Do we need to "fix" classes for Green 2?

[Warioc]

I write this based on the idea that Green/Teal is an attempt to capture the experience of EQ at release. So far im having a fun time playing my bard but its obvious that one thing that's not at all how it was during the original launch is how people have spread over the classes.

More specifically there are almost no melee classes being played. This is obviously for good reasons, we know now that melee is more a hindrance then a gain over casters, especially at initial game. At this stage casters have more damage and much more utility then melee.

I just checked green now, Sunday night, low numbers with 800 and change on and there are 18 Rangers. Even wizards have 33 online.

Again, reason why is simple, an enchanter's charmed mob do way more damage then a ranger and he has utility, a necro pet do more damage then a ranger and the necro himself can do damage as well, same for a mage pet, more damage then a ranger and so on.

I assume we will eventually see some of these chanters, mages, necros and druids twink other classes but is this how we want the servers to look next time around as well? Or is it worth thinking of doing some changes (that in themselves won't be "classic") to get a more "classic feel" next time around?

[Warioc]

Sorry posted in the wrong forum, go me. Cant delete it as far as I can see so have to stay here until a mod moves it

[this user was banned]

no

[bubur]

I vote no for all unclassic top-down changes that try to force a "classic feel."

I don't know what to tell ya. It's been 20 years. Players gonna meta. It wasn't balanced back then either

[Nirgon]

I just put a rubicite breastplate on my rogue

I will be playing it soon, couple more items

Welcome to EQ

[Videri]

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

I just put a rubicite breastplate on my rogue

I will be playing it soon, couple more items

Welcome to EQ

Exactly.

Don’t worry, OP. EverQuest isn’t “unbalanced.” It’s balanced in a more convoluted way. I’d posit that even EQ PvP isn’t unbalanced. Balance happens through items, exp, group needs, guild needs...

Melees have limitations, but are very necessary long-term for sustained DPS. And the fact that fewer people play melees at launch means those who do play melees get more group invitations and gear. Balance occurs one way or another.

Wizards have their limitations too, but without them you literally can’t go to PoSky or PoHate.

Question for those who played early EQ: what were the class populations or ratios like back then? How does Green or Teal compare?

[Man0warr]

Seemed pretty balanced back then, but people were fine grouping/taking a lot longer to level as they didn't know any better. There wasn't really a place to complain about hybrid penalties nor did people really understand them. Probably wasn't until ShowEQ got developed that there was any hard evidence about experience at all.

All the legendary badasses back then doing crazy feats were Enchanters and Necros though.

Once these Necros/Druids/Enchanters hit 50 and farm up gear for alts you will start seeing Monks/Rogues/Warriors/Wizards - because everyone knows those classes are required down the road and are some of the best classes in the expansion content.

[Warioc]

As others pointed out, hard to say how it was at live launch, it felt more evenly distributed although I remember warriors being hard to find. I believe people back then picked classes more based on the image of the class and what they like to play compared to now, Shadow knights, Paladins and Rangers where everywhere though but that adds up if you look at the "cool" factor.

When I say "fix" classes I don't even know specifically how to fix it. For example, comparing a Warrior with a Ranger/SK/Paladin the exp. penalty seems valid, especially starting out (and that's really when it matters) But if you instead compare a Druid with a Ranger the penalty for the ranger seems silly.

But the exp penalty probably don't affect things that much, I don't think there would be a major shift even if it was removed.

[tommydgun]

I'm a level 25 rogue and I backstab for 115 and my attacks usually do 15 to 25 each and usually 2 or 3 per round. A wizard nuke at level 24 does 185 damage. I'm not seeing the imbalance. You keep comparing to ranger dps but they are a hybrid with their own utility. A mage pet can't tank for a group. You nuke twice in a row as a wizard and you have aggro and you're dead. Melees are fine trust me even at lower levels.

[Man0warr]

The main issue, at least in the first weeks of the server, was that the tanks didn't have the gear to be efficiently healed (especially without Clarity), and other melee require a tank to do their best damage. Due to pet mechanics a mob will generally ignore them if any PC is in melee range.

So the most efficient party composition was pet classes/healer(s)/enchanter.