Compiled list of bug/issues/disputes

[jilena]

This is a list of the majority of the bugs reported in the PvP Bugs forum compiled to be in one location. This post does not contain my opinion or any sort of "factual" interpretation of the posts. I am simply compiling what was reported elsewhere.

BUGS
These are issues with the game and existing mechanics not working as they are intended.

Confirmed by several players:
These bugs have several posts confirming the behavior.

Player resists are way too high.
After the patch player resists are excessive. Currently 65 resist in any flavor seems to be the magic number. This is currently the number one bug/complaint of just about anyone playing on the server.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?p=435609

Mage Pets do not root players with SoW.
If the player has SoW or JBoots effect cast on them the earth pet will not attempt to root the player.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51024
I made a new mage to test this. It appears to work as described. With SoW on pet will not attempt to root. See image:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/mven42/red99/ead54b69.png


Enchanter Minor Illusion randomly not showing player in illusion
All players in zone are not seeing the effect of minor illusion. Some players will see the effect while others do not.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50118
I did quite a bit of testing on this and I think the issue with the illusion not working at all has to do with the player viewing the illusion staring at an area where no object is visible that can be copied by minor illusion. Also zoning seems to cause some weirdness. Please see the above thread as I included the details of my testing there. The images would not fit in this thread.

Need more information:
These bugs were reported but need more information/testing provided to be resolved.

AE Spells bypass level restrictions and dynamic level range
Players are able to AE other players regardless of level
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51121
I tried testing this using the level 4 mage spell Fire Flux but I did not get hit nor did I receive any messages when casting standing right on top of my level 50. If I hit my level 4 with my level 50 to flag him, then the spell landed. What spells are seeing this issue?
I tried this with a level 4 enchanter casting color flux and was unable to hit my level 50 with it until I flagged him in range. I will try to level her to 10-12ish so I can test on hitting lower levels.
I did some more testing after levelling my enchanter to 12. More and more I am thinking that all characters level 2-7 are 100% open to attack by characters of all levels. My color flux does hit a level 2 sk I made and flag me able to be attacked by 1-250. BUT, I am also able to hit this character with any spell, so I do not think it has anything to do with the AE allowing you to hit lowbies so much as every lowbie being open to attack by some bug in the dynamic PvP code. If anyone is able to test casting color flux with a character over 17 on a character more than 8 levels below you but over level 7, I am curious to see if you are able to hit them.

Level 1 /duel doesn't work in protected zones.
If two level 1 players /duel they are still "protected"
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51105
Tried this with two level 1 characters. I was able to /duel and accept but they could not hit each other with spells or melee. On one of them zoning, the cowardly dog duel fleeing message was displayed.

Leveling flags you in the dynamic range of all players
When you level you are flagged by the dynamic range system and open to attack by players outside your range
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50985
This appears to work as descibed. I made a new mage to test. See image:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/mven42/red99/194382d1.png

Dynamic PvP range allows you to be attacked but not fight back against lower level players
On occasion low level players are able to attack people outside of their range without becoming open to attack themselves.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50920
I tried testing this against a level 22 SK earlier today with my 50 shaman. What I found was that with both character's freshly logged in and no spells having been cast, no mobs attacked, or any other actions taken that the 22 could not attack me, and when I cast a nuke on him I got the protected message BUT still became flagged for his level. He could then attack me, and I could not attack him back.

Mage bolts missing without any obstruction
Mage bolts appear to dissipate without hitting their target even in an open area
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50398

Mage Damage shield length changing when zoning.
When a player zones the duration remaining on their dmg shield increases
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50827
Tested this using level 8 mage with shield of fire. Started out 48 seconds. Let it tick down a few then zoned. Went to 5 minutes 30 seconds. See image below for before and after zone:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/mven42/red99/eef93c5e.png

Charmed pet unattackable by other player's pets
If a player has a charmed pet and another player attempts to instruct their pet to attack it, the pet instead attacks the charmed pet's master.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50830
Levelled an enchanter to 12 to get charm and tested this out with the enchanter plus my level 8 mage. What actually seems to happen is that pets act like mobs in PvP situations be their target a charmed pet or a normal player pet. For instance. In PvE if your pet is attacking a mob and you are standing within melee range the mob will attack you rather than your pet. In PvP currently if your pet is told to attack the pet of another player, and that player is standing within melee range of your pet when it gets to his pet, your pet will behave like a mob and turn and hit the player. To test this you can have someone tell their pet to guard and back away from it while remaining standing and your pet should run up and attack the other pet with no issues. To take the "mob" comparisson further, if the other player has their pet guarding well out of melee range but is sitting, then your pet will again behave like a mob, run toward their pet then as soon as it reaches it pick up the "sitting aggro bonus" and charge the player instead. Kinda funny how it works out really. I tested this going both ways by having my enchanter's charmed pet attack my mage's pet, and by having my mage's pet attack my enchanter's charmed pet. Both ways worked identically.

