Petition - Make druid track viable please.
 

Im new to server, 2 weeks old and dont understand the action(s) leading up to the nerf of druid track, but can you please at least make it usable or function better than which seems like few meters around us?

Compromise - Since druids are in tune with nature being outdoors can track be returned to where it was during outdoors and reduced in dungeons?

I like to think a compromise is better than making something totally useless and ruining it for everyone. Yes?

Please reconsider this nerf and at least give us druids some compromise.

Thanks.

If you agree, please signed this petition. Don't Troll please.

They aren't going to change track back. They made track in alignment with what it is supposed to be in classic. This a change that they have talked about for months now, and now it is finally in effect.

As a druid, and a very shitty everquest player, i am in favor of this change. This will reduce the chances that I find a target to fight and therefore reduces the chances that I will die and have to go on an corpse run.

Druids are easy mode enough.

The point is, Druids get track at 19, and they now have a max skill of 50. Bards get track at 35 and still have a max of 125. How is this fair? I'm not sure, however this is how it was on Classic. But -- Classic implemented this change around the Velious drop. 3 months later, it was lifted. Time line is a tad bit different this time, not knowing when Velious will come is going to effect this.

This has been a change they announced months ago, the discussion should have been had then not post patch./

Track is currently broken as well which may be why it seems even more useless now. The tracking location isnt updating properly. There is a thread in the bug forum.

Not correct.

It has always been 100 on a bard. I logged in today, and it was still 100.

it has nothing to do with what you want. this is a classic server. they aren't trying to right what went wrong in EQ, they are trying to recreate it.

your post (which is reasonable compromise) belongs in a forum thread 12 years ago, not here and now.