Quote:
Originally Posted by jilena
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelsar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelsar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelsar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.