Melee DMG/Miss rate excessive
Melee dmg seems low and miss rate seems high compared to Blue99
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50244
**Per Rogean: Didn't read this thread entirely but I believe Null did make a comment that a code change he made had unintended affects on all hit chance calculations, and it should be fixed when he submits changed for next patch.**
After the last patch, players are still reporting this issue. Has Null's changed code been implemented or not as of yet?

Casting certain spells while another player is targeted causes dynamic pvp flag
If you have a low level player targeted while casting cannibalize, group ports, etc it will cause you to be dynamically flagged
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50436
This works as described. Casting canni while having a level 4 mage targetted causes flagging. See image:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/mven42/red99/bf95c384.png

Unable to buff other player's pets
Buffs applied to other player's pets do not stick even though the message seems to work.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50313
I tested this personally and was able to buff my level 4 mage's pet without issue with stat, hp, sow, and regen buffs. Need to know what did not stick.

Unable to rez players
Players do not receive box popup when they are rezzed by another player.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50537

Pet Spawn/Despawn messages display from great distance.
Pet messages can be seen far away.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49988
This works as described for summon messages. I did not however see the desummon message at range. In the image below, my mage is at the entrance to Neriak and my shaman is at the entrance to EC in Nektulos:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/mven42/red99/57358b19.png

Able to attack low level characters without any action taken on fresh zone.
While testing today I noticed my level 50 shaman could nuke my level 4 mage with both freshly zoned. But the reverse was not true.
I tested this inside Neriak Commons on fresh zone. In Nektulos on fresh zone. And in Lavastorm just to be sure it wasn't because of the "newbie zone flag". See the images below:
Level 4 nuking level 50 after fresh zone:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/mven42/red99/901f0e4a.png
Level 50 nuking level 4 after fresh zone:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o60/mven42/red99/c304961d.png
Testing this further using a friend's 22 SK. He was already in zone in lavastorm when I zoned in. I was unable to attack him. He was able to attack me on my 50. When I tried nuking him it flagged me for his range, but would not let me attack him. We both relogged, when we came back, neither of us could attack the other. I cast a nuke on him, which told me he was protected but flagged me for his range. He was then able to attack me and I could not attack back.
Tried this with my level 4 mage after both relogging and still was able to attack her with my 50 outright, while she could not attack me outright. The level 4 could attack the level 50 only after the 50 hit her. The 50 could always attack her.
Further testing revealed that once my mage hit 8 I could no longer attack her. My enchanter was invuln at 1 but as soon as she hit 2 I was able to attack her and am still able to now that she is level 4. I wonder if perhaps the dynamic range is "wrapping around" to the negative allowing max level characters to hit characters under 8?

Buffs cleaning up empty slots when zoning
If you stack up a bunch of buffs and then click off buffs at the beginning of your stack to allow room for debuffs and then zone your buffs at the end of the stack move down to fill those spots, thus forcing you to rebuff to regain those empty slots at the beginning.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=52115

CLASSIC MECHANIC DISPUTES
These are not necessarily bugs so much as players disputing how the mechanic currently works vs how it worked in classic.

Nullify/cancel magic and pillage enchantments resistible/resisting too often.
The nullify magic line resists too often on players while some feel it should not resist at all.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50628
I tried testing this out. I levelled an enchanter to 12 and played around casting taper enchantment, and cancel magic on my 50 troll shaman, and casting nullify magic from my shaman onto my enchanter. Even buffed with resist magic to 65 MR I did not get a single resist with either spell on my shaman or the reverse. Can someone who is getting resists confirm any level difference and possibly what MR was in effect on the person you were casting on?

