most underpowered class in game?

[Fammaden]

I think that is more of a poll on which classes players find the most boring.

[Zuranthium]

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

I just want to get the correct information out to new players.

Then you should have stopped posting in here a long time ago. I will pray for the poor new souls who listen to your advice and waste days of their life doing things very inefficiently.

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

Zuranthium has some weird fetish with DPS that simply blinds him to other aspects of the game. He doesn't understand that increasing DPS doesn't always work, or matter.

I never said nothing but DPS is needed. You unfortunately just don't understand the mechanics and the many reiterations that have been explained to you. Despite it being factual basic math. There are no "other aspects of the game" you understand better, your videos make that abundantly clear.

Not a single time in this thread have you given any good examples to support your opinion that "utility" is some all-important thing (a term you don't understand to begin with, trying to call things like Haste "utility"). You just keep stating it over and over, and basically only showing how slowly and unoptimally you play the game. Maybe you need a whole group of CC'ers and backup healers to do group content, but this game doesn't require that. Other people will achieve far more in the same amount of played time.

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

Nobody has been able to provide proper Mage camps at level 60 that make Mages particularly good.

Several were listed. But, like, you don't seem to understand chain petting. It opens up a lot of possibilities. It's crazy how you think Mages can't solo well. Granted, chain-petting is currently behaving incorrectly with aggro on p99, which sucks, but that's not how it's supposed to be. Hopefully they fix it, and other bizarre things like the Druid Immolate spell doing 0 damage for almost a year now (wtf?).

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

If you look at raw population numbers, it's usually Paladin or Ranger at the bottom. Wizard is usually pretty close as well. So it got me thinking about adding together the raiding AND non-raiding (e.g. leveling, farming) power levels. With this mindset, I think it might be Ranger.

Leveling the Paladin is better as a MT 50-60. For farming, a Paladin can tank well enough and with DW BP and Soulfire solo some nasty stuff. They also pair reasonably well with Ench. On the Ranger, your farming options are more using tracking and farming greens. 55+ you get kind of wrecked face tanking without some serious gear, and no one is inviting you to their HS group.

Raiding: Rangers get WS, COTP, solid DPS, and track is occasionally useful. Paladins get DA, DS, Soulfire/LoH and can tank trash better. However, WS is soo good that it's close. I think it's advantage Ranger, but not enough to offset the non-raiding aspect

I don't think it's close between the two for raiding. Tracking is more than occasionally useful, it's constantly helpful for seeing when things pop and mobilizing. Ranger is a big DPS increase to the raid with their buffs and Weaponshield is great. Nothing a Paladin does is needed. I'd rather just have another Cleric in the guild to ensure there's always a sufficient C-heal chain, especially since a guild can go for two raid targets at the same time if there are enough Clerics (and DPS, and Warriors) to support that play.

Outside of raids I'm also never like "I need a Paladin to do [xxx]". Whereas a Ranger for Tracking is something I might actually request. Paladin does do more in some groups, sure. For soloing a Ranger can level themselves faster by fear kiting animals, than a Paladin can by face tanking and having awful DPS. There are some specific things a Paladin can solo better but...why? It's better to be grouping. Ranger going for Quillmane cloaks is effectively doing something more productive with their time than a Paladin with their solo time.

The Soulfire thing in general is weird. It's a very limited ability. You can't just have that for every raid fight or go around soloing things nonstop with it. Speaking of actual classic EQ.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Just take a look at this thread: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...96#post3491696

To see how little Zuranthium actually knows about the game. He doesn't understand pulling, push, pet positioning, how mana effects DPS, etc.

Even when I provide video evidence he refuses to admit he is wrong. Be cautious when taking his advise (at least for now, he can always change). At this moment he seems hell bent on trying to be right, regardless of how wrong he is.

He doesn't understand that spells other that DPS spells (CC, Heals, Buffs, FD, etc.) have an effect on how to play the game correctly and efficiently. Enchanters are the best class in the game because of how much utility they have other than raw DPS. But he doesn't know this apparently. However, he will gladly split hairs on what we call non-DPS spells, since that is an easy win for him, which he is desperate for.

[Keebz]

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

I don't think it's close between the two for raiding. Tracking is more than occasionally useful, it's constantly helpful for seeing when things pop and mobilizing. Ranger is a big DPS increase to the raid with their buffs and Weaponshield is great. Nothing a Paladin does is needed. I'd rather just have another Cleric in the guild to ensure there's always a sufficient C-heal chain, especially since a guild can go for two raid targets at the same time if there are enough Clerics (and DPS, and Warriors) to support that play.

Outside of raids I'm also never like "I need a Paladin to do [xxx]". Whereas a Ranger for Tracking is something I might actually request. Paladin does do more in some groups, sure. For soloing a Ranger can level themselves faster by fear kiting animals, than a Paladin can by face tanking and having awful DPS. There are some specific things a Paladin can solo better but...why? It's better to be grouping. Ranger going for Quillmane cloaks is effectively doing something more productive with their time than a Paladin with their solo time.

The Soulfire thing in general is weird. It's a very limited ability. You can't just have that for every raid fight or go around soloing things nonstop with it. Speaking of actual classic EQ.

