Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Class Re-envisioning 3-15-2005

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:10:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/dev_view.jsp?i...
Class Re-envisioning
Over the course of the last few months, since we announced this project, we
have had numerous discussions on the classes. During these discussions we
identified some key changes, that are relatively easy for us to implement,
that could result in better gameplay for all of you. While this is far from
complete (the process and this list) it is the start of this class
re-envisionment, reflections, redefinition, whatever we all decide to call
it besides balance. Some of these changes you see on this list will make it
live for our April 6th update. Others we would like to hear your thoughts
and ideas on before continuing. We think that there are some very positive
changes here, some of which kind of go against the grain of EQ gameplay. So
let the discussion begin;

We'll start with some general gameplay changes that either affect all
classes or multiple classes.

General

We are removing the level 55 fear cap and adding advanced spells to the fear
lines to make them current. Now, this doesn't mean that all NPCs can be
feared, we will be making use of a no-fear flag to stop potential game-play
problems.

We will remove the hard coded aggro generated by poison based debuffs which
will result in some DoTs and Tash generating less aggro than they currently
do as well as more consistent aggro generation.

We are going to spread spell progression out for levels 1 to 50 to reduce
the levels gaps between gaining new spells. We would like casters to gain
new spells every level and enjoy more even progression.

We are planning to add new abilities and disciplines to non-casters and
spread those out between levels 1 to 50, along with their current abilities
to make sure non-casters also have progression, in the form of a new
ability, every level.

Pet owners will be able to click off any buffs they do not want their pet to
have.

We are changing many of the all-or-nothing immune flags so they mitigate the
effect instead. We want you to use your abilities on most NPCs, but where
we feel the ability might be problematic the ability will have a lesser
effect.

You will see the healing messages for Heal Over Time spells. There will
also be a filter for this new message.

We will change the potion "Essence of Concealment" from invisibility to
improved invisibility and make the components easier for alchemists to find.

All spells will check for immunity before they are cast. So if the target
is immune, the spell will not generate aggro for the caster.

We would like ammunition to auto-feed from your inventory directly to the
ranged slot.

We are eliminating the +mana cap.

We are removing the inherent resist rate from rain spells.

Solo Play

EverQuest is a group-based game we all know that but we also know that there
are times that many of us like to hunt alone. Some of our classes can solo
effectively, while others can't. We plan to make changes to classes that
struggle with soloing to allow them some solo play. These changes will be
made to only affect their abilities while solo and not affect how they
perform in groups.

1. We are still discussing the best way to go about this but some of
the options we have discussed are listed here;

a. Add healing potions to the game. To prevent this from unbalancing
the group game, we need to be careful how these potions work. They may need
to be a healing potion that does heal-over-time and does not stack with any
other healing spells. Another option is simply having a long reuse on the
potion so its effectiveness in a group situation, where the player is
generally taking on much more difficult NPCs, is not affected much.

b. We are exploring class abilities that add the pieces needed to solo
while also taking away the abilities that make them useful in a group
situation. An example of this is a warrior ability that increases their
defensive abilities and gives them a damage boost, but causes them to be
able to generate nearly no aggro while the ability is in effect, so the
warrior would not be able to tank for most groups

Class Specific Changes

Now onto the class changes. We know that this is what most of you are
looking for and we think we have a pretty solid plan. Again, as I mentioned
above, this is just the beginning folks. Our team is still crunching
numbers and other changes are dependent upon that data. We will not be
making any changes to melee DPS, tanking and other combat balance issues
until that data is completed and we see what effects these changes have on
gameplay. We ask that you please discuss these changes on your class board.
And please folks, be constructive. If you think the ideas have no merit,
say why. We can't work on it with you with bad feedback. OMG This SUXXORS
is not going to help.

Bards

We will be increasing your instrument mod cap and using itemization to limit
the inherent power gains. This also means that certain songs will have
built in maximums to prevent them from scaling indefinitely.

Beastlords

We will add at least one new slow spell for you which has an innate
resistance mod built in so that it lands more often. This will help you
perform the role of slower in your groups, since you don't have access to
the powerful resistance lowering spells of other slowing classes.

We will be boosting your healing so it stays on par with ranger healing when
we improve ranger heals.

We want to assure pet classes that we believe you should be able to use
their pets in most gameplay situations, including raids. We believe that
pet classes do not have many problems with pets on raids at the moment, but
want you to understand that we intend for you to use pets on raids and if
you find that there is a problem, we will find ways to correct it.

We will be increasing the availability of pet focus items, particularly for
the more casual players.

We will be looking into the casting time of some of your pet healing spells
and reducing the casting time where appropriate.

Berserkers

Many Berserker complaints are about their damage output and this isn't
something we can really address without the results of the number crunching.
Our thoughts are that you are fine at lower levels and pretty decent at high
levels with your AAs, but you may need some help at the mid levels. Should
our numbers support our thoughts, we will be adjusting things so your damage
progression is smoother across the levels.

We are looking into the endurance cost of many of your abilities and
lowering them as necessary.

We are looking into adding throwing quivers that grant innate haste similar
to normal quivers.

Clerics

With Dragons of Norrath you gained two new spells that you seem to enjoy;
Mark of Vengeance and Mark of Retribution. We will be changing these spells
into full spell lines that you get early on and that scale up as you level.



We want to make your Turn Undead spells effective at all levels. Some of
the suggested changes include:

a. Changing the fear part of the spell so the rest of the spell still
works even if the fear fails or removing the fear portion of the spell
entirely.

b. Adding a strong snare effect.

Druids

Druids are a unique challenge in that the class is divided evenly between
you offensive druids who enjoy doing damage, and you defensive druids who
prefer to play the role of healer. We want to support both play styles, but
if we were to increase both halves of the druid equally the class would
quickly become overpowered. Our plan is to introduce a new option where a
druid can enter into a particular "mode" or "stance" where they become
better at one part at the expense of the other. Our preferred solution for
this is to add an innate ability for druids. The ability would get its own
button similar to abilities such as backstab or track. You will be able to
be in one of three states and can switch between them once every 5 minutes.

a. Normal - Their healing and offensive abilities are in balance.
This is the state they exist in today.

b. Offensive - Their offensive power is boosted by 25%, but they suffer
a 50% reduction in the power of their healing spells.

c. Defensive - Their healing power is boosted by 25%, but they suffer
a 50% reduction in the power of their offensive spells.