Monk sneak not 100% after 100 skill.
Monk sneak should be 100% after 100 skill
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51047

Archery miss rate too high.
Archery miss rate of 80% too high for skill on par with your level/mob level.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50309

Water does not make you "protected" when people are casting out of the water and vice versa.
In classic being in or out of water would make you immune to spells being cast on you by players in the opposing location.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50902

Selo's Accelerando does not remove root/snare
In classic Selo's Accelerando would remove root/snare if the player had it playing when they were rooted/snared and then started playing it again.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50983

Bind wound does not break invis
Bind wound skill not breaking invis.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50918

Shifting Sight moves vision from your target to you rather than from you to your target
The spell Shifting Sight should move your view to your target's view rather than their view to you.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50900

Not able to charm other player's pets
Players cannot charm another player's pet.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50395

DoT spells are doing reduced damage on players as well as mobs when moving.
This should not occur on mobs at launch, and on players ever
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50896
I attempted to test this by casting both poison and disease dots on my mage and having her run around and stand still. The DoTs did reduced damage for PvP but did not change their damage when the character was moving. Anyone able to provide evidence of this happening? (I tested using scourge and evenomed breath).
**FIXED PER ROGEAN**

NPC level restrictions are being applied to spells in PvP
Spells that have a level range should not have that range applied in PvP.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50896

Wizard ice comet quest in currently.
Ice Comet runes should drop.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50715

Melee hitbox needs to be increased
Melee hitbox seems to be smaller than it should, though this may be a result of emu code, Rogean has said he will tweak it but testing/proposed changes need to be made/finalized.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49948

PVP SERVER MECHANIC DISPUTES
These are issues posted by players disputing current PvP mechanics.

Dynamic range resets on zoning granting immunity rather than on a timer.
Some players feel that this should only be removed after X number of minutes, refreshed when in combat, rather than when you zone.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51009

Dynamic range can be "exploited" to allow you to gank lowbies
Currently mechanics can be abused to allow you to attack lowbies with the dynamic range system.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50824

Some buffs do or do not change your pvp level range
A list of which buffs/buff types change your level range should be discussed as some buffs that do not currently cause flagging can make a big difference in PvP.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50274

Melee on boats but no casting
Should melee players be allowed to dominate helpless spell casters on boats? The mechanic is probably classic but should it be implemented here?
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50061

LD players disappearing too fast
LD players disappear rather quickly allowing for little chance to kill them even when they are engaged in combat which makes /Q a valuable escape tool.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50120

DoT kills giving looting credit
Should DoT kills give looting credit? This may be classic but it's not "fun".
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49965

AE spells hitting group mates
Should AE spells hit group members? This is a classic mechanic but limits AE use in PvE situations.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50106

Fear and Charm in PvP
Should fear and charm work in PvP? Again a classic mechanic that worked but was removed for obvious reasons.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50382

Damage shields doing reduced PvP damage.
Damage shield buffs do reduced damage in PvP melee. This was probably not the case on live. Is it intentional?
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51359

Spells in PvP should not check LoS
Should detrimental spells require LoS to cast in PvP? Or should they just have a range similar to beneficial spells.
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51435

[tmoneynegro]

Please God scrap dynamic PvP level range, will take so much time and effort to fix that the actual important things like jousting, resists, etc will not receive attention. Out of range healers isn't that huge of a problem when you're not allowed to 2 box. Dynamic range isn't even needed because you could just make all high level zones such as Guk, Karnors, etc have the +/- 8 range not apply there. Set them as "arena" zones or whatever.

This will save so much time and effort. If dynamic range is scrapped plus the melee PvP mechanics and resist system are fixed, the server could go ahead and launch because all these other bugs are minor things that barely affect anything.

I already supplied formulas/graphs that are accurate within a 5% margin of error for crowd control/magic resist:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=419961&postcount=5

Just need to implement a formula for damage spells and this thing could be done quick.

[Mardur]

This rules. If you expect to keep this updated, it should probably be stickied.

[Azu]

very nice list. hopefully people check this before posting stuff, great job :)

+1 for Sticky

[Darwoth]

there is no "dispute" about nullify magic, it never resisted in pvp. period. here i have resisted as many as 15 in a row while testing against a char with 70 mr.

and again resists are not in "dispute" this issue is the most important one by far, being the entire resistance system is fucked up to the point of being unplayable on a pvp server. i rarely do more than 30 damage to anyone with an FR buff. when the resistance system works properly a partial 80% of the time is doing about 60% damage and in order to resist each time you needed 150ish to a resist. not 50.

