Something to tank about

[GreldorEQ]

We are going to be many months away from having clerics around to do rezzes for the sake or rezzing, survivability on green will be so very important.

That being said, the survivability aspect of knights are going to outshine a warrior in group content. The tools in the toolbox for knights help make this happen, snare, root, stun, LoH, Harmtouch, FD.

Dying is going to be a giant pain in the ass on green, where it is a marginal inconvenience on blue today. It will drive a noticeable difference in the players who can master their classes with only classic spell-sets and weapons.

[sciception]

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

You won't find this information because it's not out there. For many years AC was broken on P1999. Any threads pre-dating about mid 2015 are thus useless for your purpose. Armor was fixed in 2015 and a modest amount of trial was conducted by myself and others to confirm that point, but that's about the limit of what I ever saw. Most testing was done with Warriors, a little with Knights, and virtually nothing with Rangers or other light melee. Only the developers who programmed it know the details for sure, and in true classic spirit they aren't spelling it out.

What we have to go on in-game is that Rangers mitigate sufficiently for most group content, including effectively all "normal" group content. Shields should in this case not be forgotten even by Rangers since P1999 uses the slightly out-of-era shield overcap bonus.

Danth

Haha, yeah EQ has always been a guessing game. Only recently have they put this information in the Resource folder on live.

[sciception]

Not necessarily for leveling purposes, but when Warriors get two Yaks they become much stronger and more viable for sure. Just thought I'd concede this point even though no one has brought it up.

[astuce999]

Neat.

20 years later and 4 pages in and no one mentions a bard tank.

I guess Green will be a truly classic experience on that level.

*note: I will grant you all that most players who play bards won't be able to tank, so if you want to do a 'in reality' thing, sure, there won't be many bard tanks on the server.

good times ahead.

Astuce

[bum3]

^ they get some massive agro songs and wear plate. From my experience they typically start to run in circles when a hard hitting mob gets on them... =)

[Jimjam]

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

Love to know myself. Also, the Ranger is going to have a higher avoidance multiplier, so until I see a table with class specific mitigation differences I won't be changing the order. I probably still wouldn't change Paladin to #2 due to the insane learning curve compared to Rangers.

If this stuff about mitigation/avoidance tables is correct, i don't think p1999 has such a feature.

I remember when i was investigating AC i found ranger took a similar average hit in KC to other classes (because it was easy to reach the point of diminished return for AC) but MASSIVELY lagged behind on avoidance. I think i comment on my data with more detail in the old bard vs ranger thread.

Ranger on blue doesn't live up to their reputation on classic. I'm not sure if this is because itemisation is better understood or if rangers are simply bugged.

[Glasken]

Originally Posted by astuce999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Neat.

20 years later and 4 pages in and no one mentions a bard tank.

I guess Green will be a truly classic experience on that level.

*note: I will grant you all that most players who play bards won't be able to tank, so if you want to do a 'in reality' thing, sure, there won't be many bard tanks on the server.

good times ahead.

Astuce

*ahem*

I did mention a bard tank. And put them where they belong.

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

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

...

While a ranger is a great benefit to any group, a bard can tank just as well.

...

Fight me.

[Glasken]

I have been out of the loop on P99 for a while, so I went forum searching.

Looking into the AC issues, I can see how it would be a massive undertaking to get AC values correct if the original (or at least close-to-era) tables are gone.

I'll do some more looking around, but I did manage to find this post from an EQ DEV regarding AC:

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/.../#post-3078126

It's Daybreak, and it's Apr 16, 2014, but worth a look I think.


I also vaguely remember a post a looooong time ago that blew my mind about how warriors worked. It was during the early stages of Luclin and was made by a person who played a female gnome warrior that was doing research on how the weapon damage bonuses worked and how AC worked by parsing themselves and guildmates getting hit and hitting with various bits of gear added or removed. Only thing I can remember about the forum is that it used a white background...super helpful I know.

Trying to find the forum post but it may be lost.

[cd288]

Guilds use Rangers as DT targets because they don't contribute that much in a raid.

[sciception]

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

Guilds use Rangers as DT targets because they don't contribute that much in a raid.

I find that hard to believe. Wizard's completely useless in Sky sure, but melee DPS always adds up.