Miscellaneous: Compiled list of bug/issues/disputes

[Bockscar]

I'll admit, I didn't play much on the PvP server and when I did play it was later on it was a neutral bard. I had no problems with resists except from mobs. I used that PvE example and dragons roar as a mass fear that wasn't able to be resisted with even 175MR.

Vox and Naggy are also level 55 while half the people on a typical raid wouldn't even be 50, and it was plenty possible to resist dragon AoEs if you wore resist gear like a good little raider. You just wouldn't likely resist all of them because raid bosses are typically a handful of levels above you.

You're right, they are two different things but I fundamentally disagree with someone being 90% resistant to a mez with 105 MR. That means any caster worth a snot, a mystic cloak, HBB, some bracers and a buff cannot be mezd. That doesn't seem right.... seems like you're shafting one class there in PvP. Tashan, at most, reduces around 33MR. That's my 2 cents and it may not be classic but 105MR shouldn't make enchanters almost useless in pvp.

That's... just kinda how it was. Some class roles completely changed as soon as people got gear. In high-end PvP, an enchanter is there to tash, dispel, CC pets, and occasionally try to mez somebody. If they implement the +50% effect of resist debuffs in PvP here like they did on live in Velious, tashing for -50MR is pretty useful and will allow the enchanter to land spells on all but the most insanely geared opponents.

Also note that people back then didn't know as much as we do now. Lots of people didn't wear a full set of resist gear, so it was generally easier to play a caster at the time. Look at someone like Blart, a fairly famous PvPer - he ran with something like 80MR unbuffed, so an enchanter could very easily have tashed him and landed spells. Resist buffs aren't that hard to get rid of either.

[Kelsar]

Oh man, this should be interesting to see how devs will handle resists especially when you consider the +/- 8 level range.

What level of magic resist should a player be able to resist 9 out of 10 snares?

[Kelsar]

Originally Posted by Krayze [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

JILENA for president of Pvp server

agree

[jilena]

I am not going to argue classic mechanics, but I would say if we are just going for a "fair" should figure out a good "reasonably high" resist point say "120" and have CC resist at say 80-85% and then have diminishing returns so that "150" resist equals 85-90% chance to resist and "200" resist is like 90-95% resist chance. So that having reasonably high resist setup leaves you in pretty good shape to fight but having absurdly high resists makes you almost untouchable with the difference between the two not so absurd that you have to have the best resist gear in the game to compete.

Again, this is not HOW I REMEMBER IT FROM 1999 this is just a suggestion of a reasonable system.

[Bockscar]

You really only needed like 100-120ish MR to be practically immune to CC spells. All that's left at that point is the default 5% or whatever chance a spell always has of landing, and maybe one or two more percent from the rest of the diminishing return scale which isn't worth trying to get. You never really needed 150-200 MR, that's just extra padding for when you get tashed. There might have been some tangible difference between 100 and 120, but not much, 100 was enough that you didn't have to worry about getting killed by CC. Anything over 120ish was generally unnoticeable and not worth trying to get if it meant sacrificing other resists.

[jilena]

Thanks!

[jilena]

Mimix, I think there is a difference between having them be possible to land and having it so that you can quickly and efficiently snare/root/mez/blind everyone without fail. I don't think anyone is claiming that snare, root, mez, stun, blind, whatever should land even most of the time.

The question is should they be resisted 100% of the time? And at what resist level is this an acceptable thing? Naked? 100 MR? 150 MR? 200 MR?

Do we go with Wermacht and insist that rogues, monks, and warriors be made to be the top tier solo classes they "always were" in classic pre-Kunark Everquest? Even if that means the other 11 classes in the game have to have their abilities made so incredibly useless that they aren't even worth memorizing? It would require making the resist chance super high at even minimal resist levels because none of these classes can take into account buffs from other classes as they are serious solo classes.

Or do we pick some random anecotal evidence from elsewhere on the internet and set some resist "soft cap" up where spells resist heavily but not all the time? So that yes, at moderate resist levels, it's possible for 5 druids to, between the 5 of them, land a single snare on a solo player and put him at an extreme disadvantage? (that's the same as an 80% chance). And that it takes extreme levels of resistance to get to 90 or 95% resist chances? Keep in mind that only 3 classes in Everquest do not have a root or a snare of their own.

What do you want to see? Like give me an example.

[Darwoth]

120ish mr and you hardly ever got rooted/snared/mezzed, cant say what the ratio was but it was sufficient enough that nobody bothered trying to root or snare unless they were a newb.

as an aside nobody is being kited anywhere if their properly prepared with a few pumice stones and/or do not just mindlessly walk after the kiter.

likewise an enchanter isnt controlling a group of anything except retards that dont know how to punch each other or carry pots.

[Darwoth]

also rogues monks and warriors (and rangers) were the shittiest classes in the game in pvp lol

[Arillious]

Originally Posted by Darwoth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

also rogues monks and warriors (and rangers) were the shittiest classes in the game in pvp lol

I would put warriors in a slightly less level of shittiness than rangers, monks and rogues in pvp. At least they had a ton of hp and could wield high damaging 2 handers.