Another of our goals is to broaden the core grouping roles to allow all
classes to more easily put together groups. Similar to how any of the 3
main tanks should be able to perform that role in a group, we want any of
the 3 healers to be able to perform the role of a main healer in a group.
The changes mentioned above for druids will allow you to fill a healing role
and perform at about 80% of the effectiveness of a cleric.

Enchanters

We will add higher level upgrades to the Word of Morell spell line.

We plan to change the way mana drain works. In the past the spell had
diminishing effects on NPCs above level 53. We will be removing that
limitation so you can use Theft of Thought on higher level caster NPCs and
we can introduce more powerful spells in that line, in the future. However,
we will also be changing drains so that they only return the mana the NPC
has instead of always returning the full amount. If an NPC only has 100
mana and your spell does a 400 drain, you will only get 100 mana. This is a
necessary change as most NPCs, including non-casters, are given small
amounts of mana in order to power some innates.

We all know that the power of NPCs has climbed and the difficulty in
charming NPCs has retreated. This has led to an imbalance where you were
able to charm NPCs that do far more damage than ever intended and with
minimal risk. This lead us to the unfortunate decision to make many NPC's
uncharmable. With OOW, we introduced a change to charm that allowed us to
make most NPCs charmable again, but reduce their effectiveness and remove
the gameplay imbalance. We did this by reducing their stats while charmed.
This presented some new problems though, the largest of which is you like to
haste and buff your pets to get the most out of them and when the charm
breaks, you face a much more powerful NPC. We have a plan to ensure charm's
usefulness and want to gather your opinion before putting it into motion.

a. We want charm to be an integral part of your gameplay. You should
be able to grab a charmed pet in most circumstances and use that to benefit
your group.

b. We will be looking at the stats NPCs use when charmed to ensure they
are within the intended range.

c. We would like to add innate buff effects to enchanter charm spells.
While an NPC is under the effects of the charm, they will also be under the
effect of spells similar to what you would use to buff your pet. When charm
breaks those effects will go away so you are only dealing with the NPC in
its base state.

d. The change mentioned above would cause further imbalance in zones
where NPCs don't currently lower their stats when charmed, the changes that
were made in Omens will need to be made across the rest of the game and this
will be the way new charm works in all of Norrath.

e. After charm changes for all zones, we can go back and open up the
use of charm in areas where it was previously excluded due to balance
problems making charm much more usable throughout the game world.

Mages

We will be converting most, if not all, of your summons to place the items
directly into the hands of the target. Of course, we will also need a new
toggle that lets players turn off this ability from anyone not in their
group, anyone not in their raid, or anyone at all.

We will be adding new pet pack spells that contain the more used summoned
pet item to help relieve the tedium of summoning many different items.

We will be fixing Turn Summoned in a way similar to how we fix Turn Undead
for clerics. See the cleric section for more details.

We want to assure pet classes that we believe you should be able to use
their pets in most gameplay situations, including raids. We believe that
pet classes do not have many problems with pets on raids at the moment, but
want you to understand that we intend for you to use pets on raids and if
you find that there is a problem, we will find ways to correct it.

We will be increasing the availability of pet focus items, particularly for
the more casual players.

We will be looking into the casting time of some of your pet heals and
reducing the casting time where appropriate.

Monks

We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received during
the Planes of Power era.

Necromancers

We will add new spells in the Screaming Terror line to give you some more
combat utility.

We want to assure pet classes that we believe you should be able to use
their pets in most gameplay situations, including raids. We believe that
pet classes do not have many problems with pets on raids at the moment, but
want you to understand that we intend for you to use pets on raids and if
you find that there is a problem, we will find ways to correct it.

We will be increasing the availability of pet focus items, particularly for
the more casual players.

We will be looking into the casting time of some of your pet heal spells and
reducing the casting times where appropriate.

Paladins

We want you to be a main tank in group situations. We believe that you are
currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that our intent is
for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or shadowknight as their
main tank and be effective with any of them.

With DoN, you gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring your
feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full spell
line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.

Rangers

Rangers are good at many things and when all the parts add up properly, they're
a class that is in heavy demand. Our feeling is that the parts are not
adding up properly in the current game. We are still digesting all of the
DPS numbers and stats but in the meantime we identified a couple of things
we can increase in the short term.

a. We will be improving the damage you do through spells.

b. We will be boosting your healing ability, particularly at the top
end of the game.

Rogues

We will fix the problems with Assassin's Feint so it works correctly and
then gauge your reaction to the working ability. If it turns out to be
something that you like, we will look into adding more combat utility
through a similar means.

We are looking into adding throwing quivers that grant innate haste similar
to how normal quivers work

Shadowknights

We also want Shadowknights to be a main tank in group situations. We believe
that you are currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that
our intent is for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or
shadowknight as their main tank and be effective with any of them.

With DoN, you also gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring
your feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full
spell line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.

Shaman

In DoN you received the spells Spirit of the Leopard and Spirit of the
Panther. You seem to like these new spells and they have added more
desirability for you in groups. We will be extending these into full spell
lines so that Shaman of other level ranges can see the benefits from these
spells.

As with Druids, we are looking to increase your healing ability so you can
function better as main healer in groups. You folks are a little
problematic though, since your healing ability is the function of not just
your heals, but your ability to reduce an NPCs damage output through slows.
In a situation where an NPC is fully slowable, you are a superb healer but
against an NPC who cannot be slowed, your healing falls behind. If we were
to just improve your heals, you would quickly outshine any other healer when
facing NPCs that can be slowed. So, we are investigating ways to improve
your healing ability only in circumstances where an NPC cannot be slowed or
you choose not to slow the NPC (for your own strange reasons). These
changes will be rolled out at the same time as any druid healing changes to
ensure that one class does not eclipse the other.

Warriors

Many of the ideas for changes to the warrior class are dependant upon the
results of the data we are still compiling. However, we are looking into
improving your ability to solo in the mid and high level game as well as;

We are looking into the endurance cost of many of your disciplines and
lowering them as necessary.

We will increase the knockback on Press the Attack slightly.

Wizards

With DoN, you received more mana efficient nukes that are aimed at improving
your sustained DPS. We will be extending this into a line of spells to help
out with sustained DPS at different level ranges.

We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the ability and
implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of health you can do in a
single hit. So one of you, facing a million hit point boss mob (fairly
common in today's game) can expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of
thousands of points of damage in one hit.



Once again I would like to remind you that this is the beginning of the
changes and there is still more to come. We encourage you to openly discuss
these changes and let us know what you think. We want this to be a
cooperative exchange and we will chime in on your discussions when
appropriate.

Thanks all.

