Classic EQ with modern graphics

[beentheredonethat]

I always liked the old models the most. I don't know why, but the new ogres and trolls just don't look as cool as old models. EQ messed that one up.

Maybe modern graphics would make it better, I think it's hard to keep the simple world feeling to it though. I remember they did upgrade graphics in some expansion and it just didn't make sense.

[RevengeofGio]

I think the game would fail (sorry).

Too many classes are simply easy mechanically in the origial EQ. You'd have to update the lacking classes, remove penalities that don't make sense and buff certain classes.

Sorry anyone that would leave ranger as is and call it good game design is probably pretty high on the idiot meter.

"Lets make a class that really doesn't have a role!" .. Mediocre at a bunch of things and good at none.

[stormlord]

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

I think the game would fail (sorry).

Too many classes are simply easy mechanically in the origial EQ. You'd have to update the lacking classes, remove penalities that don't make sense and buff certain classes.

Sorry anyone that would leave ranger as is and call it good game design is probably pretty high on the idiot meter.

"Lets make a class that really doesn't have a role!" .. Mediocre at a bunch of things and good at none.

The druid was mediocre in groups. They had a lot of dots and dots don't work well in groups. Their heal wasn't on the level of a cleric. So were necromancers. They also had a lot of dots. But both these classes were really good at soloing. Rangers, by comparison, were (far) better than warriors at soloing, and while ok in groups, their dps and tanking ability falls short of the classes that focus on those things.

I still feel to this day that there was something in the code that genuinely made rangers overpowered. That's why they added the exp penalty. Unfortunately, it's missed on the vast majority of us. My guess is it was an argument made on loose logic and in the long run failed. Maybe, for example, they thought root or snare was too powerful. However, it turned out that dps and tanking were more important for the ranger in a group and the ranger wasn't good enough at those things. Clearly, the classes that focused on something were more popular and made it to the higher levels at a greater rate.

Maybe they did make a bad build, kind of like how players do that in skill-based games.

Go here to see how the class popularity fared on project 1999:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...7&postcount=48

You can see the paladins and shadowknights had worse (lasting) popularity than rangers. In fact, rangers did better than druids at translating popularity in -all- previous level tiers to max level.

Of course, the popularity of rangers, like paladins and shadowknights, never exceeded about 9% of the class population share, and at max level, never exceeded 2%. (note: on this particular chart)

Btw, I played a ranger starting in Mar 99. I didn't even know back then that they had an exp penalty. I liked to be able to do lots of different things, whether on my own or in a group. Another reason I liked them was their connection to the forest and their ability to wield weapons effectively - I'm not a pure caster. I later created another ranger in 2001 (i think) on a different server and played him for several years after.

[RevengeofGio]

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

The druid was mediocre in groups. They had a lot of dots and dots don't work well in groups. Their heal wasn't on the level of a cleric. So were necromancers. They also had a lot of dots. But both these classes were really good at soloing. Rangers, by comparison, were better than average at soloing, and while ok in groups, their dps and tanking ability falls short of the classes that focus on those things.

I still feel to this day that there was something in the code that genuinely made rangers overpowered. That's why they added the exp penalty. Unfortunately, it's missed on the vast majority of us. My guess is it was an argument made on loose logic and in the long run failed. Maybe, for example, they thought root or snare was too powerful. However, it turned out that dps and tanking were more important for the ranger in a group and the ranger wasn't good enough at those things. Clearly, the classes that focused on something were more popular and made it to the higher levels at a greater rate.

Go here to see how the class popularity fared on project 1999:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...7&postcount=48

You can see the paladins and shadowknights had worse (lasting) popularity than rangers. In fact, rangers did better than druids at translating popularity in -all- previous level tiers to max level.

Of course, the popularity of rangers, like paladins and shadowknights, never exceeded about 9% of the class population share, and at max level, never exceeded 2%. (note: on this particular chart)

Btw, I played a ranger starting in Mar 99. I didn't even know back then that they had an exp penalty.

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?

[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.

[Messianic]

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

[Droog007]

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

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

Classic EQ deserved / deserves a graphics makeover that didn't / doesn't utterly suck... I think that's really all the OP is driving at.

I like the old-school graphics as much as anyone, but I won't say they are flawless. Proportions an animations should be untouched, essentially... Rounder boobs, hookpoints for weapons when out of combat... that sort of thing, could be awesome.

Enough to make it mass-marketable again? Probably not.

[fadetree]

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.

[Khaleesi]

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.

Fadetree, are you past 40 yet!??!
I hope you've left High Keep.

[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.