[Mardur]

I can understand those being "disputed." Lots of incorrect people arguing about dispel quirks (without much evidence around to support either side), and resists are going to be the #1 discussed mechanic with at least a few changes before launch.

[jilena]

there is no "dispute" about nullify magic, it never resisted in pvp. period. here i have resisted as many as 15 in a row while testing against a char with 70 mr.

and again resists are not in "dispute" this issue is the most important one by far, being the entire resistance system is fucked up to the point of being unplayable on a pvp server. i rarely do more than 30 damage to anyone with an FR buff. when the resistance system works properly a partial 80% of the time is doing about 60% damage and in order to resist each time you needed 150ish to a resist. not 50.

The items listed as disputes are those where no official statement of intent has been posted by the dev team, or where players are questioning the design. Right now you have people making claims as to how resists work ranging from utterly stupid shit like the necro/sk darkness line being unresistable to their "crystal clear" recollection of how 12 years ago 100 MR equalled 95% resistance. I don't think anyone disagrees that the current system is wack, but what it actually should be is "in dispute".

[jilena]

Going through and updating these with what testing I can do personally. If anyone else has any testing with screenshots they would like to me to include please let me know and provide links to the images.

Thanks!

[Tyen01]

amazing thread.

Good job to Jilena~

[Vohl]

Thanks for the compilation thread!

Please categorize Monk Sneak as a bug - I was able to find a link dated 2000 illustrating how it worked (the bug thread now has this link).

[jilena]

Updated with lots of testing. If anyone can confirm any of this, or provide feedback on the things I was unable to test, that would be awesome.

[Vile]

jilena for mod! f smedy

[Kelsar]

Jilena - thank you so much for doing this.



I already supplied formulas/graphs that are accurate within a 5% margin of error for crowd control/magic resist:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=419961&postcount=5

Just need to implement a formula for damage spells and this thing could be done quick.

Your resist calculations are garbage. I applaud the effort but 105MR doesn't make you 90% resistant to anything.

If you recall doing any Pre-Kunark dragon raids, everyone wore as much MR and FR/CR items as they could then buffed up to get as close as they could to 200 and STILL took massive damage and didn't resist a 50% of dragons roar/fear stuff.

[Galacticus]

Nicely done. Thanks for this work!

[mimixownzall]

Jilena - thank you so much for doing this.




Your resist calculations are garbage. I applaud the effort but 105MR doesn't make you 90% resistant to anything.

If you recall doing any Pre-Kunark dragon raids, everyone wore as much MR and FR/CR items as they could then buffed up to get as close as they could to 200 and STILL took massive damage and didn't resist a 50% of dragons roar/fear stuff.

Really struggling to keep from calling you an idiot.

You're comparing PVE to PVP. I don't care what resists did against your dragons vs what they do vs roots/snares/mezzes/nukes from PC's.

TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS

If you had PvP'd on live you would know this. Verant understood what it would mean if you let 3 minute snares/roots land; 2 minute mezes land easily.
They purposely made these things virtually immune with very little magic resist.

This did not, however, transfer over to the other resists. IE: 150 cold resist did not mean you were going to fully resist ice comet 98% of the time.

[mitic]

If you recall doing any Pre-Kunark dragon raids, everyone wore as much MR and FR/CR items as they could then buffed up to get as close as they could to 200 and STILL took massive damage and didn't resist a 50% of dragons roar/fear stuff.

prekunark PC lvls where capped to 50 (and untested 50+), classic dragons are lvl 54(?)... so what are you tryin to say here?

[Kelsar]

You're comparing PVE to PVP. I don't care what resists did against your dragons vs what they do vs roots/snares/mezzes/nukes from PC's.

This did not, however, transfer over to the other resists. IE: 150 cold resist did not mean you were going to fully resist ice comet 98% of the time.

I'll admit, I didn't play much on the PvP server and when I did play it was later on it was a neutral bard. I had no problems with resists except from mobs. I used that PvE example and dragons roar as a mass fear that wasn't able to be resisted with even 175MR.

You're right, they are two different things but I fundamentally disagree with someone being 90% resistant to a mez with 105 MR. That means any caster worth a snot, a mystic cloak, HBB, some bracers and a buff cannot be mezd. That doesn't seem right.... seems like you're shafting one class there in PvP. Tashan, at most, reduces around 33MR. That's my 2 cents and it may not be classic but 105MR shouldn't make enchanters almost useless in pvp.