More about : class envisioning 2005

Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:34:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com...
> http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/dev_view.jsp?i...
> Class Re-envisioning
> Over the course of the last few months, since we announced this project,
we
> have had numerous discussions on the classes. During these discussions we
> identified some key changes, that are relatively easy for us to implement,
> that could result in better gameplay for all of you. While this is far
from
> complete (the process and this list) it is the start of this class
> re-envisionment, reflections, redefinition, whatever we all decide to call
> it besides balance. Some of these changes you see on this list will make
it
> live for our April 6th update. Others we would like to hear your thoughts
> and ideas on before continuing. We think that there are some very
positive
> changes here, some of which kind of go against the grain of EQ gameplay.
So
> let the discussion begin;
>
<snip>
> Monks
>
> We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received during
> the Planes of Power era.
>

Oh, I could laugh bitterly about this. I could never raid but was able to
solo in kunark with my monk provided i didn't get ambitious and try to
tackle something a necro would chew through. Then there was a patch, and
that was that. Other monks bought gear up using american dollars. I tried
two boxing, and could then handle vellious and some luclin content, but that
was the beginning of the end. I think EQ2 is a better game because it's
designed to be soloable from the ground up. The attitude from SOE at the
time of the patch was that "we have to do this to stop people with gear
you'll never obtain doing content solo that you will never even see... and
if you don't like it, go play something else!"

I think the number of viable alternatives now forced them to pick up their
game, and it's funny to see this backflip... way too late.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:41:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban wrote:

> >
> > Pet owners will be able to click off any buffs they do not want
their
> > pet to have.
>
> Never had a buff on my pet that I wanted to click off, probably more
of
> an issue for the real pet classes.

Beastlords sometimes have issues with certain spells of lesser power
being cast on their pets by well-meaning buffers, which actually
overwrite and block our own spells which are better (or at least more
appropriate). It's more of a problem now that there's the Pet Affinity
AA and so our pets can get, say, Bot9 when we would rather they have
Virtue (or whatever the new versions are). Basically, when it happens,
we're left with no recourse but to dismiss and resummon and rebuff our
pet if we really want a specific buff on.

Game on,

The Oneiromancer
Related resources
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:08:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in
news:113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com:

> Monks
>
> We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received
> during the Planes of Power era.
>
>

Any monks left to rejoice? :b

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:29:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

noway@jose.com (Kobe008) wrote in news:G1DZd.4$gd7.337@news.uswest.net:

> In article <113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com>, "John M Clancy"
> <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote:
>>http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/dev_view.jsp?i...
>>Class Re-envisioning
>
> Hmm, so while all classes are improved enchanters are the only ones
> being nerfed further.
>

A lot will depend on the exact implementation of the changes. If the
balance is right, you may find it to be an improvement overall, while being
a nerf in some zones.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
March 15, 2005 7:26:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban scribbled:

>> Clerics
>>
>> With Dragons of Norrath you gained two new spells that you seem to
>> enjoy; Mark of Vengeance and Mark of Retribution. We will be
>> changing these spells into full spell lines that you get early on
>> and that scale up as you level.
>
> Kind of clueless on what these are.

He means the "Ward of ... " spells, not the "Mark of ..." spells.
The Ward spells are new to DoN and add a defensive proc
that damages the mob. For the level 61 one figure about
1500-2000 extra damage a fight; no idea on the level 69 one.
Basically think "riposte" on a cleric...

The Mark spells are older and are shields cast on the mob.
One is a minor damage shield (takes damage every time it
hits) and the other is a minor heal shield (heals everyone
who hits it.) They both replace any damage shield the mob
has itself IIRC, making them even more useful. The heal
one generally means you can avoid healing the DPS classes
as long as aggro stays on the tank (except for rampage,
AOE spells, etc, of course.)
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:52:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:x0EZd.118699$pc5.91814
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Graeme Faelban scribbled:
>
>>> Clerics
>>>
>>> With Dragons of Norrath you gained two new spells that you seem to
>>> enjoy; Mark of Vengeance and Mark of Retribution. We will be
>>> changing these spells into full spell lines that you get early on and
>>> that scale up as you level.
>>
>> Kind of clueless on what these are.
>
> He means the "Ward of ... " spells, not the "Mark of ..." spells.
> The Ward spells are new to DoN and add a defensive proc
> that damages the mob. For the level 61 one figure about
> 1500-2000 extra damage a fight; no idea on the level 69 one.
> Basically think "riposte" on a cleric...
>
> The Mark spells are older and are shields cast on the mob.
> One is a minor damage shield (takes damage every time it
> hits) and the other is a minor heal shield (heals everyone
> who hits it.) They both replace any damage shield the mob
> has itself IIRC, making them even more useful. The heal
> one generally means you can avoid healing the DPS classes
> as long as aggro stays on the tank (except for rampage,
> AOE spells, etc, of course.)
>

Yeah, knew what the old mark spells were, just not the new DoN spells.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
March 15, 2005 8:15:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <G1DZd.4$gd7.337@news.uswest.net>, noway@jose.com says...
> In article <113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com>, "John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote:
> >http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/dev_view.jsp?i...
> >Class Re-envisioning
>
> Hmm, so while all classes are improved enchanters are the only ones being
> nerfed further.
>

I'd hardly call giving monks what they took away last time as an
'improvement'.

Kind of like stores that raise their prices just before they launch a
sale to put them back where they started. (Except on 'sale' of course.)
March 15, 2005 10:28:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns961A55A8EAD4Erichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
> "John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com:

> >
> > We are going to spread spell progression out for levels 1 to 50 to
> > reduce the levels gaps between gaining new spells. We would like
> > casters to gain new spells every level and enjoy more even
> > progression.
> >
> > We are planning to add new abilities and disciplines to non-casters
> > and spread those out between levels 1 to 50, along with their current
> > abilities to make sure non-casters also have progression, in the form
> > of a new ability, every level.
>
> Nice.

50 new disciplines? 45 of which will be barely worth the copper to buy
:)  Hell, the pre-50 ones -Now- for hybrids (resist, and fearless) are
barely worth buying.

> >
> > Pet owners will be able to click off any buffs they do not want their
> > pet to have.
>
> Never had a buff on my pet that I wanted to click off, probably more of
> an issue for the real pet classes.

It comes up often with charm before a deliberate break. I also imagine
'real pet classes' may want to tweak buffs for stacking conflicts from
time to time, and with buff durations in the hours...

