Enchanter OP impact poll

[loramin]

The problem with these sorts of threads is that anyone sane bows out of them in the first few pages, and all that's left are the insane people ... the bulk of whom seem to take any attempt to make this place more classic as a personal insult, which they need to "defend to the death" (forum-style).

[Baler]

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

The problem with these sorts of threads is that anyone sane bows out of them, and all that's left are the insane people ... the bulk of whom seem to take an attempt to make this place more classic as a personal insult, regardless of its merits.

What does that make you? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

edit: the real problem with this thread is OP's attitude. He's pissy that bard AE kiting got nerfed and is on a warpath to ruin other people's enjoyment.

[loramin]

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

What does that make you? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[G13]

EQ back then was basically an immersive chat room that you happened to gain some exp and loot in. The people I played with back then were mostly laid back, and not the power gaming grinders we often see today (myself included.) Don’t forget, many people built real life friendships, relationships, and even got married in game just like they did in AOL chat rooms. There were actual conversations in groups, and not always about the game. Today, most groups I’ve been in were so intensely focused on maximizing XP, we rarely got to know each other. Back then people would ask where you were from and talk about their lives.

People forget that EQ was inspired by MUDS (Brad was a hardcore MUD gamer)

All it is really at it's core is a MUD with a 3D graphics engine

[cd288]

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

The problem with these sorts of threads is that anyone sane bows out of them in the first few pages, and all that's left are the insane people ... the bulk of whom seem to take any attempt to make this place more classic as a personal insult, which they need to "defend to the death" (forum-style).

I’m all for changing things to be classic but beyond channeling neither OP nor anybody else can present any actual evidence.

One person says oh I remember classic being this way. And someone else says the opposite. One person finds a forum post that they believe lends credence to their argument. Another person finds a post that directly contradicts the other post. None of these things are evidence.

Present actual evidence and put it in the bugs forum. There’s no point to these types of threads in this section of the forum and it’s doubly annoying that OP makes the same thread every few months.

[bubur]

the real real problem w these threads is no solution proposed

we have arguing over whether the coders should "fix" this for actual years now. maybe we should ask could they?

[Baler]

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

the real real problem w these threads is no solution proposed

we have arguing over whether the coders should "fix" this for actual years now. maybe we should ask could they?

I'm telling you all, Let's emulate internet from 1999 and it will solve so many problems!

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’m all for changing things to be classic but beyond channeling neither OP nor anybody else can present any actual evidence.

One person says oh I remember classic being this way. And someone else says the opposite. One person finds a forum post that they believe lends credence to their argument. Another person finds a post that directly contradicts the other post. None of these things are evidence.

Present actual evidence and put it in the bugs forum. There’s no point to these types of threads in this section of the forum and it’s doubly annoying that OP makes the same thread every few months.

I didn't see that; to the contrary, I saw several people, including master researcher Dolalin, saying there were likely multiple issues ... just not big ones.

But look, I'm curious ... did you play in classic? If so, you almost certainly read sites which explained which classes could solo and which couldn't. There were lots of such sites, but they all said the same basic thing, so I'll use Caster's Realm (as it seems to be the basis for our wiki):

"Despite the fact that Clerics are one of only two pure caster classes which can wear plate, they are not suited to prolonged tanking which makes soloing difficult. "

"Druids are perhaps the best soloing class in the game."

"Because of this [Rogues] are generally poor soloers, and forced to group. "

"Magicians can solo quite effectively"

... you get the idea.

Now of course, those sites did make mistakes sometimes, but not about basics like which classes can solo. In fact, you can pick any class, compare what sites said about them back in '99-'01 vs. what people say on the forum today, and they will be roughly the same ....

... except for Enchanters, the only class that changed! If we did a poll and asked "Are Enchanters good soloers?" 90+% would respond yes ... but back then ...

"Soloing, whilst possible, is generally quite slow and as such they do not raise levels as quickly as some other classes as their experience is almost always through that of a group."


My argument is very, very simple: until our game matches the game described on countless Wayback machine sites, it's not classic. Maybe that means we need to start randomly disconnecting people [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] But again, I think it would make more sense to fix small bugs, and tweak numbers/equations/formulas that we never had exact evidence of in the first place.

[cd288]

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

I didn't see that; to the contrary, I saw several people, including master researcher Dolalin, saying there were likely multiple issues ... just not big ones.

But look, I'm curious ... did you play in classic? If so, you almost certainly read sites which explained which classes could solo and which couldn't. There were lots of such sites, but they all said the same basic thing, so I'll use Caster's Realm (as it seems to be the basis for our wiki):

"Despite the fact that Clerics are one of only two pure caster classes which can wear plate, they are not suited to prolonged tanking which makes soloing difficult. "

"Druids are perhaps the best soloing class in the game."

"Because of this [Rogues] are generally poor soloers, and forced to group. "

"Magicians can solo quite effectively"

... you get the idea.

Now of course, those sites did make mistakes sometimes, but not about basics like which classes can solo. In fact, you can pick any class, compare what sites said about them back in '99-'01 vs. what people say on the forum today, and they will be roughly the same ....

... except for Enchanters, the only class that changed! If we did a poll and asked "Are Enchanters good soloers?" 90+% would respond yes ... but back then ...

"Soloing, whilst possible, is generally quite slow and as such they do not raise levels as quickly as some other classes as their experience is almost always through that of a group."


My argument is very, very simple: until our game matches the game described on countless Wayback machine sites, it's not classic. Maybe that means we need to start randomly disconnecting people [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] But again, I think it would make more sense to fix small bugs, and tweak numbers/equations/formulas that we never had exact evidence of in the first place.

Again, hearsay posts are meaningless. You have an in era guide on enchanters on the wiki for example that says charm is the enchanters most powerful tool. Posts and guides are all just contradictory hearsay. Find patch notes, dev comments, or data mining as evidence and post it in the bug forum.

Posts in this section of the forums are pointless. If you have legit evidence go post in the bug forum.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, hearsay posts are meaningless. You have an in era guide on enchanters on the wiki for example that says charm is the enchanters most powerful tool. Posts and guides are all just contradictory hearsay. Find patch notes, dev comments, or data mining as evidence and post it in the bug forum.

Posts in this section of the forums are pointless. If you have legit evidence go post in the bug forum.

I'm talking about two distinct things, but you're conflating them.

Thing #1: how one can tell that things aren't classic here (the fact that our game matches what all of the sites in '99-'01 describe, for every class ... except Enchanters).

Thing #2: why we aren't classic (as I mentioned, there are multiple issues, at least some of which have already been documented with evidence by people who know far more than I, eg. Dolalain).