What would you nerf?

[cd288]

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

I think it's ironic that OP asked for player custom nerfs, and instead the bulk of the thread (despite over a decade of work here) is just people wishing they could play classic EQ.

Please, Nilbog: tell me how I can bribe you to make charming classic!

I feel like most people would vote to nerf Loramin on the forums

[kjs86z2]

unroot dragons

[Crede]

bring back dot damage

[red_demonman]

MQing would be the big one - annoying AF that these servers are plat-quest to get some of the drops you need due to plat farmers.

[Jimjam]

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

MQing would be the big one - annoying AF that these servers are plat-quest to get some of the drops you need due to plat farmers.

I mean, those players would likely kick the can down to being loot rights. But I kinda agree.

[cd288]

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

MQing would be the big one - annoying AF that these servers are plat-quest to get some of the drops you need due to plat farmers.

If it involves a raid target, the top guilds would literally kill the mob and let the drop rot rather than let another guild get it. MQing arguably makes things more available than they would be.

[Ennewi]

Rather than nerf players, would prefer to buff non-player characters, fleshing them out to function as originally intended (bards casting songs, warriors discing), fit their theme (vampires procing lifetaps), or being revamped to match the server population (hate/fear 3.0, sky 2.0) in the name of classic+. Basically carrying forward the torch lit by the OG devs, progressing in a way that feels right. Some of that has already been done here and there.

[shovelquest]

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

If you were going to nerf something in P99 what would it be?

Id nerf charm duration to be max 8 mins, and adjust all resist timers and break timers to scale at whatever the same 22 minuets is to 8 minuets (which is the current, unclassic max charm duration) equally.

If i was going to nerf anything in all of everquest, it'd be that wizards got clarity instead of enchanters.

Id also get rid of fizzles becuase fuck fizzles.

[Kich867]

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

Id nerf charm duration to be max 8 mins, and adjust all resist timers and break timers to scale at whatever the same 22 minuets is to 8 minuets (which is the current, unclassic max charm duration) equally.

If i was going to nerf anything in all of everquest, it'd be that wizards got clarity instead of enchanters.

Id also get rid of fizzles becuase fuck fizzles.

I don't mind not giving clarity to wizards, they just designed the class poorly. As a wizard main, obviously Wizards were supposed to be the sort of Rogue equivalent of "all we do is damage".

Wizards simply need: less threat on nukes, better mana efficiency of nukes. Druids best nuke, Wildfire, is 3.2 dpm. Wizards strongest nuke is either 4dpm or 3.6dpm. This simply isn't a big enough gap. Wizards need to be at like 8-12dpm.

That and Harvest should have more than one spell in its line and its cooldown should be drastically, drastically lower. Like 1-2 minutes not 10.

Grouping was fun, but it was very much a thing of like, I get to nuke once maybe twice on a mob, but otherwise I'm trying to hold such a huge amoutn of mana in case anything goes wrong, and if I am regularly nuking, I'm out of mana super fast and have to skip several mobs to get mana back.

So if its not Harvest getting its own spell line and a substantial buff, I'd be fine with a self-clarity line even. They just don't get to participate too much in the normal grouping experience because Rogues do what they do without any resources.

[shovelquest]

Yeah would be cool if wiz had a really good self clarity that allowed them bridge that gap.