[Bockscar]

This did not, however, transfer over to the other resists. IE: 150 cold resist did not mean you were going to fully resist ice comet 98% of the time.

To be fair, 150 CR did generally mean that you didn't have to worry much about ice comet. You wouldn't fully resist it 98% of the time, but most of the time it would do so little damage you could usually shrug it off and a wizard was unlikely to be able to kill you with a full mana bar. Then again, 150 unbuffed CR took pretty much every piece of resist gear in the game. It would be exactly the same as a cleric trying to nuke you through 150 MR - the nukes will maybe land half the time, but they'll land for like 25% damage. Landing a full-damage nuke against that kind of resist is much like trying to land a snare on a guy with resist gear. It can happen, but don't hold your breath. Fortunately, the typical resist gear available to 95% of the playerbase will only put you at like 100ish CR.

[Bockscar]

I'll admit, I didn't play much on the PvP server and when I did play it was later on it was a neutral bard. I had no problems with resists except from mobs. I used that PvE example and dragons roar as a mass fear that wasn't able to be resisted with even 175MR.

Vox and Naggy are also level 55 while half the people on a typical raid wouldn't even be 50, and it was plenty possible to resist dragon AoEs if you wore resist gear like a good little raider. You just wouldn't likely resist all of them because raid bosses are typically a handful of levels above you.

You're right, they are two different things but I fundamentally disagree with someone being 90% resistant to a mez with 105 MR. That means any caster worth a snot, a mystic cloak, HBB, some bracers and a buff cannot be mezd. That doesn't seem right.... seems like you're shafting one class there in PvP. Tashan, at most, reduces around 33MR. That's my 2 cents and it may not be classic but 105MR shouldn't make enchanters almost useless in pvp.

That's... just kinda how it was. Some class roles completely changed as soon as people got gear. In high-end PvP, an enchanter is there to tash, dispel, CC pets, and occasionally try to mez somebody. If they implement the +50% effect of resist debuffs in PvP here like they did on live in Velious, tashing for -50MR is pretty useful and will allow the enchanter to land spells on all but the most insanely geared opponents.

Also note that people back then didn't know as much as we do now. Lots of people didn't wear a full set of resist gear, so it was generally easier to play a caster at the time. Look at someone like Blart, a fairly famous PvPer - he ran with something like 80MR unbuffed, so an enchanter could very easily have tashed him and landed spells. Resist buffs aren't that hard to get rid of either.

[jilena]

You're right, they are two different things but I fundamentally disagree with someone being 90% resistant to a mez with 105 MR. That means any caster worth a snot, a mystic cloak, HBB, some bracers and a buff cannot be mezd. That doesn't seem right.... seems like you're shafting one class there in PvP. Tashan, at most, reduces around 33MR. That's my 2 cents and it may not be classic but 105MR shouldn't make enchanters almost useless in pvp.

Unfortunately while I don't know the exact numbers at which resists cause such huge issues, enchanters had such a hard time in PvP that they later changed all resistance debuffs to debuff an extra 50% in PvP to make up for some of the huge impact resists had on their ability to land spells.

[Kelsar]

Oh man, this should be interesting to see how devs will handle resists especially when you consider the +/- 8 level range.

What level of magic resist should a player be able to resist 9 out of 10 snares?

[jilena]

I am not going to argue classic mechanics, but I would say if we are just going for a "fair" should figure out a good "reasonably high" resist point say "120" and have CC resist at say 80-85% and then have diminishing returns so that "150" resist equals 85-90% chance to resist and "200" resist is like 90-95% resist chance. So that having reasonably high resist setup leaves you in pretty good shape to fight but having absurdly high resists makes you almost untouchable with the difference between the two not so absurd that you have to have the best resist gear in the game to compete.

Again, this is not HOW I REMEMBER IT FROM 1999 this is just a suggestion of a reasonable system.

[tmoneynegro]

I would say if we are just going for a "fair" should figure out a good "reasonably high" resist point say "120" and have CC resist at say 80-85% and then have diminishing returns so that "150" resist equals 85-90% chance to resist and "200" resist is like 90-95% resist chance.