> >
> > We are changing many of the all-or-nothing immune flags so they
> > mitigate the effect instead. We want you to use your abilities on
> > most NPCs, but where we feel the ability might be problematic the
> > ability will have a lesser effect.
> >
> > You will see the healing messages for Heal Over Time spells. There
> > will also be a filter for this new message.
> >
> > We will change the potion "Essence of Concealment" from invisibility
> > to improved invisibility and make the components easier for alchemists
> > to find.
>
> Awesome. A potion people will want to buy.

I wonder if by easier to find they plan to stick them all on a single
vender in PoK... =/


>
> >
> > Class Specific Changes
> >
> > Now onto the class changes. We know that this is what most of you are
> > looking for and we think we have a pretty solid plan. Again, as I
> > mentioned above, this is just the beginning folks. Our team is still
> > crunching numbers and other changes are dependent upon that data. We
> > will not be making any changes to melee DPS, tanking and other combat
> > balance issues until that data is completed and we see what effects
> > these changes have on gameplay. We ask that you please discuss these
> > changes on your class board. And please folks, be constructive. If
> > you think the ideas have no merit, say why. We can't work on it with
> > you with bad feedback. OMG This SUXXORS is not going to help.
> >
> > Bards
> >
> > We will be increasing your instrument mod cap and using itemization to
> > limit the inherent power gains. This also means that certain songs
> > will have built in maximums to prevent them from scaling indefinitely.
>
> Don't know bards well enough to really have any comment, nor is there
> enough detail here from what I can see, time will tell.

Its an improvement, but how much (and more importantly -which- bards
will benefit) depends on how much itemization there is, and where it is.
(e.g. DoN Raid only? or all the way up on one group bosses?)


> > Another of our goals is to broaden the core grouping roles to allow
> > all classes to more easily put together groups. Similar to how any of
> > the 3 main tanks should be able to perform that role in a group, we
> > want any of the 3 healers to be able to perform the role of a main
> > healer in a group. The changes mentioned above for druids will allow
> > you to fill a healing role and perform at about 80% of the
> > effectiveness of a cleric.
>
> Sounds reasonable off hand, time will tell.

Sounds like we'll be playing EQ2 in a year whether we change games or
not. =|

> >
> >
> > Monks
> >
> > We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received
> > during the Planes of Power era.
>
> Monks rejoice.

I wouldn't give SOE the satisfaction.

Its a nice move, but it proves the initial nerf was a mistake.

> >
> > Necromancers
> >
> > We will add new spells in the Screaming Terror line to give you some
> > more combat utility.
> >
> > We want to assure pet classes that we believe you should be able to
> > use their pets in most gameplay situations, including raids. We
> > believe that pet classes do not have many problems with pets on raids
> > at the moment, but want you to understand that we intend for you to
> > use pets on raids and if you find that there is a problem, we will
> > find ways to correct it.
> >
> > We will be increasing the availability of pet focus items,
> > particularly for the more casual players.
> >
> > We will be looking into the casting time of some of your pet heal
> > spells and reducing the casting times where appropriate.
>
> So, basically, Necros are already powerful enough, and we really don't
> need to do much to them. Big surprise there. :b

Well fear kiting is back.

> >
> > Shadowknights

Copy & Paste Paladins
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:03:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns961A55A8EAD4Erichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> enjoy; Mark of Vengeance and Mark of Retribution. We will be changing
>Kind of clueless on what these are.

Puny little damage shields. Main use is to cast on mob and remove
their own DS. Won't be of much help to soloing clerics. I'd hoped
for say better undead dots or nukes...

>> Enchanters
>Sounds promising, but time will tell.

Sounds like a total nerf. Only real way for a chanter to solo
is with a charmed pet. It's one thing to cut the stats of a charmed pooka
in half and quite another to nerf a charmed black wolf...
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:31:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in
news:D 17ijv$j30$1@reader1.panix.com:

> In article <Xns961A55A8EAD4Erichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> enjoy; Mark of Vengeance and Mark of Retribution. We will be
>>> changing
>>Kind of clueless on what these are.
>
> Puny little damage shields. Main use is to cast on mob and
> remove
> their own DS. Won't be of much help to soloing clerics. I'd hoped
> for say better undead dots or nukes...
>
>>> Enchanters
>>Sounds promising, but time will tell.
>
> Sounds like a total nerf. Only real way for a chanter to solo
> is with a charmed pet. It's one thing to cut the stats of a charmed
> pooka in half and quite another to nerf a charmed black wolf...
>

Hard to say until we actually know what they will be doing as far as
cutting stats. The reason I said sounds promising is that it sounded
like it will open up previously unavailable spots for charm soloing,
perhaps not, but, again, until we actually know the details, it's
impossible to say.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:31:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

To: Graeme Faelban
-=> Graeme Faelban wrote to alt.games.everquest <=-


> We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received
> during the Planes of Power era.

GF> Any monks left to rejoice? :b

I started my monk just recently and not sure what the change means. Does
this mean the more weight, less AC thing? Would be nice to be able to
loot stuff and not worry about your AC dropping.

Svan


.... Internal Error: The system has been taken over by sheep at line 19960
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:42:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Svanhild" <svanhild@razord.no-ip.org.remove-3mj-this> writes:
> > We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received
> > during the Planes of Power era.

> I started my monk just recently and not sure what the change means. Does
> this mean the more weight, less AC thing? Would be nice to be able to
> loot stuff and not worry about your AC dropping.

No, I doubt they'll remove the weight limit; that seems to be part
of the "flavor" they want monks to have. Get yourself some weight
reducing bags (preferably 85% or even 100% WR) and learn to throw
away copper pieces. :-) [Actually, since I'm a greedy monk, I keep
a stack of batwings on me. At CHA 104 or better they sell to NPCs
for 2gp a stack, and can be bought back at the same price, except
the purchase spends 200cp if I have it. So I can convert 200cp to
2gp as many times as necessary. Of course, in a group, you can just
get someone else to carry the loot.]

Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during PoP,
in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I think)
has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if you're a monk.
Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC over 1300 than monks
do.

Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is high
enough for you to have run into this effect.

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:22:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Don Woods" <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in message
news:7wmzt4jua6.fsf@ca.icynic.com...
> Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during PoP,
> in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I think)
> has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if you're a monk.
> Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC over 1300 than monks
> do.
>
> Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is high
> enough for you to have run into this effect.

Its not that at all.

