Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-23-2024, 02:14 PM
Topgunben Topgunben is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,436
Default EQ theory explanation?

Did Brad ever explain why certain things were the way they were in classic?

Just a couple of examples below but we all know there are a lot more.

-Casters are simply more powerful than melee, was it a willful imbalance? Or accidental?
-regen rates are virtually the same for casters as they are melee?
-wizards are kind of shitty
-certain zones are just dog shit. Beholders maze is just one example.

Personally I like the imbalances of the early game. For a brief moment, I thought anyone that would choose a race/combo other than iksar/necro or ogre/warrior was playing the game wrong. But the charm is choosing what you like rather than whatís the ďbestĒ. Same with leveling zones. Sometimes itís just fun to go to a new place and get bad experience/loot.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-23-2024, 04:20 PM
Pulgasari Pulgasari is offline
Banned


Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 1,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
-Casters are simply more powerful than melee, was it a willful imbalance? Or accidental?
Nobody ever talks about it but casters have an exp penalty.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-23-2024, 04:38 PM
Trexller Trexller is offline
Banned


Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Nobody ever talks about it but casters have an exp penalty.
Expand on that
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-23-2024, 05:15 PM
DeathsSilkyMist DeathsSilkyMist is offline
Planar Protector

DeathsSilkyMist's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Did Brad ever explain why certain things were the way they were in classic?

Just a couple of examples below but we all know there are a lot more.

-Casters are simply more powerful than melee, was it a willful imbalance? Or accidental?
-regen rates are virtually the same for casters as they are melee?
-wizards are kind of shitty
-certain zones are just dog shit. Beholders maze is just one example.

Personally I like the imbalances of the early game. For a brief moment, I thought anyone that would choose a race/combo other than iksar/necro or ogre/warrior was playing the game wrong. But the charm is choosing what you like rather than whatís the ďbestĒ. Same with leveling zones. Sometimes itís just fun to go to a new place and get bad experience/loot.
Everquest was heavily inspired by DnD, and the same discrepancies existed between the classes in that system.

In the earlier levels, DnD melee classes are much better than casters. They do good consistent damage, and low level caster spells kind of suck. But by the endgame, casters are simply way better due to getting really powerful spells later on.

Same thing in Everquest. First 30 levels or so a Warrior can just chew through enemies if they are twinked. But by level 60 a naked Necromancer is going to run circles around a raid geared Warrior when looking at how well the two classes can solo.

Racial choice was also heavily influenced by the faction system in original Everuqest. The idea is pretty clear: Good races are weaker individually, but they have more class choices and more cities to find each other. So they band together to make up for individual disadvantages. Evil races naturally distrust each other, so they are more likely to go solo. This means they need to be naturally stronger to compensate.

The problem is that they basically started abandoning the complex factions in Kunark. By Velious, your race/relgion basically didn't matter at all. So you end up with races that are simply better than others, because the original counter-balance of good races coming together via faction abd location was abandoned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-23-2024, 05:28 PM
Swish Swish is offline
Planar Protector

Swish's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Expand on that
10% penalty for being high INT in a robe.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-23-2024, 06:09 PM
Topgunben Topgunben is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Everquest was heavily inspired by DnD, and the same discrepancies existed between the classes in that system.

In the earlier levels, DnD melee classes are much better than casters. They do good consistent damage, and low level caster spells kind of suck. But by the endgame, casters are simply way better due to getting really powerful spells later on.

Same thing in Everquest. First 30 levels or so a Warrior can just chew through enemies if they are twinked. But by level 60 a naked Necromancer is going to run circles around a raid geared Warrior when looking at how well the two classes can solo.

Racial choice was also heavily influenced by the faction system in original Everuqest. The idea is pretty clear: Good races are weaker individually, but they have more class choices and more cities to find each other. So they band together to make up for individual disadvantages. Evil races naturally distrust each other, so they are more likely to go solo. This means they need to be naturally stronger to compensate.

The problem is that they basically started abandoning the complex factions in Kunark. By Velious, your race/relgion basically didn't matter at all. So you end up with races that are simply better than others, because the original counter-balance of good races coming together via faction abd location was abandoned.
Thanks for the explanation. I suppose the only think I would disagree with is that everything remaining the same, I donít even think a low level warrior/rogue beats a Druid, shaman, mage, cleric, necro.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-23-2024, 06:15 PM
Topgunben Topgunben is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
10% penalty for being high INT in a robe.
Here, you can have this warrior that canít solo a blue con mob and even if he could it will take you 30 minutes to regen all of your health, but youíll have no exp penalty.

Or you can have this clothie that has this 10% exp penalty but can kill 5x the mobs (probably more) in the same amount of time and with way less risk.

Truth is, every class in the game depends on the robed ones, just like the hobbits, dvarves, humans and elves depended on Gandalf.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-23-2024, 06:15 PM
DeathsSilkyMist DeathsSilkyMist is offline
Planar Protector

DeathsSilkyMist's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Thanks for the explanation. I suppose the only think I would disagree with is that everything remaining the same, I donít even think a low level warrior/rogue beats a Druid, shaman, mage, cleric, necro.
Melee characters (when twinked) can power through low level content quite well, because they don't need to meditate back mana. My Monk from 1-30 with a fungi could just about non-stop auto attack mobs to death for the most part without sitting, unless I got really greedy and pulled too many. My twinked Warrior in a Ceremonial Iksar Chestplate had a similar experience from 1-24.

But I do agree with you that Everquest casters are stronger in the low levels than their DnD counterparts. DnD casters were basically useless for the first few levels lol.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-23-2024, 06:43 PM
magnetaress magnetaress is offline
Planar Protector

magnetaress's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Inside of you.
Posts: 9,602
Default

Yep. DnD. Casters are Gandalf. Melee r meant to team up. Casters are too butt we developed the enchanter/
shm meta as emergent play.

I'll be 10000% with you. Casters have it a bit too easy on p99. Especially enchanters. Everyone grouped for safety. Especially against DC's and lag.
__________________
Apophis is closest to earth on 2029 April the 13th (a friday) lol
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-23-2024, 07:12 PM
Danth Danth is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgunben [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Did Brad ever explain why certain things were the way they were in classic?

Just a couple of examples below but we all know there are a lot more.

-Casters are simply more powerful than melee, was it a willful imbalance? Or accidental?
-regen rates are virtually the same for casters as they are melee?
-wizards are kind of shitty
-certain zones are just dog shit. Beholders maze is just one example.
It was all talked about on usenet or the various EQ-related boards, but good luck finding all the discussion today. Verant's right arm didn't always know what its left was doing, so sometimes you got completely different answers from one developer to the next.

The idea with casters was they were stronger as long as they had mana, but they paid for it with lengthy downtime and blind spellbook meditating. It didn't work out all that well in practice because often enough the melee had to sit around waiting on casters anyway, and melee gear was so weak that melee players couldn't really take much advantage.

Some zones were plain unfinished, and a few weren't implemented at all. Same issue most of these types of games have. In EQ, more often than not the unfinished parts tended to stay unfinished. Development preferred to focus on the never ending expansion rush or money was diverted into other projects.

989/Verant was repeatedly told Wizards weren't great, but they doubled down. It was supposed to have the highest burst damage of any class--which it does. Just VI apparently thought burst was way more important than the players did. Wizards did provide a group protection against kill-stealing, so there was that, and with most experience groups waiting around for spawns between cycles, without P99-style nonstop fighting, they didn't seem as bad as they do on here.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.