. Maybe you'll luck out and when they finish with the patch archive after Velious they'll start un-sony-izing things to give themselves more work to do on the project, and then this thread could be come useful. Until then, no. And even then: NO, why would you start balancing classes, that's about 1/4 of what got me hating WoW was that ever constant stream of class-breaking changes.

Removing the unique functions and styles of classes in EQ would ruin it entirely whether it's here or on live. Now please stop trying to start a circlejerk by coming on here and stroking your engorged ego in front of everyone. http://i.imgur.com/327zg.gif

mimixownzall

05-31-2011, 11:59 PM

Considering the number of people who can't comprehend the concepts of game theory and game balance and don't want to engage in the intellectual discourse required to participate in the conversation...yes, that might be an accurate description of the responses herein.

Sorry, but I don't know how you would call anything you are doing 'intelligent.' Troll? Yes. Intelligent? No. You are crying about class balance. This is a classic server that tries to stick to original EQ back in 1999-2001 as best it can. These 'imbalances' you are complaining about will not change. So, you are, in essense, WHINING.

Zuranthium

06-01-2011, 01:16 AM

If you really want things to be a certain way, go make your own server.

Thanks for your reply and vote of confidence.

This statement has been said ad nauseam. I do not have the time nor the coding ability to make my own Classic EQ server. I'm using the knowledge and pragmatic energy I have to try and educate a broader audience about game theory in general, especially how it relates to Classic EQ.

This is a classic server that tries to stick to original EQ back in 1999-2001 as best it can. These 'imbalances' you are complaining about will not change. So, you are, in essense, WHINING.

I'm not whining, it's called discussion. Regardless of whether it will change or not, this is a forum for Classic Everquest, and easily the most active one that I know of. Sharing knowledge about how the game was and further sharing ideas about what can improved is relevant to the forum. If the developers of this server have no use for the ideas being present, then perhaps another developer will.

Removing the unique functions and styles of classes in EQ would ruin it entirely.

Yes...and that's not what I'm trying to do, *AT ALL*, so stop trying to purport this completely misguided notion and start actually reading and processing what I've written.

In fact, ideally, the classes should be even MORE unique than they already are. The melee combat system in EQ is quite lackluster and, even aside from that, the Hybrids weren't designed very well to actually have unique roles (or at least that's not how it worked out) and there could be further separation of the casting classes.

Ostros

06-01-2011, 02:06 AM

Yes...and that's not what I'm trying to do, *AT ALL*

Right, except:

*Druids could heal significantly better than Shaman...even with heals that were closer to Clerics, the Druid would still not actually be as efficient of a "defensive" character as the Shaman, considering how the latter class gets the best slow in the game and self energy regen to power their heals/debuffs.

*Shaman did not get pets...this is extra free damage that is a slap in the face to the INT casters, as it makes the Shaman capable of doing more damage over time than those classes. Very imbalanced how a powerful defensive class is additionally capable of producing more damage over time than a class entirely dedicated to offense!

And:

Being able to summon mod rods or perform the occasional Call of the Hero hardly makes a class equally viable.

Don't forget this gem:

Wizards had a more specific purpose of at least being able to provide burst damage against very difficult opponents but such a thing was only needed very occasionally. Their DPS over time was embarrassingly weak in comparison to a melee...about 1/5th of what a melee could do.

Annnnd:

Are Clerics absolutely REQUIRED for groups at the later levels? It used to be that you HAD to have a Cleric or else you literally couldn't group.

=/

In each of these examples you discuss changes that would either under/overpower or remove an intended dominant role for a class, and talking about Wizards doing less than a 1/5th of the damage melee is doing? That's a remark bordering on absurd, and demands parsed logs.

And taking pets away from Shamans? Your arguments make absolutely no sense, especially where you talk about the pet being a slap in the face to INT casters. I'll tell you right now: Necros and especially Mages don't give a shit. Yay more pet DPS. I'm so sure that all the necromancers and mages are offended that a puppy is in the group/raid doing nice extra dps. Wizards are nuking things to death, and again, really couldn't care less. Enchanters have pets, but have a primary role of crowd control instead of actually dpsing. Nobody is gonna care how much dps the Enchanter is doing when he's saving their asses from an over-pull.

And finally:

In fact, ideally, the classes should be even MORE unique than they already are. The melee combat system in EQ is quite lackluster and, even aside from that, the Hybrids weren't designed very well to actually have unique roles (or at least that's not how it worked out) and there could be further separation of the casting classes.

I'm sure they'll get right on overhauling one of the core mechanics of a game that is literally over a decade old.

Extunarian

06-01-2011, 11:45 AM

This:

I do not have the time nor the coding ability to make my own Classic EQ server.

Should probably be:

I do not have the coding ability to make my own Classic EQ server.

It's obvious you have a LOT of time on your hands.

Anyway I'll let you get back to comparing yourself to doctors and physics professors.

Zuranthium

06-01-2011, 11:56 AM

In each of these examples you discuss changes that would either under/overpower or remove an intended dominant role for a class

No I don't? You have completely misunderstood everything I've said if that is what you've gotten out of what I've been posting.