There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more damage,
period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC softcap (not much
over 1400 with all defensive aa's)

So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400 AC is
worthless in terms of char advancement for monks. Wheras other classes still
gain benefits from AC at 2000+

-m
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:28:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Meldur" <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:4jie31p6grnq7j0qg551kdejfaj9a7k0st@4ax.com...
> As it wasnt bad enough before OoW,they intensified the problem
> with average xp mobs hitting harder again.
> OoW was the worst expansion ever,brought nothing new except
> higher numbers,have a look at the 66+ spells,its all about higher

Actually Omens mobs hit for significantly less than Gates mobs..

-m
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>>>http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/dev_view.jsp?i...
>>>Class Re-envisioning

>noway@jose.com (Kobe008) wrote in news:G1DZd.4$gd7.337@news.uswest.net:
>> Hmm, so while all classes are improved enchanters are the only ones
>> being nerfed further.

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>A lot will depend on the exact implementation of the changes. If the
>balance is right, you may find it to be an improvement overall, while being
>a nerf in some zones.

Anyone taking bets? Given their track record of "balancing" to prevent it
being too easy for the best-equipped max-AA enchanters, I predict:
- Nerf in all pre-OoW zones where charming was viable. Massive DPS reduction
with a very very minor reduction in risk (because former pets will no
longer be hasted). Massive nerf in those few places where you can today
have a high-risk, high-reward pet. In 2 or 3 zones, this nerf may be
justified, but to call it an overall improvement is simply wrong.
- No significant change in OoW and later zones where charming currently is
vaguely viable. They will remove the ability to add reward and risk by
removing the question of whether to haste the pet, and they'll fix DPS at
a laughable amount. They'll claim it's equal to a rogue, but they'll
remain woefully incorrect.
- Appearance of change, but no actual change in currently-uncharmable areas.
They'll say it's an improvement because charm kinda works there, but
nobody wil use it.

Let's not forget the absolute LACK of mention of non-charm enchanter roles.
Crowd control seems as unnecessary as ever in DoN. Chanty slow drops from an
arguable second place to a clear third as beasties get an improvement. No
comment about our silly dot and debuff lines. NO UMBRA UPGRADE ??!?!!

Note that a few other classes got pretty ho-hum promises, it's not just
enchanters. I wonder how Shamen will like being told that slowing is part
of their healing power and they shouldn't be able to use both...

Mostly what I'm missing is an actual statement of expected roles and defining
characteristics of each class. A list of changes without any indication of
what SoE thinks the changes are intended to add up to is pretty weak.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:46:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"All spells will check for immunity before they are cast. So if the
target is immune, the spell will not generate aggro for the caster."

Very bad idea IMO. In fact it makes me wonder if they are just
cleverly hiding a nerf to certain techniques for maintaining agro.
That giant is immune to stun, so a paladin can no longer tank it?
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:01:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Necromancers
>> >
>> > We will add new spells in the Screaming Terror line to give you some
>> > more combat utility.
>> >
>> > We want to assure pet classes that we believe you should be able to
>> > use their pets in most gameplay situations, including raids. We
>> > believe that pet classes do not have many problems with pets on raids
>> > at the moment, but want you to understand that we intend for you to
>> > use pets on raids and if you find that there is a problem, we will
>> > find ways to correct it.
>> >
>> > We will be increasing the availability of pet focus items,
>> > particularly for the more casual players.
>> >
>> > We will be looking into the casting time of some of your pet heal
>> > spells and reducing the casting times where appropriate.
>>
>> So, basically, Necros are already powerful enough, and we really don't
>> need to do much to them. Big surprise there. :b

> Well fear kiting is back.
>
>> >
>> > Shadowknights

> Copy & Paste Paladins
I disagree here. Though SRTs can fearkite again I think a few of them
might be a bit pissed about this change. After all fear is a nice aggro
tool - if it is resisted! I remember a mob running away and a very
startled SRT chasing it. It turned out the fear did go through and could
not be used for aggro building!

That aside I don't see a reason for removing the fear cap. There is alot
that will change because of that. Pets won't be fearimmune due to level,
summoning mobs might be killed by a single fear class as a feared mob
won't summon etc. This change is the only one I really dislike as it is
unnecessary.


Hagen
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:17:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:MPG.1ca0bdbaef564b0b989a69@shawnews:

> Sounds like we'll be playing EQ2 in a year whether we change games or
> not. =|
>

That's what I was thinking. They're doing away with the single biggest
aspect that keeps me coming back now and again - class identity.

I'm all for working on the various imbalances that exist, but I don't see
why that has to mean more homogeneous classes.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:30:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1110998806.049154.149920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> "All spells will check for immunity before they are cast. So if the
> target is immune, the spell will not generate aggro for the caster."
>
> Very bad idea IMO. In fact it makes me wonder if they are just
> cleverly hiding a nerf to certain techniques for maintaining agro.
> That giant is immune to stun, so a paladin can no longer tank it?
>

If all you doomsayers would read the whole text...

Here is the part you left out:

"We are changing many of the all-or-nothing immune flags so they mitigate
the effect instead. We want you to use your abilities on most NPCs, but
where we feel the ability might be problematic the ability will have a
lesser effect."

So, it would appear, with the exception of rare mobs that will be
actually immune, the various agro generating spells will still be quite
usable for generating agro, but will have their other effects, such as
stun, snare, etc. reduced on those mobs. For Paladins, this sounds
great, for SKs, who often use a DoT/snare which used to not stick at all,
it could be a problem in cases where they want agro, but do not want to
damage a mob to keep it from summoning while kiting it.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:32:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote in
news:vjamg2-e3q.ln1@hydra.dagon.net:

>>>>http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/dev_view.jsp?i...
>>>>Class Re-envisioning
>
>>noway@jose.com (Kobe008) wrote in
>>news:G1DZd.4$gd7.337@news.uswest.net:
>>> Hmm, so while all classes are improved enchanters are the only ones
>>> being nerfed further.
>
> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>A lot will depend on the exact implementation of the changes. If the
>>balance is right, you may find it to be an improvement overall, while
>>being a nerf in some zones.
>
> Anyone taking bets? Given their track record of "balancing" to
> prevent it being too easy for the best-equipped max-AA enchanters, I
> predict:

Not taking bets, just going to wait and see.
> Note that a few other classes got pretty ho-hum promises, it's not
> just enchanters. I wonder how Shamen will like being told that
> slowing is part of their healing power and they shouldn't be able to
> use both...

I admit to being concerned about the shaman/beastlord changes, but,
again, I will wait and see what they do before I get all upset about it.

