Warrior AC, HP, and Sta

[maskedmelon]

There nobody to play with on Takp, so you have to play with yourself. You don't really have any choice in it :c I solo'd a ranger there a bit, but then got all hung up trying to decide what other me's to make and what to name my other selves, so I have not played for a while there :c it fun though and everyone is super nice ^^

[Raev]

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

There nobody to play with on Takp, so you have to play with yourself.

I think the low population is actually a good thing. If you have enough players to make finding XP groups in the 30s easy, you're going to have 1000 players at max level 'competing' for everything. So playing on TAKP is like playing on Red, but you have POK to help get around, so you can hop from Unrest to Highkeep or whatever without too much trouble (and no retards who think killing you with their raid gear twink is the epitome of skill, which is a plus). Still, I was originally going to single box a monk, but I ended up adding a shaman as the path of least resistance.

I went in very against boxing but my opinion is a bit more nuanced now. Boxing makes the game more interesting; for example you can box a Bard/Mage and do all sorts of interesting pulls with the bard toolbox plus COH as a kind of Velious-era fading memories. EQ also has a really low APM, so boxing makes things more interesting there. It's not super easy to handle pulling on a monk while canni dancing on a shaman. Boxing is also classic.

On the other hand, boxing also makes the game less relaxing as you perform all those actions, and it can make people less social as they all run around with their boxed armies. I haven't really found that to be a problem on TAKP as people are all very friendly, but on Project 1999 people would be boxing all cash camps for days on end and the raid scene would be even worse. If TAKP becomes more popular in the future we could easily see a 20 guild rotation with everyone just boxing a ton. I think they might have been better off with a 2 box limit.

[shams]

Big thank you to all the advice posted here!

[Detoxx]

Warriors don't use taunt on raid mobs. That and this person is talking about leveling

Also, there's a difference between not working and not intended to work.

[Daldaen]

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

Warriors don't use taunt on raid mobs. That and this person is talking about leveling

Also, there's a difference between not working and not intended to work.

Of course they don't. Because the developers were pretty dumb until around Luclin when they realized maybe the main tanking class should have some real ways of generating aggro.

And as far as leveling goes, pre-60 it only works up to your level. So again, on mobs that it's super important to pull back aggro like a yellow or red con festering hag in Unrest it won't work.

For your run of the mill Sebilis group though yes Taunt works just fine. But in the lower level range you're often killing yellow/red cons together with your group and you'll find it to be ineffective.

[fadetree]

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

Of course they don't. Because the developers were pretty dumb until around Luclin when they realized maybe the main tanking class should have some real ways of generating aggro.

And as far as leveling goes, pre-60 it only works up to your level. So again, on mobs that it's super important to pull back aggro like a yellow or red con festering hag in Unrest it won't work.

For your run of the mill Sebilis group though yes Taunt works just fine. But in the lower level range you're often killing yellow/red cons together with your group and you'll find it to be ineffective.

What they were shooting for was to have the GROUP learn and participate in aggro management. This is why wars seem strangely handicapped with aggro. Remember, they were into things that would force group dependence. Didn't work out, but I bet that's what they had in mind originally.

[maskedmelon]

Wars also suffer from server age and resulting gear availability. In classic, everyone waited to assist because they and the group could likely die if they didn't. Here, even poor characters are so heavily geared that that isnt a concern :c

[fadetree]

IMO Knights are preferable tanks to wars, and monks too, in almost all group grind situations. The reason is snap aggro via spells. Actually up to 45 or so a Ranger does pretty well too. Monks are great but they don't have snap aggro.
This is extremely true early on, but gets less and less true as you approach 60. Strong end game mobs and raid targets are where wars get noticeably better.

[Daldaen]

Fortunately leveling on there doesn't take forever. Getting up into the low 50s range isn't a huge time sink and once you're in that range you can often find some groups.

The way EXP bonuses work in groups over there is way more favorable than P99/Classic was:

1 member - 100% / 1 = 100%
2 members - 120% / 2 = 60%
3 members - 140% / 3 = 46.7%
4 members - 220% / 4 = 55%
5 members - 260% / 5 = 52%
6 members - 260% / 6 = 43.3%

So going from 3 players (maximum you can box) to 4 players everyone gains more EXP in the group. Making it advantageous to invite a solo player to your 3-man or 3-box group even if they're AFK 99% of the time.

[Swish]

Nice way to encourage boxing. No thank you.