Giving Druids the ability to heal better would hardly remove Clerics as the dominant healers in the game. Clerics have CHeal. CHeal will always be necessary for killing bosses and it will always be an amazing spell that will outstrip a Druid, by far, in efficiency for top-end content. Plus, Clerics get rezzes. Increasing the healing power of Druids would simply make it so that more content in the game is playable without bringing a Cleric; it would still be a weaker option in most cases than the Cleric for the content I am talking about.

and talking about Wizards doing 1/5th of the damage melee is doing? That's a remark bordering on absurd, and demands parsed logs.

Yes it is absurd...but that's simply how it worked in post-Original EQ at the end game. If the Wizard had a bard on the team doing nothing but spamming mana song then it helps, but even then, he'd still be doing simply pathetic DPS over time in comparison to fully hasted and geared Rogues/Monks. I'm trying to think where a good parse might still exist within the internet archive...perhaps it would be easier for a top guild on this server to do one instead.

And taking pets away from Shamans? Your arguments make absolutely no sense, especially where you talk about the pet being a slap in the face to INT casters. I'll tell you right now: Necros and especially Mages don't give a shit. Yay more pet DPS. I'm so sure that all the necromancers and mages are offended that a puppy is in the group/raid doing nice extra dps. Wizards are nuking things to death, and again, really couldn't care less.

The INT damage casters (those who care about these things in the first place, in any case) certainly care that a Priest class, who has some of the best buffs/debuffs in the game and heals, is able to match or EXCEED their DPS.

When you are always losing spots in groups because your class is deemed weaker in nearly every given situation possible, it's definitely a problem. People want to be able to log on and find groups for their few hours of nightly play. They don't want to feel completely uncompetitive and inferior.

The Shaman pet is not "the problem", though, which I've said over and over and over. The pet is simply something the class shouldn't have in the first place (because of flavor) and, given how the class is already superior in comparison to many other classes even WITHOUT the pet, it just makes them that much stronger when they don't deserve to be.

It's obvious you have a LOT of time on your hands.

As indicated by...ideas I've been sitting on for years that I took a bit of time to post and then some extra minutes out of the day to write responses on the forum? Excuse me for being able to write lengthy, informative posts off the cuff.

epicentre

06-01-2011, 12:05 PM

I usually stay away from bitch fighting, whiners, and sterile talks about who has the bigger balls, why, and what should be done to solve the issue, but I'm a bit drunk atm.

My 2cp:
1/ a possible solution to the class balancing problem would be to create a mix of SK, ROG, CLR, WIZ and shaman and remove all other classes;
2/ there is a chinese proverb saying: "if you're an ass in the game, you'll be an ass on the forums";
3/ I wish there would be some mecanism similar to Windows GPO to enforce some user names in ignore lists;
4/ never post when drunk, you could regret it.

Extunarian

06-01-2011, 12:14 PM

3/ I wish there would be some mecanism similar to Windows GPO to enforce some user names in ignore lists;

not sure if you're saying you want a 'forum user ignore' function, but if so it is already available. http://www.project1999.org/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist

Extunarian

06-01-2011, 12:19 PM

As indicated by...ideas I've been sitting on for years that I took a bit of time to post and then some extra minutes out of the day to write responses on the forum? Excuse me for being able to write lengthy, informative posts off the cuff.

No, I was referring to the amount of time you are able to spend in game judging by your character progression. Although the walls of text on the forum certainly helped corroborate my theory.

Either way there isn't a point in arguing with someone like you, and in the long run this whole thread will just fall to page 3184 of server chat obscurity, to be later necro'd by nalkin on its 1 year anniversary so we can all say "wow, remember that tool? Wonder where he went."

Zuranthium

06-01-2011, 12:29 PM

No, I was referring to the amount of time you are able to spend in game judging by your character progression.

If I am focusing very intently, and only casting/moving inbetween med ticks, it takes me 2.5 hours at most to gain a level (aside from hell levels). Soloing. As an Enchanter.

ryandward

06-05-2011, 11:45 AM

Even as a Wizard, the most crapped on class in this thing, I would still be happy if they implemented two or three things; Harvest, Wizard Critical Hits and/or Breeze.

Tarathiel

06-05-2011, 03:24 PM

Its not about balance its about being skilled... People need to think outside the pixel a little bit. One of the best players I've met was a ranger... You know why? Because he knew his strengths and limitations and utilized himself to become more than sub par dps. What it comes down to is a) are you a good player b) can you play your class within the bounds of what's expected and c) can you adapt to new or unforeseen encounters in ways that are unexpected... If you answer yes to all of these questions then you will excel in this game no matter what class you play. No amount of balance arguments can explain away being a shitty player

soup

06-05-2011, 03:38 PM

Excuse me for being able to write lengthy, informative posts off the cuff.

Lengthy? Yes. Informative? ROFL

soup

06-05-2011, 03:49 PM

This:

Should probably be:

It's obvious you have a LOT of time on your hands.

Anyway I'll let you get back to comparing yourself to doctors and physics professors.