In raiding, tracking is useful in the planes for getting mob counts, but when looking for specific targets, pet tracking is the norm since it can be done from zone in or other safe spot.

I do see your point on Ranger utility and general lack of necessity for Paladins (except for DS), though the Soulfire nerf has changed things a bit. My main issue with Rangers is the lack of power 50+ non-raiding. Yea, you can track and do questing and what not, but in a dungeon you're very blah. Paladins at least lull, root their way around, face tank, stun casters, etc. They also pair reasonable well with Ench, which is a point for imho. I put a lot of weight on 55+ dungeoning, so if you don't I think it's fair to disagree.

I have also played all the melees well into the 50's except Paladin, so I may be overestimating. Time to level a Paladin I guess.

[Zuranthium]

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

Just take a look at this thread: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...96#post3491696

Indeed look at that thread, and your gameplay videos, for further proof of how suboptimally you play the game.

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

In raiding, tracking is useful in the planes for getting mob counts, but when looking for specific targets, pet tracking is the norm since it can be done from zone in or other safe spot.

I feel like pet tracking had a smaller range in classic, I remember very clearly knowing the mechanic to have the pet attack something even when you couldn't see the target (Hermit in South Karana for example) and trying to test how far I could use this from; at a certain distance from MOBs I seem to remember the pet not responding at all, which runs counter to p99 where it gives an emote. Logically there should be documentation of guilds using this back then if it worked, because plenty of people knew the command to do it; has anyone actually found evidence? I certainly don't remember guilds on my servers doing it.

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

My main issue with Rangers is the lack of power 50+ non-raiding. Yea, you can track and do questing and what not, but in a dungeon you're very blah. Paladins at least lull, root their way around, face tank, stun casters, etc.

Do you mean solo? Because for me that just goes back to the point of how a Paladin isn't going to make better "gains" solo in a dungeon than a Ranger can elsewhere.

If you mean for groups, well yeah a Paladin can do some things better, but they become weaker if the group already has a tank. Ranger can add a good amount of damage to a melee-heavy group and they also have Root, plus Snare. I wouldn't say a Paladin necessarily duos better with Enchanter all the time, being able to Snare everything is the safer option when charming sometimes, and Ranger's healing is often sufficient to fill the gaps an Enchanter might need.

I don't rate Lull super highly tbh, because if you are depending on it to move past a deadly spot in a closed-off area, then a crit resist simply means you die. I'm pretty sure Lull got crit resisted more frequently in actual classic than it does here. I remember an Enchanter friend complaining about how much that happened and how frustrating it was to watch Rangers be able to Harmony with no danger in a bunch of zones as compared to Lull (and I remember similar things playing an Enchanter for myself starting in late 2000). In safer areas with targets that aren't resisting at all, then Root can be nearly the same as Lull anyway, you just run past them after rooting and /camp before moving on.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I don't rate Lull super highly tbh.

You keep revealing your lack of game knowledge. You don't even know how lull works on P99. That is why you prefer root.

You need to actually start playing P99 and learning it before you give advice. It doesn't matter how you think P99 works, it only matters how it actually works.

Regardless of how lull might have worked on live in 1999, it does not get resisted nearly that much on P99. Until that changes, there is no point in worrying about how you think it should work. Use lull and be happy[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Danth]

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

. I'm pretty sure Lull got crit resisted more frequently in actual classic than it does here. I remember an Enchanter friend complaining about how much that happened and how frustrating it was to watch Rangers be able to Harmony with no danger in a bunch of zones as compared to Lull

I'm with you there, I played a paladin throughout that era and the lull spell line sucked no matter how much charisma you stacked.

Verant massively nerfed lull, utterly crippled the spell, a few months after EQ opened. They gave it a greatly increased, hugely inflatwed resist rate. It rendered the entire line practically useless except for use against very low blues and greens. Later on, during I think Luclin era, that nerf was reverted and the spell line was revamped; P1999, being based off PoP-era EQ-EMU, to my knowledge never truly implemented lull spells with their classic resist rates. The classic lull nerf was done host-side so it never showed up in the spelldata files that P99 tends to use as primary evidence.

Danth

[DMN]

Four score and 70 pages ago....

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

It's a poor question because there are too many categories of playing the game where the answer will be different.

[PatChapp]

Pacify gets resisted constantly, do any of you play enchanters? If your doing high lvl mobs, you can expect at least 5 resists each.
I have had 44 in a row from a mob that can be max lvl 55. It was annoying.
Cha has never affected resist rates,it only affects the rate at which a resist becomes a critical resist.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Pacify gets resisted constantly, do any of you play enchanters? If your doing high lvl mobs, you can expect at least 5 resists each.
I have had 44 in a row from a mob that can be max lvl 55. It was annoying.
Cha has never affected resist rates,it only affects the rate at which a resist becomes a critical resist.

Critical resists are the main problem, which is alleviated via CHA. But yes, I have gotten plenty of resist chains myself on the lull line of spells. Like everything in EQ, you get unlucky at times. But it's still generally better than trying to root the whole camp while having 3+ mobs trying to kill you, especially at higher levels when mobs hurt even more.