Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Red Community > Red Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-10-2013, 10:14 AM
Lowlife Lowlife is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 842
Default Class Limitations on T99: Stupid or Strategic?

Veterans of SZ know that roughly 60% of the server was Evil, 10% of the server was Good and the remaining percentage was Neutral. While the former SZ presence on here is vast, we have no idea exactly what rule set staff will either select or create in order to determine team composition. Good, Neutral, Evil or Race War, or even Aenor's "Rep your City" have all been mentioned by staff but one detail keeps coming back, class distribution between teams.

What are your thoughts about denying teams key classes in order to provide a more robust population in the other two teams?

A quick example...

Evil loses Druid, Paladin, and Bard but Good loses Shaman, SK, Necro but Neutral loses Monk and so on and so forth.
Last edited by Lowlife; 11-10-2013 at 10:18 AM..
  #2  
Old 11-10-2013, 10:17 AM
Kelsar Kelsar is offline
Sarnak

Kelsar's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 229
Default

evil has bards. Good has shamans.
  #3  
Old 11-10-2013, 10:18 AM
Rec Rec is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 633
Default

I think despite what people say is not an important class in pvp, it will indeed break up the super crowd into separate teams.
  #4  
Old 11-10-2013, 10:19 AM
Origin Origin is offline
Sarnak

Origin's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 372
Default

A lot of people seem super opposed to this idea. I guess the fairest setup would be for all three teams to get access to all classes, but i'm not sure how plausible that is.
  #5  
Old 11-10-2013, 10:26 AM
Kelsar Kelsar is offline
Sarnak

Kelsar's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 229
Default

Good and newt must be able to summon corpses.
  #6  
Old 11-10-2013, 10:29 AM
Lowlife Lowlife is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelsar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Good and newt must be able to summon corpses.
potions.

Some raid tactics would have to be re-thought with this setup too.
Last edited by Lowlife; 11-10-2013 at 10:34 AM..
  #7  
Old 11-10-2013, 11:54 AM
Fawqueue Fawqueue is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 443
Default

There needs to be distinction between teams, and the easiest way to do is by restricting classes that don't make sense within the construct of that team. If it's based on deity, then Evil shouldn't have access to Paladins, Rangers, and Druids but should have access to Evil-aligned classes. It fits the lore and gives people who like the feel of that setting a choice that is different from the others. And as I've said in other posts, we need our decisions to be meaningful. If I know there are positive and negative consequences to my team decision, I will take it seriously and care which one I decide to become a member of. Otherwise, I'll be choosing indifferently, at random, and it won't really matter.

Will there be 100% balance between all three teams? No, but EverQuest wasn't designed that way to begin with, so I think trying to focus too heavily and giving everyone everything is foolish. Guild Wars 2 is a great example of how every team having identical classes for PvP gets boring really quickly. So Race War, Deity, Rep-yo-City...it doesn't matter. Just give each team some unique flavor, let those teams develop tactics centered around their individual strengths and weaknesses, and lets enjoy ourselves.
  #8  
Old 11-10-2013, 03:24 PM
tomato2 tomato2 is offline
Banned


Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 23
Default

stupid

for making another teams thread
  #9  
Old 11-10-2013, 03:39 PM
Lowlife Lowlife is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fawqueue [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There needs to be distinction between teams, and the easiest way to do is by restricting classes that don't make sense within the construct of that team. If it's based on deity, then Evil shouldn't have access to Paladins, Rangers, and Druids but should have access to Evil-aligned classes. It fits the lore and gives people who like the feel of that setting a choice that is different from the others. And as I've said in other posts, we need our decisions to be meaningful. If I know there are positive and negative consequences to my team decision, I will take it seriously and care which one I decide to become a member of. Otherwise, I'll be choosing indifferently, at random, and it won't really matter.

Will there be 100% balance between all three teams? No, but EverQuest wasn't designed that way to begin with, so I think trying to focus too heavily and giving everyone everything is foolish. Guild Wars 2 is a great example of how every team having identical classes for PvP gets boring really quickly. So Race War, Deity, Rep-yo-City...it doesn't matter. Just give each team some unique flavor, let those teams develop tactics centered around their individual strengths and weaknesses, and lets enjoy ourselves.
great post
  #10  
Old 11-10-2013, 03:45 PM
Reguiy Reguiy is offline
Fire Giant

Reguiy's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 523
Default

This is also a concern of mine. I want to make a SK on t99, but I don't want to be on the overwhelming T99 favorite team. If we went with classic ruleset then the server would certainly be run by evil.
__________________
[Grandmaster] Rawrartiz
[Defiler] Boweevil
[Wanderer] Samwise
Originally -
Reiguy of Fennin Ro
Tyvix Rex of Sullon Zek.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.