Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxigen
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
31 pages
yikes
|
So far 99 voting "needs nerf" and 89 voting "does not need nerf."
These threads always go long because a lot of Enchanters are scared their OP class will be adjusted like Nec/Bard/Etc regardless of classic evidence they know exists and a lot of P99 players are sick of the Enchanter focused meta especially as it relates to the future servers of P99.
As stated earlier my messaging is lacking and I hope to bring these two groups together with a larger analysis. In essence I still feel Enchanter is mostly fine at level 50+ so Enchanters should relax and realize they'll still be OP in the end same as today. It's just the power curve to get 50+ requires a lot more effort and is much harder in classic era. That means pre-Kunark.
From one perspective I'm actually arguing for an increase in Enchanter power for those who play it to 50+. There should be less Enchanters willing or capable to level to 50+ given the difficulty but for those who do they will be a more rare and in demand class with the same level of power they have today.
That is outside of the channeling nerf which will hurt almost everyone but is necessary to restore classic difficulty and game design. The game is more fun when the difficulty follows the intended game design. People hate nerfs but it's for their own good. Same as Verant nerfing all kinds of shit and people crying non-stop in classic. If people find ways to escape the intended design curves in terms of leveling, DPS, etc it's harmful to the entire server.
Finding these ways to escape is what made classic EQ fun for a lot of people so of course they're pissed that some of these methods might get nerfed. The trick was to find ways to escape the curve and not have it become wide spread and get nerfed. P99 needs to stop letting wide spread abusive mechanics escape nerfs because "it's classic." Allowing these things is also not classic. Item recharges, pet tracking, channeling, charm, and so on would all be nerfed on a real live classic server if it was as wide spread as it is here. It's all about level of impact on subscriber revenue and speed of progress through content.
Green launch, in my opinion, demonstrates a real lack of understanding or agreement from the devs with this concept. My reasoning was the instanced Teal server because of "overcrowding" on green. Green had like 1/5th a real live server population. The difficult leveling due to "overcrowding" was a design feature and is a big part of why ZEMs weren't so impactful on live.
Did HHK on live have a high ZEM? Probably. You know what else it had? 5x as many players and the goblin area was split into 3-4 camps of full groups waiting on spawns. That is probably why the ZEM was higher, due to limited spawns, and lots of players. You mostly sat around talking to your group members, socializing, getting bored and coming up with stupid ideas like leaving HHK to try Runnyeye and then getting your corpses lost deep in the zone. You know, having fun, doing stuff with other players, not just lining up for the high ZEM zone which is intentionally kept low population. Was the Hole selected for high ZEM because the devs thought it would support enough players? That is a BAD idea not a good one. High ZEM should mean overcrowding and a difficult/boring experience not tons of mobs and a free for all for your group.
03-24-2021, 11:52 AM
Linear Mode
