Idea for custom content: Classic Spirit server

[Wurl]

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

You guys are kind of hard core about the 'you must group' idea. Penalizing solo exp?

You should update the OP with the newest version of the list, Vexenu.

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

In fact, you could probably limit the proposal to ONLY the Fungi Tunic requiring a level of 46 or 50 and accomplish 80% of what is intended.

I like this idea, making fungi and a maybe a handful of the worst twink offenders have level requirements.

[Evia]

Charm would be fine if they increased % of chance to break and made it so Enchanters cant charm anything only humanoids.

I actually liked the idea of Clarity to Wizards.

[Wurl]

Twinking is kind of the end-game of classic EQ. It causes some negative behaviors, but that would be the hardest change to swallow and I think you actually lose a lot of the PvE sandbox feel of classic EQ without the extreme twinking.

Otherwise, I think the list is still looking good for what a classic+ server would look like.

[Tecmos Deception]

What is inherently wrong with mudflation on a classic timeline? Without it, with OPs twinking limitations, 2 years from now, new players and very casual players would be struggling to form groups that can handle anything except oasis, loio, overthere while the heavy players are clustered in Seb, hs, velks, raids, not rolling enough alts to fill in and the alts that might be there aren't big twinks to carry the load of empty slots and casual players.

Nobody likes a cof fungi fungus Tstaff monk killing half of unrest and not grouping. But that sort of player isn't going to be joining up casual and newb groups anyway if you limit his twinking... he'll just buy PL and take over even more of the zone so he can get higher to use his cool toys.

[Vexenu]

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

What is inherently wrong with mudflation on a classic timeline? Without it, with OPs twinking limitations, 2 years from now, new players and very casual players would be struggling to form groups that can handle anything except oasis, loio, overthere while the heavy players are clustered in Seb, hs, velks, raids, not rolling enough alts to fill in and the alts that might be there aren't big twinks to carry the load of empty slots and casual players.

Nobody likes a cof fungi fungus Tstaff monk killing half of unrest and not grouping. But that sort of player isn't going to be joining up casual and newb groups anyway if you limit his twinking... he'll just buy PL and take over even more of the zone so he can get higher to use his cool toys.

Some valid points. So what's the downside of giving ONLY the Fungi a level 46 requirement? The staff did this for Epics mostly due to the insanity of Rogues leveling up with cheap Ragebringers. Can we not agree that a Fungi is equally if not more powerful than a Ragebringer for twinking, and is unique among items in this regard? (And no the Iksar BP is not lost on me, I think it's a much more reasonable twinking item that is powerful but not completely over the top).

[Keebz]

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

So what's the downside of giving ONLY the Fungi a level 46 requirement? The staff did this for Epics mostly due to the insanity of Rogues leveling up with cheap Ragebringers. Can we not agree that a Fungi is equally if not more powerful than a Ragebringer for twinking, and is unique among items in this regard? (And no the Iksar BP is not lost on me, I think it's a much more reasonable twinking item that is powerful but not completely over the top).

Well Fungi twinking was definitely classic, and is pretty fun, but you make a good point.

I remember on live the added a level requirement to Venomous Axe of the Velium Brood in Luclin, which is uh significantly weaker than a Fungi.

[fadetree]

You guys are kind of hard core about the 'you must group' idea. Penalizing solo exp? What for? Y'know, some people do have a different idea of what is fun in EQ.

Not everyone feels the same as you do. I would not have the experience you are describing if I simply 'played that way'. It's not because I haven't tried it, and it's not because I don't understand what you are saying.

Not everybody likes RPing. Not everybody hates grinding, I actually like it. Not everybody likes HAVING to group. Not everybody thinks it's evil to solo or twink. There are many different playstyles...and I actually think limited BOXING (gasp) is not evil either. I know, I've said it, and I'm out now. I feel free.

I like a lot of the ideas for this server, and would try, but I notice that you gave wizards a bump, mentioned SKs and Pallies, but think that Rangers should be left with the complete joke that classic archery is.

[Keebz]

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

I notice that you gave wizards a bump, mentioned SKs and Pallies, but think that Rangers should be left with the complete joke that classic archery is.

This is the problem with randomly buffing classes... everyone wants a hand out.

Just nerf the exploity stuff only a small percent of people even know about in classic and then see how it pans out.

[Trexller]

Harm touch should not get partial or full resist on lower than red con

[Roth]

I haven't read all of this, but did read the first 5 pages. The most important thing with a server like this is to NOT make it feels like a custom server... this means don't give clarity to wizards. It would be way too different from what we're used to.

Just give wizards lower mana costs or faster regen when they sit. That's all they really need to not break raiding.