Please get these damn blue server people out of here. 10 minute long snares landing 20% of the time is not reasonable. That's called a free kill if 2 people attack a solo player. One person spams it over and over while the other person interrupts their dispel attempts (pure melee have 0 channeling).

It would be the ultimate jackass, zerg orientated, no skill whatsoever PvP server created in history, just like how TZVZ was except to an even greater extent.

Nobody is guaranteed free kills by spamming overpowered CC spells in real EQ.


You're right, they are two different things but I fundamentally disagree with someone being 90% resistant to a mez with 105 MR.

Having CC spells not land is because EQ isn't a fucking forced grouping game. Nobody wants to play on a server where 6 people walk around in groups all day spamming roots and stuns while their zerg melees down immobile targets for free kills.


seems like you're shafting one class there in PvP.

It's much more balanced for enchanters to get shafted in PvP than for game balance to be horrible for every other class in the game. If you want to play a PvP caster, play a Wizard, Druid, Shaman, or Necro, case closed.


What level of magic resist should a player be able to resist 9 out of 10 snares?

The same level of magic resist required on EQ live. Not some random guy's wildly unbalanced implementation of it.

[Bockscar]

You really only needed like 100-120ish MR to be practically immune to CC spells. All that's left at that point is the default 5% or whatever chance a spell always has of landing, and maybe one or two more percent from the rest of the diminishing return scale which isn't worth trying to get. You never really needed 150-200 MR, that's just extra padding for when you get tashed. There might have been some tangible difference between 100 and 120, but not much, 100 was enough that you didn't have to worry about getting killed by CC. Anything over 120ish was generally unnoticeable and not worth trying to get if it meant sacrificing other resists.

[Kelsar]

JILENA for president of Pvp server

agree

[jilena]

Please get these damn blue server people out of here. 10 minute long snares landing 20% of the time is not reasonable. That's called a free kill if 2 people attack a solo player. One person spams it over and over while the other person interrupts their dispel attempts (pure melee have 0 channeling).

Please get these people who never offer a single constructive thought or criticism and only bitch and complain and claim they have the only solution to every problem in creating a server the way they want it out of here. This dude is bitching nonstop because he feels that warriors and rogues should be 100% viable solo classes in Everquest before kunark. Even though every single example he has ever cited in any post on the subject has listed out his detailed experience with PvP on Sullon Zek which did not exist until Velious.

My post was a suggestion of laying out a resist system. At no point did I say "USE THESE NUMBERS THEY WILL TOTALLY BE CORRECT FOR ALL THINGS". Stop being a negative crybaby. No one listens to you anymore and everyone thinks you are a dumbfuck and constantly trolls you because it's so easy to get you riled up. You usually have reasonable ideas and I think most people would be more open to them if you didn't flip out and talk shit about any thought that doesn't 100% agree with your own. I guarantee you the level of respect you get from me is much higher than what you think you are getting from anyone else.

I personally have not the slightest care in the world for how the resist system plays out and like 99% of the people who will be playing on this server, I will play here anyway. I just happen to like civil discussion and throwing ideas around for these types of things. You however seem like you have some sort of personal agenda to create your vision of PvP without a thought for what anyone else playing on this server wants. No one takes that sort of behavior seriously. That's reality. Bro.

[tmoneynegro]

This dude is bitching nonstop because he feels that warriors and rogues should be 100% viable solo classes in Everquest before kunark.

Classic and Kunark used the same resist system. Thus you have 0 point. People were able to achieve 100+ MR before Kunark was released. You're just typing random, incoherent jibberish.


My post was a suggestion of laying out a resist system. At no point did I say "USE THESE NUMBERS THEY WILL TOTALLY BE CORRECT FOR ALL THINGS".

Somebody has to slap down the people totally clueless of game balance before their ideas spread amongst the unwashed masses. Things were a certain way on EQ live for a reason.


I just happen to like civil discussion and throwing ideas around for these types of things.

It gets old quick seeing post after post from clueless people saying stuff like "What the fuck? Why can't I use fear in PvP??? This should be changed"

Their attempts to create a horrible server have to be met with a swift counter attack.

[jilena]

Classic and Kunark used the same resist system. Thus you have 0 point. People were able to achieve 100+ MR before Kunark was released. You're just typing random, incoherent jibberish.
Hardly, gear differences between classic and kunark are vast and even more so in velious. I don't think you really believe that a 50 warrior with at best a rubicite regen BP and troll regen wielding SSoY is comparable to one in a fungi tunic with troll regen at 60 dual wielding blood points for survivability?