>
> Mostly what I'm missing is an actual statement of expected roles and
> defining characteristics of each class. A list of changes without any
> indication of what SoE thinks the changes are intended to add up to is
> pretty weak. --
>

Agreed.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:36:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Xns961B7FA5D5DF9richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:

> dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote in
> news:vjamg2-e3q.ln1@hydra.dagon.net:
>
>>>>>http://eqlive.station.sony.com/community/dev_view.jsp?i...
>>>>>Class Re-envisioning
>>
>>>noway@jose.com (Kobe008) wrote in
>>>news:G1DZd.4$gd7.337@news.uswest.net:
>>>> Hmm, so while all classes are improved enchanters are the only ones
>>>> being nerfed further.
>>
>> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>A lot will depend on the exact implementation of the changes. If the
>>>balance is right, you may find it to be an improvement overall, while
>>>being a nerf in some zones.
>>
>> Anyone taking bets? Given their track record of "balancing" to
>> prevent it being too easy for the best-equipped max-AA enchanters, I
>> predict:
>
> Not taking bets, just going to wait and see.
>> Note that a few other classes got pretty ho-hum promises, it's not
>> just enchanters. I wonder how Shamen will like being told that
>> slowing is part of their healing power and they shouldn't be able to
>> use both...
>
> I admit to being concerned about the shaman/beastlord changes, but,
> again, I will wait and see what they do before I get all upset about
it.
>
>>
>> Mostly what I'm missing is an actual statement of expected roles and
>> defining characteristics of each class. A list of changes without any
>> indication of what SoE thinks the changes are intended to add up to is
>> pretty weak. --
>
> Agreed.
>

I should add that at this point, I rarely play EQ1 at all to XP anyway,
mostly I just log on for guild raids any more, so, the changes will
actually have minimal impact directly on me at this point, unless they
actually somehow make shaman more viable for groups, and I find that
going LFG or trying to put together a group from the maybe dozen others
that are LFG (usually including at least 2 other level 70 shaman, zero
clerics, zero druids, and an assortment of necros, mages, the odd
enchanter, and sometimes tanks) suddenly becomes easier.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"-martin" <nospam-villa_nospam_@cheerful.com> writes:
> > Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during PoP,
> > in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I think)
> > has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if you're a monk.
> > Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC over 1300 than monks
> > do.
> >
> > Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is high
> > enough for you to have run into this effect.
>
> Its not that at all.
>
> There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more damage,
> period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC softcap (not much
> over 1400 with all defensive aa's)
>
> So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400 AC is
> worthless in terms of char advancement for monks. Wheras other classes still
> gain benefits from AC at 2000+

Hm, you say that as though it's different from what I said, so I'm
curious what the difference is. I did actually think that AC past
the cap (1300 or so, I said) had some effect (i.e., was mitigated,
but not necessarily eliminated); I'm willing to believe it has zero
effect. And I referred to it as "your chance of getting hit"; am I
getting confused as to what AC affects? Does it affect how much
damage you take from a hit as well as the chance of being hit? Or
even instead of it?

In any case, the short answer is still the same as what I said: AC
over about 1300 (ok, 1400) is nearly useless (maybe totally useless)
to monks, and that's what the AC mitigation nerf refers to. Right?

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:58:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:
> "-martin" <nospam-villa_nospam_@cheerful.com> writes:
> > > Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during PoP,
> > > in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I think)
> > > has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if you're a monk.
> > > Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC over 1300 than monks
> > > do.
> > >
> > > Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is high
> > > enough for you to have run into this effect.
> >
> > Its not that at all.
> >
> > There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more damage,
> > period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC softcap (not much
> > over 1400 with all defensive aa's)
> >
> > So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400 AC is
> > worthless in terms of char advancement for monks. Wheras other classes still
> > gain benefits from AC at 2000+
>
> Hm, you say that as though it's different from what I said, so I'm
> curious what the difference is. I did actually think that AC past
> the cap (1300 or so, I said) had some effect (i.e., was mitigated,
> but not necessarily eliminated); I'm willing to believe it has zero
> effect. And I referred to it as "your chance of getting hit"; am I
> getting confused as to what AC affects? Does it affect how much
> damage you take from a hit as well as the chance of being hit? Or
> even instead of it?
>
> In any case, the short answer is still the same as what I said: AC
> over about 1300 (ok, 1400) is nearly useless (maybe totally useless)
> to monks, and that's what the AC mitigation nerf refers to. Right?

It's not that at all.

There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more damage,
period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC softcap (not much
over 1400 with all defensive aa's).

So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400 AC is
worthless in terms of char advancement for monks (actual 1, per perceived 40
so 2k AC for a monk provides the comparable benefit of ~1415 AC). Whereas
other classes still gain benefits from AC at 2k+.

Pardon my plagiarization. His post answered your question just fine...
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:19:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in
news:7w7jk7xt06.fsf@ca.icynic.com:

> "-martin" <nospam-villa_nospam_@cheerful.com> writes:
>> > Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during
>> > PoP, in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I
>> > think) has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if
>> > you're a monk. Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC
>> > over 1300 than monks do.
>> >
>> > Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is high
>> > enough for you to have run into this effect.
>>
>> Its not that at all.
>>
>> There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more
>> damage, period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC
>> softcap (not much over 1400 with all defensive aa's)
>>
>> So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400
>> AC is worthless in terms of char advancement for monks. Wheras other
>> classes still gain benefits from AC at 2000+
>
> Hm, you say that as though it's different from what I said, so I'm
> curious what the difference is. I did actually think that AC past
> the cap (1300 or so, I said) had some effect (i.e., was mitigated,
> but not necessarily eliminated); I'm willing to believe it has zero
> effect. And I referred to it as "your chance of getting hit"; am I
> getting confused as to what AC affects? Does it affect how much
> damage you take from a hit as well as the chance of being hit? Or
> even instead of it?
>
> In any case, the short answer is still the same as what I said: AC
> over about 1300 (ok, 1400) is nearly useless (maybe totally useless)
> to monks, and that's what the AC mitigation nerf refers to. Right?
>