He doesn't know how to code a damn thing, yet apparently him commenting on game design is akin to a doctor commenting on health or a choreographer commenting on dancing.

Come on, give this dude who has no clue what he's talking about the respect he deserves!

Zuranthium

06-05-2011, 04:30 PM

Oh soup, such irrelevant comments as always.

Most great film directors don't know how to actually build a camera. Does that mean they don't know how to make good movies? You don't need to know how to write computer code to know how to design a game.

Its not about balance its about being skilled...

Except that if a game isn't properly balanced, then skill becomes less meaningful. If one class is always inferior to another regardless of skill, then it's imbalanced.

Pico

06-05-2011, 05:13 PM

the sooner you stop posting hilariously sad walls of text laced with visions of grandeur the sooner the healing can begin

Dynaguy

06-05-2011, 05:42 PM

it just makes them that much stronger when they don't deserve to be.

Lol, what's your beef with shamans exactly? How does it hurt you that shamans are powerful? You knew this when you started here, as they were just as powerful 11 years ago. Why whine about this now.

Nagash

06-05-2011, 06:01 PM

Oh soup, such irrelevant comments as always.

Let me summarise the situation to make sure I got it correct:
- you appeared out of nowhere on the forum of a very successfull server (welcome to you)
- but you did it only to rant and whine about how you don't like what is being done (because it could be so much better in a completely irrelevant way)
- doing so you showed a complete lack of respect towards the designers who work their arses off to keep the thing going the way they want it,
- You compare yourself to people who are experts in a field after having done very lengthy studies. Sorry for being blunt, the only thing you proved being an expert at is making yourself look like the organ hanging between a man's legs

So in light of this summary and coming back to this quote of yours, we can clearly say that it is a situation of an idiot calling someone elsse an idiot. I'd take that as a compliment if I were Soup.

Nagash/Petitpas

soup

06-05-2011, 06:03 PM

Oh soup, such irrelevant comments as always.

Most great film directors don't know how to actually build a camera. Does that mean they don't know how to make good movies? You don't need to know how to write computer code to know how to design a game.

You probably are thick headed enough to truly believe the comparisons you're making are accurate. As if somehow your aspie rantings here make you qualified to comment on game design the same way years and years of medical school make a doctor qualified to comment on health. You tout how awesomely smart you are, yet can't even comprehend the point of the server, a purpose so incredibly simple to understand that you stretch the limits of obliviousness by not getting it.

Nagash

06-05-2011, 06:15 PM

obliviousness

Don't use complicated words mate, you'll only get him to moan some more :)

Nagash/Petitpas

Kika Maslyaka

06-05-2011, 09:46 PM

No, I was referring to the amount of time you are able to spend in game judging by your character progression. Although the walls of text on the forum certainly helped corroborate my theory.
"

you obviously have no idea the amount of time it takes to write/develop QUALITY content, on EMu, even considering that game engine, graphics and server coding have been already done for you.

In amount of time you can level a non twinked character to 60 on p99, a SKILLED developer will probably only finish working on a SINGLE small zone like Blackburrow...

Zuranthium

06-06-2011, 03:04 AM

[Why can't you] comprehend the point of the server, a purpose so incredibly simple to understand that you stretch the limits of obliviousness by not getting it.

Since you have failed to read what I've written yet again, I will repeat that this thread was created to discuss ideas. It doesn't matter if the developers of this server don't care about making a better EQ game, and only want to recreate it letter by letter, the topics I've brought to the table are still worth talking about on this forum. This is the proper community to be discussing such things. It even might be directly beneficial for the developers within their current goal, as talking about these kinds of classic EQ topics may remind the developers about some detail they have forgotten to code or possibly had overlooked altogether.

Now, that aside, when you go to the main page of the p1999 website it specifically says the goal here is to recreate the classic Everquest experience. Hence, my argument that you can't recreate the classic Everquest experience without modifying the game such that people must play it as it was intended to be played and as it actually was played when first released. Moreover, I also argue that part of why the "classic EQ experience" was so memorable for all of us was because of how groundbreaking it was. The flaws of the game weren't as detrimental back then because (A.) we simply didn't understand the game as well, and (B.) even when we did find out about the flaws it wasn't like we were going to stop playing the game, given how it was one-of-a-kind. To create a gaming experience now that is on the same level of immersion as what the classic EQ experience was, the problems must be fixed and extra depth and/or unpredictability needs to be added as well, so that the game can be approached in 2011 as it was in the past.

And, make no mistake, there were certainly a large number of players who did indeed get fed up with the horrible class balance post original-EQ and stopped playing. When you put hours upon hours upon hours into a character, and then come to find out that you are actually rather useless later in the game and/or that you can't even play the majority of the content without very specific setups, it greatly sours the experience. The power of classic Everquest is that we look back upon it as a first love and/or a "what could have been". Nostalgia wields great power.

Anyway, apologies if it comes off as being a know-it-all (or unsupportive towards the developers). I don't know it all but I do know what I know about this, which is a large amount. Perhaps game theory and learning from history is not interesting to you and all you care about is EQ exactly as it was coded, and not EQ as what it represented, but I believe the latter is much more important than the former.