Somebody has to slap down the people totally clueless of game balance before their ideas spread amongst the unwashed masses. Things were a certain way on EQ live for a reason.

It gets old quick seeing post after post from clueless people saying stuff like "What the fuck? Why can't I use fear in PvP??? This should be changed"

Their attempts to create a horrible server have to be met with a swift counter attack.

No one needs to do any such thing. People can present ideas and suggestions in a reasonable fashion without resorting to childish name calling and pumping of fists. Also, that's a terrible example. You are QQing that PvP MUST be classic yet you don't want fear? Fear in PvP is preeeetty classic. Hell AE fear still worked on your beloved sullon zek. Make up your mind. All the way classic, or reasonable compromise for "fun" yet classic feel.

[nilbog]

Stickied

[jilena]

Thanks!

[Lazortag]

Please get these damn blue server people out of here. 10 minute long snares landing 20% of the time is not reasonable.


Maybe I missed something but snare has far shorter duration in pvp due to a client-side issue I think. I dunno if this was fixed because I haven't read this forum in a couple of days but just keep that in mind.

[mimixownzall]

Maybe I missed something but snare has far shorter duration in pvp due to a client-side issue I think. I dunno if this was fixed because I haven't read this forum in a couple of days but just keep that in mind.

That was a client side issue. Classic didn't have that feature.

You people who think that the CC spells should be viable in pvp will change your tune when a chanter comes in and is able to control an entire group and do whatever he wants with them. It may take him a while due to mana issues, but eventually he would be able to completely destory your entire group with ease.

Or if you're a warrior and get snared for 10 minutes while a druid kites you.

Just look what happened to WoW over the past years:

There is a reason they limited the movement impairing effects so severely in pvp. There is a reason they severely limited the duration of CC spells (polymorph was a 30+ second spell). There is a reason they came out with trinkets that removed said effects. There is a reason they came out with diminishing returns. There is a reason why they gave every class some sort of stun/snare/root/fear (well, that was for their quest of 'balance' which is a whole different animal and one we should never get into).

CC spells are way too powerful in PVP. Just look how powerful they are in PVE.

[jilena]

Mimix, I think there is a difference between having them be possible to land and having it so that you can quickly and efficiently snare/root/mez/blind everyone without fail. I don't think anyone is claiming that snare, root, mez, stun, blind, whatever should land even most of the time.

The question is should they be resisted 100% of the time? And at what resist level is this an acceptable thing? Naked? 100 MR? 150 MR? 200 MR?

Do we go with Wermacht and insist that rogues, monks, and warriors be made to be the top tier solo classes they "always were" in classic pre-Kunark Everquest? Even if that means the other 11 classes in the game have to have their abilities made so incredibly useless that they aren't even worth memorizing? It would require making the resist chance super high at even minimal resist levels because none of these classes can take into account buffs from other classes as they are serious solo classes.

Or do we pick some random anecotal evidence from elsewhere on the internet and set some resist "soft cap" up where spells resist heavily but not all the time? So that yes, at moderate resist levels, it's possible for 5 druids to, between the 5 of them, land a single snare on a solo player and put him at an extreme disadvantage? (that's the same as an 80% chance). And that it takes extreme levels of resistance to get to 90 or 95% resist chances? Keep in mind that only 3 classes in Everquest do not have a root or a snare of their own.

What do you want to see? Like give me an example.

[Darwoth]

120ish mr and you hardly ever got rooted/snared/mezzed, cant say what the ratio was but it was sufficient enough that nobody bothered trying to root or snare unless they were a newb.

as an aside nobody is being kited anywhere if their properly prepared with a few pumice stones and/or do not just mindlessly walk after the kiter.

likewise an enchanter isnt controlling a group of anything except retards that dont know how to punch each other or carry pots.

[Darwoth]

also rogues monks and warriors (and rangers) were the shittiest classes in the game in pvp lol

[tmoneynegro]

Even if that means the other 11 classes in the game have to have their abilities made so incredibly useless that they aren't even worth memorizing?

Rogues aren't allowed to use Instill doubt to fear players in PvP yet I don't see you whining about that. That ability is blocked just like crowd control spells were blocked from being useful both for the same reason.


