Classic EQ with modern graphics

[Rhambuk]

I would play, only hoping that the enhanced graphics would bring a lot of people to the server, preferably 2k+ during peak hours.

other than that graphics mean nothing to me...

*edit*

okay thats a lie, graphics do matter. I nearly quit after luclin, not only the new player models but the world didnt even remotely look like everquest, yes the moon but it made me feel like i was playing my everquest character on wow...

[stormlord]

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

Rangers were originally too powerful in beta; they were the equivalent of the classic OP tank/mage archetype. So, they got whacked. Too hard imo, but oh well.

Thats not where the hybrid penalty came form tho, I don't think, I think it was from a general idea found in DD games about multiclassing.

I refer you here:

.........
When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors. Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level. We could not let any one race or class be immensely more powerful than another at that final point, as it would essentially put parts of the game off limits to those who chose the less powerful classes...
...In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other.
..........
- Gordon Wrinn

In the low levels, rangers are very powerful compared to warriors. If there were no penalty or shortcoming to compensate for it, they'd be a clear winner. But as they level up towards 50, you start to see big plusses in the ability of hte warrior to tank better. Not only are they able to afford plate armor at higher levels, but the defense tables and some other factors were also updated over time to beef them up.

Take a lvl 17 warrior and a level 17 ranger. They're both wearing approx equivalent gear - leather or banded, more than likely. The warrior might have 50-60 more hp and a critical chance at low health, but not much beyond that. Whereas, the ranger can root and snare the enemy and compliment with other spells and finish it off from a distance and increase survivability greatly.

Many of hte classes are doing similar things in the low levels. They're meleeing, first and foremost. Some of the casters might even melee until level 20. But after that their class overpowers their own desires.

Take a lvl 50 warrior and a level 50 ranger and you'll see the warrior benefiting more from their tanking abilities. And this is really how EQ was designed in its first year and how it followed after. Players learned over time that warriors did the best tanking and rogues and wizards were best at dps and so on.

The game was made so that at the higher levels the classes would be roughly equal. This differed from the early design stage where they made the hybrids too strong. This is why they removed the exp penalties.

Compare this to the racial advantages/penalties. Other than slam and stun immunity for the ogre, you can see that as the game progressed the intial racial stats became insignificant. And when AA's were added, players could even acquire innate slam and some stun immunity. They removed the night blindness too. This continued until there was very little difference between the races at all. Finally, in September 19 2006, they removed racial exp penalties. Here's the link for it: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/hist...es-2006-2.html

- Race based experience penalties have been removed.

[stormlord]

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

I played a ranger back in 99 also.

Here's the thing... you're just wrong. Who solos worse than rangers? Rogues, warriors, clerics and *maybe* paladins (they can fight undead pretty well).

So how can that be better than average? Its actually mediocre or worse.

They were one of the least desirable in groups also... even druids got more groups and they were much better in other areas.

I loved my ranger, but mainly because of the idea of the class; not because of actual gameplay value. The ONLY thing rangers did well was track in classic EQ... that's it. You can insinuate that people don't get it, but they do.... the class blows.

Give something that the ranger does better than the majority of other classes besides track?

The focus of the ranger isn't to do better at something specific, it's to do lots of different things; a jack of all trades, like a bard. This makes them more solo-oriented. When I was in groups, I always relished passing a buff or doing a root or snare or casting a heal. I know those things weren't a great help, but I loved it. Same feeling would come over me if I could whip out earthcaller and slow something for the group.

I would rather have had better CC than higher dps or tanking abilitiy, honestly. I know that rangers have some roots/snares, but it seems that on live the ranger class was more focused on dps. I love dps too, but it's too linear. CC adds a dynamic to the game that is more interesting.

I'm not saying rangers are worth much in groups, but I enjoyed playing them, whether or not you think they're worth 1 copper. I of course defend the class I played so much (and enjoyed).

Ultimately, the idea of an exp penalty is stupid because a jack of all trades doesn't need a penalty. And whether or not jack of all trades are effective isn't the point. The point is they're fun.

[t0lkien]

.........
When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors. Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level. We could not let any one race or class be immensely more powerful than another at that final point, as it would essentially put parts of the game off limits to those who chose the less powerful classes...
...In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other.
..........
- Gordon Wrinn

That's a great quote, and you know, I actually fundamentally disagree with it. One of the problems with modern MMOs is that they are homogenizing everything to be "equal". That is not, and was never the point of the classes from the beginning. To not understand that is to not understand what makes RPGs what they are.

[Nulak]

I would like to see Grinding Gear Games (the guy behind path of exile) do an "hardcore mmo" ala EQ.