Let's talk CLASS BALANCE

[stormlord]

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

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.

[Danth]

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]

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.

[Zuranthium]

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

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]

classic class balance sucks...
eq1 class balance sucks in general...
welcome to P99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Volsic]

No. You're dumb.

[garyogburn]

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?

[Zuranthium]

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

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".

[Orruar]

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

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.

[Dr4z3r]

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.