Or do we pick some random anecotal evidence from elsewhere on the internet and set some resist "soft cap" up where spells resist heavily but not all the time? And that it takes extreme levels of resistance to get to 90 or 95% resist chances?

Here you go repeating the same stupid idea over again. There is no logical reason to change crowd control from EQ live. All it does is reward people who walk around in groups of 6 attacking solo players with free kills. You have a "pro-zerg" philosophy and are arguing to make zerging people down more viable. Only a trash player would want to strengthen tactics like that.

Melee and hybrids were also balanced pretty well against each other in Kunark. Letting CC spells land just throws that balance out the window.

Here's one example why: If I play a ranger and 10 minute ensnare lands 10% of the time and I fight a warrior, I'll just spam it over and over in between swings till it lands. The warrior has no channeling skill so he can't pumice it as I hit him. He'll just be walking around at 1mph every fight and get his ass kicked. Even without snare landing, I already was a better PvP class in the first place on ranger.


Do we go with Wermacht and insist that rogues, monks, and warriors be made to be the top tier solo classes they "always were" in classic pre-Kunark Everquest?

Nice false claim there. My post you are referencing says *nothing* about "pre-kunark" and nothing about rogues being good either:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51077

[Lazortag]

That was a client side issue. Classic didn't have that feature.

...

Or if you're a warrior and get snared for 10 minutes while a druid kites you.


I know it was a client side issue, that's why I said in the post that you quoted, "snare has far shorter duration in pvp due to a client-side issue". This client side bug is on blue99 so I figured it was still on the red99 beta. Not sure why you're talking about 10 minute snares when that isn't currently happening and probably never will.

[tmoneynegro]

Not sure why you're talking about 10 minute snares when that isn't currently happening and probably never will.

That's how long EQ live ensnares lasted, they just only had a 2% chance of landing.

[jilena]

Rogues aren't allowed to use Instill doubt to fear players in PvP yet I don't see you whining about that. That ability is blocked just like crowd control spells were blocked from being useful both for the same reason.

Here you go repeating the same stupid idea over again. There is no logical reason to change crowd control from EQ live. All it does is reward people who walk around in groups of 6 attacking solo players with free kills. You have a "pro-zerg" philosophy and are arguing to make zerging people down more viable. Only a trash player would want to strengthen tactics like that.

Melee and hybrids were also balanced pretty well against each other in Kunark. Letting CC spells land just throws that balance out the window.

Here's one example why: If I play a ranger and 10 minute ensnare lands 10% of the time and I fight a warrior, I'll just spam it over and over in between swings till it lands. The warrior has no channeling skill so he can't pumice it as I hit him. He'll just be walking around at 1mph every fight and get his ass kicked. Even without snare landing, I already was a better PvP class in the first place on ranger.

What's funny is you think that I am somehow arguing for a system different than classic EQ. Classic EQ resists do have a "soft cap" style system. The only part I am asking for more information on is the point at which certain spells start to resist. And I am pretty sure that I mentioned in one post or another that fear being in is classic and no one is crying for that to be in.

Nice false claim there. My post you are referencing says *nothing* about "pre-kunark" and nothing about rogues being good either:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51077

Whatever, rogues or not my point is that every post you make is referring to "HOW THINGS WERE" post Kunark and more likely than not post Velious. This server is PRE KUNARK CLASSIC. Stop citing examples of "hard facts" from your post Kunark (Post Velious) experience.

Though honestly right now it sounds like it will not be classic even a little bit in terms of resists and spell functionallity so it probably isn't worth arguing which viewpoint is more classic.

[Arillious]

also rogues monks and warriors (and rangers) were the shittiest classes in the game in pvp lol

I would put warriors in a slightly less level of shittiness than rangers, monks and rogues in pvp. At least they had a ton of hp and could wield high damaging 2 handers.

[MakeYouMad]

I would put warriors in a slightly less level of shittiness than rangers, monks and rogues in pvp. At least they had a ton of hp and could wield high damaging 2 handers.

Rangers are >= warrior in both classic and kunark if played by an actual good player.

[Null]

hit rate in PvE and PvP resist rates should be good. Resist might need some tweaking to taste but are not broken now.

[Hovis]

hit rate in PvE and PvP resist rates should be good. Resist might need some tweaking to taste but are not broken now.

cheers! thanks man