No, it refers to a more general change in monk damage mitigation that has
nothing to do with the softcap. Prior to the nerf, monks still had the
low AC softcap, but, they mitigated damage significantly better than they
did post the nerf.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:21:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrnd3h53q.2jd.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:
>> "-martin" <nospam-villa_nospam_@cheerful.com> writes:
>> > > Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during
>> > > PoP, in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so,
>> > > I think) has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if
>> > > you're a monk. Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC
>> > > over 1300 than monks do.
>> > >
>> > > Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is
>> > > high enough for you to have run into this effect.
>> >
>> > Its not that at all.
>> >
>> > There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more
>> > damage, period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC
>> > softcap (not much over 1400 with all defensive aa's)
>> >
>> > So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over
>> > 1400 AC is worthless in terms of char advancement for monks. Wheras
>> > other classes still gain benefits from AC at 2000+
>>
>> Hm, you say that as though it's different from what I said, so I'm
>> curious what the difference is. I did actually think that AC past
>> the cap (1300 or so, I said) had some effect (i.e., was mitigated,
>> but not necessarily eliminated); I'm willing to believe it has zero
>> effect. And I referred to it as "your chance of getting hit"; am I
>> getting confused as to what AC affects? Does it affect how much
>> damage you take from a hit as well as the chance of being hit? Or
>> even instead of it?
>>
>> In any case, the short answer is still the same as what I said: AC
>> over about 1300 (ok, 1400) is nearly useless (maybe totally useless)
>> to monks, and that's what the AC mitigation nerf refers to. Right?
>
> It's not that at all.
>
> There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more
> damage, period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC
> softcap (not much over 1400 with all defensive aa's).
>
> So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400
> AC is worthless in terms of char advancement for monks (actual 1, per
> perceived 40 so 2k AC for a monk provides the comparable benefit of
> ~1415 AC). Whereas other classes still gain benefits from AC at 2k+.
>
> Pardon my plagiarization. His post answered your question just
> fine...
>

Just to clarify, monks had a low AC softcap prior to the damage
mitigation nerf. The nerf was a change to damage mitigation for monks
overall, regardless of what their AC is.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:12:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:
> No, it refers to a more general change in monk damage mitigation that has
> nothing to do with the softcap. Prior to the nerf, monks still had the
> low AC softcap, but, they mitigated damage significantly better than they
> did post the nerf.

Ah! Thank you (and Faned, and -martin). I wasn't around at the time
of the nerf, so I only knew about it from reading old threads, and I'd
gotten the impression that the reason the "mitigation nerf" caused monks
to take more damage was because that's when the AC softcap got added.
I didn't realise the softcap was already there from before.

So they're talking about leaving in the softcap, but doing away with the
additional mitigation?

Also, how does the mitigation nerf apply? Does it make more of a
difference at high levels, or do monks take proportionally more
damage at all levels?

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:51:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message > No, it
refers to a more general change in monk damage mitigation that has
> nothing to do with the softcap. Prior to the nerf, monks still had the
> low AC softcap, but, they mitigated damage significantly better than they
> did post the nerf.

Only just woken up, and its been a while now! But everybody had similar AC
back in those days.

Most people (tanks) went from balanced HP/AC to just going pure HP during
late Velious/SoL.

I forget specifics.. I think everybodys softcap was very low though

-m
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 8:51:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
: "John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in
: > Monks
: > We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received
: > during the Planes of Power era.

: Any monks left to rejoice? :b

Great. Now we get to hear Meems in /age telling us about 2-boxing Taxvi named
instead of having to quad-box them. :) 

K
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:38:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

To: Don Woods
-=> Don Woods wrote to alt.games.everquest <=-

DW> At CHA 104 or better they sell to NPCs
DW> for 2gp a stack, and can be bought back at the same price, except
DW> the purchase spends 200cp if I have it. So I can convert 200cp to
DW> 2gp as many times as necessary.

Thanks for the idea! I'll give that a try to help save a bit of coin. I
have been dumping copper, but this might work better.

DW> Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during PoP,
DW> in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I think)
DW> has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if you're a monk.
DW> Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC over 1300 than monks
DW> do.

Ok now it makes more since, thanks for the clarification. Yes, I am not quite
high enough yet for it to make a difference, only 35, but working hard to get
up there. Thanks for you time!

Svan



.... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
March 18, 2005 8:50:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <423AE1E5.697.usenet_ag.eq@razord.no-ip.org>,
svanhild@razord.no-ip.org.remove-sa6-this says...
> To: Don Woods
> -=> Don Woods wrote to alt.games.everquest <=-
>
> DW> At CHA 104 or better they sell to NPCs
> DW> for 2gp a stack, and can be bought back at the same price, except
> DW> the purchase spends 200cp if I have it. So I can convert 200cp to
> DW> 2gp as many times as necessary.
>
> Thanks for the idea! I'll give that a try to help save a bit of coin. I
> have been dumping copper, but this might work better.

If its a choice between dumping copper and buying something to convert
it, buy -anything- ... water flasks, rations, whatever is available...
there are -many- items that sell back at only a small loss. And if your
choosing between "destroy" and "lose 15%" I wouldn't stress over a
little loss.

That said, by 20th level its generally not worth the time to make the
trip to a merchant to do the exchange even if your lugging 2000 copper.

Few zones have merchants that accessible, and in the time it takes to
find one you could have destroyed it and picked up 2pp or 20gp killing
mobs.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 3:47:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
> That said, by 20th level its generally not worth the time to make the
> trip to a merchant to do the exchange even if your lugging 2000 copper.
>
> Few zones have merchants that accessible, and in the time it takes to
> find one you could have destroyed it and picked up 2pp or 20gp killing
> mobs.

True enough, but often you need to find a merchant anyway to sell
off other loot. I.e., when your bags get full, and you go find a
merchant to sell off (and many mid-level hunting zones do have
merchants), it's nice to be able to spend another minute converting
the small coins to something lighter.

You're right, of course, that you can get rid of the coins completely
by buying other items. (Bandages are a favorite of mine; I'm going to
need them anyway. :-) Though NPCs sometimes have ridiculous markups,
especially on magic items, for many mundane items they have a simple
+/- 5% rule: they offer you ~5% less than X, and they charge ~5% more
than X. E.g., for rubies X is 125, so you can buy them at 131.249 and
sell them for 119.048, so I sometimes use the gem merchant in NW Rathe
to save weight when I'm hunting Hill Giants.

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 1:50:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com...


This doesn't really affect me, as I cancelled my account a few weeks ago, and
stopped actually playing a few months ago. But having played a warrior for so
long, this just made me boggle.


