Idea for custom content: Classic Spirit server

[Tecmos Deception]

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

So based on the excellent feedback and criticism (much of it quite valid) I would amend the proposal to this:

• Item recharging disabled
• Multiquesting disabled
• Midnight Mallet effect changed to proc
• Ivandyr's Hoop effect removed from item
• Wooly Spider Silk Nets changed to LORE
• Soulfire clicky changed to Paladin-only
• Reaper of the Dead clicky changed to SK-only
• All high-level droppable weapons and armor tagged with level requirements (twinking still possible but you must use more level-appropriate gear rather than super-high end stuff)
• ZEMs of uncommonly utilized dungeons increased
• "Hot zones" with additional XP bonus rotated regularly through uncommonly utilized dungeons
• Particularly dangerous/annoying leveling dungeons (Runnyeye, Cazic-Thule, etc...) optimized for easier play (i.e. fix excessive NPC mana pools and healing/aggroing through walls)
• Legacy items (Manastone, Guise, JBoots, Rubicite, etc...) NOT in game. They demonstrably cause more trouble than they're worth on a new server
• AOE spell limit in place (no Chardok AOE)
• All charm spells limited to a fixed six-tick duration (36 sec). They either resist outright or last 36 seconds every time (Charm becomes emergency CC and/or risky short-term DPS/tanking, not the OP monstrosity it is now)
  
• Clarity removed from Enchanters and given to Wizards
• JBB equivalent clicky added for Wizards in Kunark era
• Spell: Harvest changed from returning 10% mana every 10 minutes to 20% mana every 3 minutes
• Wizards given innate spell criticals
• Paladins and SKs given innate undead criticals
• Melody implemented for Bards
• Monk AC/mitigation nerfed to post-Velious patch level towards end of Velious timeline
• Lifetap spells restored to lure/unresistable status
• Pet window enabled (QoL)
• Torpor overwrites runspeed buffs and drains 50 mana per tick
• Hybrid XP penalty removed
• -25% XP penalty for solo players
• +5% XP bonus for each player in group
• +5% XP bonus removed from Halflings and given to Humans
• Player-enforced raid rotations mandatory, with semi-regular simulated server resets (Earthquakes) that are FFA on all raid mobs

At this point I think the most contentious change would be making charm a fixed 36 second duration. But as was pointed out, this actually makes charm better and more predictable in certain applications. Highly skilled Enchanters would still got a lot of mileage out of charm. But it definitely makes it harder for JoeBlow_Enchanter_001 to charm for easy XP and massive group DPS. I think it's a good compromise.

But I would love to hear more ideas from people on how to balance charm in the spirit of classic. I think it's one of the most important considerations.

36-second charm totally changes the spell and how it is used. If you insist on nerfing charm, then just nerf it. Give it a 4-minute max duration and more upfront resists. Now it's less reliable in the heat of things, significantly more mana intensive, lower average duration, but while still being usable in the same sort of way as it was on live and is now.

I hate the twinking change. I've always hated changes that force players to play a certain way arbitrarily. Would you rather see someone playing a big twink, or someone buying a lot of power level? Cause you're gonna get one or the other, except the former at least will sometimes be in groups and hanging out with lowbies and stuff.

Instead of giving wizards some kind of clicky, reduce the mana costs on all their nukes by like 30%. They get higher damage over time but without having to get an item in order for their class to function. Plus there are clicky nukes in Kunark already, they're just rare. I'm not sure if this AND harvest buff AND innate crits is a bit much though, especially for classic era.

[Wurl]

Twinking is kind of the end-game of classic EQ. It causes some negative behaviors, but that would be the hardest change to swallow and I think you actually lose a lot of the PvE sandbox feel of classic EQ without the extreme twinking.

Otherwise, I think the list is still looking good for what a classic+ server would look like.

[Vexenu]

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

36-second charm totally changes the spell and how it is used. If you insist on nerfing charm, then just nerf it. Give it a 4-minute max duration and more upfront resists. Now it's less reliable in the heat of things, significantly more mana intensive, lower average duration, but while still being usable in the same sort of way as it was on live and is now.

Not a bad idea. Basically just make it harder to use so that only players who are really dialed in and focused can make it work reliably. XP groups might not even want Enchanters to charm in many cases. I think any change to charm should have that goal in mind: make charm into a situationally useful spell in the skilled Enchanter's toolkit, rather than something he wants to be doing nearly 100% of the time because it's so powerful.

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

Instead of giving wizards some kind of clicky, reduce the mana costs on all their nukes by like 30%. They get higher damage over time but without having to get an item in order for their class to function. Plus there are clicky nukes in Kunark already, they're just rare. I'm not sure if this AND harvest buff AND innate crits is a bit much though, especially for classic era.

Solid idea.

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

I hate the twinking change. I've always hated changes that force players to play a certain way arbitrarily. Would you rather see someone playing a big twink, or someone buying a lot of power level? Cause you're gonna get one or the other, except the former at least will sometimes be in groups and hanging out with lowbies and stuff.

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

Twinking is kind of the end-game of classic EQ. It causes some negative behaviors, but that would be the hardest change to swallow and I think you actually lose a lot of the PvE sandbox feel of classic EQ without the extreme twinking.

Otherwise, I think the list is still looking good for what a classic+ server would look like.

