Interesting high end zones

[magnetaress]

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

I was just doing some classic research, and found this gem that basically said the above ... back in January 2001:



And that's just one post in a 16-page thread that's full of Enchanters complaining about dying after charm breaks.

First rule of enchanter club. There is no charm [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Castle2.0]

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

I was just doing some classic research, and found this gem that basically said the above ... back in January 2001:



And that's just one post in a 16-page thread that's full of Enchanters complaining about dying after charm breaks.

Those people were bad at the game. Didn't have G ring, didn't know how to park pets, didn't have audio break notifications.

Charm, when used properly, is S-tier. Period.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Those people were bad at the game. Didn't have G ring, didn't know how to park pets, didn't have audio break notifications.

Charm, when used properly, is S-tier. Period.

Yup, you know what classic EQ was really like better than 16 pages of people who actually played that game for two years. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Well even back then their one compelling advantage, single target dps, was starting to seriously erode in the mid 50s. There were just too many classes in EQ. Magicians and wizards would have been better off merged into one, offsetting both classes glaring weaknesses.

That would have been a great solution, but I think they could have had four well-balanced distinct classes with only a few changes (Clarity for Wizards, Root for Mages, ... and maybe something else for Wizards).

[Castle2.0]

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

Yup, you know what classic EQ was really like better than 16 pages of people who actually played that game for two years. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, I know more about classic EQ than thousands of players that played. Most people sucked at the game and were clueless lol.

99.99% of people didn't know 6m 40s was the standard spawn time of mobs. Next.

[cd288]

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

I was just doing some classic research, and found this gem that basically said the above ... back in January 2001:



And that's just one post in a 16-page thread that's full of Enchanters complaining about dying after charm breaks.

Jesus loramin no one cares about your obsession with enchanters at this point. We get it

[Danth]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jesus loramin no one cares about your obsession with enchanters at this point. We get it

I care, and I approve of his efforts.

-----------------------------

Magician is victimized by P99's ultra min-max culture. It's a fine character for a child or inexperienced gamer who wants something that's easy to play and effective at its role even when played somewhat poorly. It does what it's supposed to do and not all characters need to appeal to all players. Wizard is mostly a failure of concept; its designer thought burst was going to be a lot more important than it is in practice. Even then it manages to eke out a niche for players who mainly want to solo-level up then raid, especially during the 32K HP eras.

[Infectious]

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

I care, and I approve of his efforts.

-----------------------------

Magician is victimized by P99's ultra min-max culture. It's a fine character for a child or inexperienced gamer who wants something that's easy to play and effective at its role even when played somewhat poorly. It does what it's supposed to do and not all characters need to appeal to all players. Wizard is mostly a failure of concept; its designer thought burst was going to be a lot more important than it is in practice. Even then it manages to eke out a niche for players who mainly want to solo-level up then raid, especially during the 32K HP eras.

Loramin is just fun to troll. Everyone who plays this server has used the wiki. I have used it over a 1000 times. He put in alot of work to make it what it is today. /salute

[cd288]

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

I care, and I approve of his efforts.

-----------------------------

Magician is victimized by P99's ultra min-max culture. It's a fine character for a child or inexperienced gamer who wants something that's easy to play and effective at its role even when played somewhat poorly. It does what it's supposed to do and not all characters need to appeal to all players. Wizard is mostly a failure of concept; its designer thought burst was going to be a lot more important than it is in practice. Even then it manages to eke out a niche for players who mainly want to solo-level up then raid, especially during the 32K HP eras.

The point is that not every thread needs to be turned into a discussion on how Loramin’s personal opinion and memory is that enchanters were different. This ain’t even a thread about enchanters lol

[Iumuno]

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

Amen.



Trying to reason why classic was the way it was ... based purely on P99 ... can lead to false conclusions. It's like trying to wonder what Van Goh was thinking when he painted starry night ... by looking at a bad print of it on a t-shirt.

P99 is very good, but it isn't 100% classic. In classic, charmed pets (by either a Druid or an Enchanter) were far riskier, which made regular pets far better by comparison ... and of course, the Mage has the best of those. Because of that, and because live people had much worse gear on average (making all pets better by comparison), Mages weren't as bad of a class on live.

In fact, they were actually considered one of the best classes early on ... which likely resulted in their lack of root not being addressed, as well as a lack of upgrades and a prevalence of nerfs in general (at least until later expansions).

Well even back then their one compelling advantage, single target dps, was starting to seriously erode in the mid 50s. There were just too many classes in EQ. Magicians and wizards would have been better off merged into one, offsetting both classes glaring weaknesses.

[yorumi]

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

Well even back then their one compelling advantage, single target dps, was starting to seriously erode in the mid 50s. There were just too many classes in EQ. Magicians and wizards would have been better off merged into one, offsetting both classes glaring weaknesses.

From my understanding the 4 casters were intended to be one class but technological limitations or game design prevented it. EQ is heavily based on D&D which has it as just one class, the wizard(I know sorcerers are a thing but EQ has no concept at all of spontaneous casting), which can specialize in doing different things like conjuration, illusion, direct damage, or even necromancy.