How to fix rangers and warriors without losing the "classic" feel.

[Sethius]

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

All of these suggestions are great you guys! I can't wait for you to start, develop, pay for, and moderate your own server where they can be implemented, and rangers can be a viable class, and the mission statement of the server won't be the dusty old p99 "Relive the classic Everquest MMORPG Gaming Experience as it was in 1999 and onward." bullshit, but the cool new one you're starting "Experience the classic feel of Everquest as I think it should have been!" ..and the sun will rise in the west and set in the east, and unicorns will shoot rainbows out of their asses!!

OMG CAN'T WAIT

Oh man, this post is beautiful. Can we just automatically have this post added to every thread that comes up with more stupid non-classic ideas that they personally feel would make (whatever they don't like about EQ) better?

It's so tiring to see people come in here and continue to add their two cents on what needs to change about EQ to make it funner than it was originally on live while also supposedly adhering to the "feel" of classic, while also adding to the piles of other people who want to change some aspect of EQ because they didn't like it.

I have news for you, if this server feels like classic, but isn't classic, that same balance that made classic epic will not exist... some things that happened in classic will change, big or small, and the implications cannot be seen now, I assure you. Rebalancing classic to make warriors better at group threat, or rangers better at not sucking... how will that affect other things? I can tell you that when the dev's at Blizzard make small changes that seem mundane, WoW sometimes encounters far reaching changes to other aspects of the game that they didn't expect... and they have tens of millions of dollars to spend on R&D... what makes you think you can balance something personally in a game as big as EQ?

Besides that, making fun of rangers is a part of the classic feel for me... do not take that away.

If we listened to all the changes requested, this game would not be even close to classic EQ. It would be some abomination. Making things easier is not the classic feel, that's a modern MMO. Classic EQ was annoying and difficult, deal with it or leave.

If we listened to just a few, sure, some ranger could wank in the corner at how awesome his class is now despite that being the opposite of classic, but where do we draw the line?

I say we just draw the line where the dev's have already drawn it, follow classic as closely as they can (some things can't be helped), and continue playing on the EQ emu server that has hundreds of players every night. Start changing on the whim of what every self-proclaimed EQ expert feels is in the spirit of classic (but really is just an excuse to make classic funner for their chosen play style), and I'm pretty certain this place will die off.

[Ektar]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Zadrian]

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

Warriors are the best tanks. Rangers have tons of utility and gain buffs in velious.

Live has also addressed these problems.

The only way live really addressed this problem is by blending all the classes.

With the ridiculous amounts of AAs, rangers can potentially out-dps monks/rogues wizards - etc.

Have a buddy that did over 1mill damage in 45 seconds.. he's a bard.. that's silly.

[Kika Maslyaka]

once rangers loose Xp penalty and get fear animal - they finally fit into decent solo classes range

its truly ridiculous that such powerful solo class as necro (who still contributes tremendous DPS and utilities to a group) only has 10% Xp penalty where poor rogue/druid hybrid gets 40%. Verant must have been thinking with their dicks when they design this... or they all just had necro pet chars

[bakkily]

yes, all the rules are supposed to be upon adnd, but sometimes i have wondered to myself what the hell was verant thinking on some things, i feel this game is the best mmo out there next to vanguard

[Stormhowl]

I think the inflammatory remarks and unnecessary hostility being directed towards the OP is truly ridiculous. Is such flaming necessary, or even constructive? If you don't like what's being said, ignore it and move on.

I disagree with the OP's premise, but not because I'm not interested in what he has to say, but because the server is designed to mimic Classic EQ as closely as possible. There's no need to castrate him for it, and you're doing a good job of showing new-comers that there's a vocal minority of angry, unsavory individuals populating this server. It certainly took me a few days to work up the "courage" to start a thread or two here, because I see how hostile some people here get for no reason what so ever.

This may be the Internet, but that's no reason to react so poorly to a simple thread and degrade the OP for it.

[Ektar]

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

rogue/druid hybrid

I've always been under the impression a ranger was a fighter/druid. An alternative suggestion just blows my mind. thoughts?

[falkun]

Rangers aren't a full plate class like the fighter/warrior. They also get sneak/hide like rogues.

As a counter-point, they can use 2H and larger 1H (IE: wurmslayer) like fighters. They also do not receive backstab.

Honestly though, the conclusion of rogue/druid hybrid fits the EQ ranger better than the warrior/druid hybrid. But wasn't it AD&D that has the rules about how your armor status affects your ability to cast spells? So druids wearing any armor above leather (maybe chain) couldn't cast spells, that's why rangers (a warrior/druid hybrid) is restricted to chain, to fulfill the AD&D standard of restricting armor to maintain the freedom to cast spells?

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

But wasn't it AD&D that has the rules about how your armor status affects your ability to cast spells? So druids wearing any armor above leather (maybe chain) couldn't cast spells, that's why rangers (a warrior/druid hybrid) is restricted to chain, to fulfill the AD&D standard of restricting armor to maintain the freedom to cast spells?

Huh? Rangers are ONLY non-plate hybrid in EQ until Beastlords come around. Its more about the nature of the class than it is whether they can cast spells or not.

[Tiggles]

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

Huh? Rangers are ONLY non-plate hybrid in EQ until Beastlords come around. Its more about the nature of the class than it is whether they can cast spells or not.

Paladins and Dark paladins could cast spells in plate because they where all touch/divine.