I feel you guys here, speaking as someone who spent much more time twinking and leveling alts than doing anything else. But let's be honest: mudflation kind of breaks the game at a certain point. When you have Kunark weapons you can barely give away that are superior to Vanilla-era planar weapons, something is clearly amiss. On the other hand, twinking is fun and breathes a lot of life back into the game. There must be a happy medium.

So: what if the level-restricted items were fairly limited? Basically things like Fungi, all 36% haste, any weapons that drop in 50+ Kunark/Velious content. In this case, you could still twink a Monk with an FBSS and a Wu's Quivering Staff. You're still an absolute meat grinder compared to what you would be naked. But the game isn't completely trivialized (mostly by the Fungi).

In fact, you could probably limit the proposal to ONLY the Fungi Tunic requiring a level of 46 or 50 and accomplish 80% of what is intended. This is actually very similar to the change staff made with epics requiring a minimum level, and so not unprecedented. What would you guys think about that? Just put a minimum level on the Fungi Tunic and leave everything else alone?

[Ivory]

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

On the other hand, twinking is fun and breathes a lot of life back into the game.

If you want something really bananas....try playing without twinking....AND without grinding.

"But....if you don't grind...what do you do?" - If that is your thought, then whewww get ready for an adventure!!!

Questing, roaming around dungeons, seeking great power and getting upgrades....RPing and hiring other players to help out (not with twink money! with your own stuff you got from random quests and adventures!).

It's a totally different game. You don't stop advancing if you don't grind...you just advance in a totally different way. It's sooooo much more fun than twinking. (since a good twink you will feel basically godly....and that is fun for a bit...but then super boring because all there is is a grind).

[Tecmos Deception]

What is inherently wrong with mudflation on a classic timeline? Without it, with OPs twinking limitations, 2 years from now, new players and very casual players would be struggling to form groups that can handle anything except oasis, loio, overthere while the heavy players are clustered in Seb, hs, velks, raids, not rolling enough alts to fill in and the alts that might be there aren't big twinks to carry the load of empty slots and casual players.

Nobody likes a cof fungi fungus Tstaff monk killing half of unrest and not grouping. But that sort of player isn't going to be joining up casual and newb groups anyway if you limit his twinking... he'll just buy PL and take over even more of the zone so he can get higher to use his cool toys.

[fadetree]

You guys are kind of hard core about the 'you must group' idea. Penalizing solo exp? What for? Y'know, some people do have a different idea of what is fun in EQ.

Not everyone feels the same as you do. I would not have the experience you are describing if I simply 'played that way'. It's not because I haven't tried it, and it's not because I don't understand what you are saying.

Not everybody likes RPing. Not everybody hates grinding, I actually like it. Not everybody likes HAVING to group. Not everybody thinks it's evil to solo or twink. There are many different playstyles...and I actually think limited BOXING (gasp) is not evil either. I know, I've said it, and I'm out now. I feel free.

I like a lot of the ideas for this server, and would try, but I notice that you gave wizards a bump, mentioned SKs and Pallies, but think that Rangers should be left with the complete joke that classic archery is.

[Keebz]

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

I notice that you gave wizards a bump, mentioned SKs and Pallies, but think that Rangers should be left with the complete joke that classic archery is.

This is the problem with randomly buffing classes... everyone wants a hand out.

Just nerf the exploity stuff only a small percent of people even know about in classic and then see how it pans out.

[Vexenu]

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

What is inherently wrong with mudflation on a classic timeline? Without it, with OPs twinking limitations, 2 years from now, new players and very casual players would be struggling to form groups that can handle anything except oasis, loio, overthere while the heavy players are clustered in Seb, hs, velks, raids, not rolling enough alts to fill in and the alts that might be there aren't big twinks to carry the load of empty slots and casual players.

Nobody likes a cof fungi fungus Tstaff monk killing half of unrest and not grouping. But that sort of player isn't going to be joining up casual and newb groups anyway if you limit his twinking... he'll just buy PL and take over even more of the zone so he can get higher to use his cool toys.

Some valid points. So what's the downside of giving ONLY the Fungi a level 46 requirement? The staff did this for Epics mostly due to the insanity of Rogues leveling up with cheap Ragebringers. Can we not agree that a Fungi is equally if not more powerful than a Ragebringer for twinking, and is unique among items in this regard? (And no the Iksar BP is not lost on me, I think it's a much more reasonable twinking item that is powerful but not completely over the top).

[Keebz]

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

So what's the downside of giving ONLY the Fungi a level 46 requirement? The staff did this for Epics mostly due to the insanity of Rogues leveling up with cheap Ragebringers. Can we not agree that a Fungi is equally if not more powerful than a Ragebringer for twinking, and is unique among items in this regard? (And no the Iksar BP is not lost on me, I think it's a much more reasonable twinking item that is powerful but not completely over the top).

Well Fungi twinking was definitely classic, and is pretty fun, but you make a good point.

I remember on live the added a level requirement to Venomous Axe of the Velium Brood in Luclin, which is uh significantly weaker than a Fungi.

[Wurl]

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

You guys are kind of hard core about the 'you must group' idea. Penalizing solo exp?

You should update the OP with the newest version of the list, Vexenu.

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

In fact, you could probably limit the proposal to ONLY the Fungi Tunic requiring a level of 46 or 50 and accomplish 80% of what is intended.

I like this idea, making fungi and a maybe a handful of the worst twink offenders have level requirements.