>
> Paladins
>
> We want you to be a main tank in group situations. We believe that you are
> currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that our intent is
> for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or shadowknight as their
> main tank and be effective with any of them.
>
> With DoN, you gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring your
> feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full spell
> line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>

*snip*

> Shadowknights
>
> We also want Shadowknights to be a main tank in group situations. We believe
> that you are currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that
> our intent is for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or
> shadowknight as their main tank and be effective with any of them.
>
> With DoN, you also gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring
> your feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full
> spell line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>

*snip*

>
> Warriors
>
> Many of the ideas for changes to the warrior class are dependant upon the
> results of the data we are still compiling. However, we are looking into
> improving your ability to solo in the mid and high level game as well as;
>
> We are looking into the endurance cost of many of your disciplines and
> lowering them as necessary.
>
> We will increase the knockback on Press the Attack slightly.
>

So... Paladins and Shadowknights get Defensive, the class defining ability of
a warrior. Warriors were always a "one trick pony", and now the other two
tank classes will get the ability to perform that trick. How could this
possibly not move us back to the PoP model? Where knights were clearly
superior to warriors, since the only real difference was that the knight had
perfect aggro control, while you had to use effort to keep aggro on the
warrior. (and that the paladin was a backup rezer) Everything else, such as
survivability, there was zero difference between the three classes.

What grand increase do warriors get to compensate them for losing thier only
advantage? They're going to slightly increase the usefulness of one of the
three most pathetic warrior abilities ever added, and muck around with the
endurance cost of disciplines a litle.

I don't know. Maybe I've just been gone from the game too long, and warriors
are currently so overpowered, from warrior only gear or some such thing, that
this is justified, and they will maintain an offsetting advantage that wasn't
present when I was playing. It's possible. But from what I saw, I doubt it.


> Wizards
>
> With DoN, you received more mana efficient nukes that are aimed at improving
> your sustained DPS. We will be extending this into a line of spells to help
> out with sustained DPS at different level ranges.
>
> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the ability and
> implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of health you can do in a
> single hit. So one of you, facing a million hit point boss mob (fairly
> common in today's game) can expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of
> thousands of points of damage in one hit.
>


This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand manaburn better
than them, despite having never played a wizard past level 4. (Mine is still
logged out with a half used KEI on him.)

Manaburn had three uses.

1) Taking down low hit point (Kunark level, some PoP tier 1) mobs quickly with
no risk. (Nerfed at PoP release).
2) An increase in DPS, as a wizard could manaburn at the beginning of a big
fight, then mod rod back to "fighting level mana" by the time the tank had
established aggro, and nuke normally, maintaining mana by chewing more rods.
(Nerfed when mod rods were changed from instant use to 5 minute cooldown.)
3) A coup de grace for raids where the tanks and healers have mostly bought
it, and the mob is almost dead. Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a
win by spending all remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change,
since it'll now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)

Now it will have none. Not that many people thought it's one remaining use
made it worth buying, I don't think, but still. And to present this as an
improvement....


--
Davian - Night Elf Rogue on Bloodhoof
Dearic - Dwarven Paladin on Bloodhoof
March 19, 2005 7:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Davian scribbled:

>> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the ability
>> and implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of health you
>> can do in a single hit. So one of you, facing a million hit point
>> boss mob (fairly common in today's game) can expect a full manaburn
>> to land for 10s of thousands of points of damage in one hit.

> This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand manaburn
> better than them, despite having never played a wizard past level 4.

> A coup de grace for raids where the
> tanks and healers have mostly bought it, and the mob is almost dead.
> Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a win by spending all
> remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change, since it'll
> now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)

Where does it specify "current" HP? "Implement a cap based on
the maximum percentage of health" doesn't necessarily mean
current health -- it just means they can uncap the damage while
still keeping certain mobs (Kunark dragons, whatever) out of
bounds...
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:34:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in message
news:MwY_d.171797$qB6.60963@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Davian scribbled:
>
> >> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the ability
> >> and implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of health you
> >> can do in a single hit. So one of you, facing a million hit point
> >> boss mob (fairly common in today's game) can expect a full manaburn
> >> to land for 10s of thousands of points of damage in one hit.
>
> > This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand manaburn
> > better than them, despite having never played a wizard past level 4.
>
> > A coup de grace for raids where the
> > tanks and healers have mostly bought it, and the mob is almost dead.
> > Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a win by spending all
> > remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change, since it'll
> > now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)
>
> Where does it specify "current" HP? "Implement a cap based on
> the maximum percentage of health" doesn't necessarily mean
> current health -- it just means they can uncap the damage while
> still keeping certain mobs (Kunark dragons, whatever) out of
> bounds...
>

"**So one of you,** facing a million hit point boss mob (fairly common in
today's game) can expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of thousands of
points of damage in one hit."

(emphasis mine.)

If it was based on total health, not current, as many wizards as were there
could do a full manaburn.

The only way that just one wizard would be able to "full" manaburn, and all
the rest could not, is if it decreased the amount of damage due to the mob
being injured after the first landed.

--
Davian - Night Elf Rogue on Bloodhoof
Dearic - Dwarven Paladin on Bloodhoof
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:37:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, "Davian"
<davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>"John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>This doesn't really affect me, as I cancelled my account a few weeks ago, and
>stopped actually playing a few months ago. But having played a warrior for so
>long, this just made me boggle.
>
>
>>
>> Paladins
>>
>> We want you to be a main tank in group situations. We believe that you are
>> currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that our intent is
>> for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or shadowknight as their
>> main tank and be effective with any of them.
>>
>> With DoN, you gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring your
>> feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full spell
>> line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>>
>
>*snip*
>
>> Shadowknights
>>
>> We also want Shadowknights to be a main tank in group situations. We believe
>> that you are currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that
>> our intent is for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or
>> shadowknight as their main tank and be effective with any of them.
>>
>> With DoN, you also gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring
>> your feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full
>> spell line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>>
>
>*snip*
>
>>
>> Warriors
>>
>> Many of the ideas for changes to the warrior class are dependant upon the
>> results of the data we are still compiling. However, we are looking into
>> improving your ability to solo in the mid and high level game as well as;
>>
>> We are looking into the endurance cost of many of your disciplines and
>> lowering them as necessary.
>>
>> We will increase the knockback on Press the Attack slightly.
>>
>
>So... Paladins and Shadowknights get Defensive, the class defining ability of
>a warrior.

No, they don't. SOE is lying about this, as is obvious from the fact
that there has not been a huge hue and cry about the new Knight discs
from the Warrior community.

The new Knight discs mitigate some incoming melee damage, and they
are discs not spells, that is about the extent of their similarity
to Defensive.

Defensive reduces DI damage by 45% (net 50% with Warrior intrinsic
DI reduction) for 3 minutes with no limit to the damage mitigated,
and the Warrior suffers a severe penalty to his melee damage while
it is active. The level 69 Knight discs (extremely difficult for
non-raiders to obtain) reduce all melee damage by 25% for up to 30
seconds with a cap of 10,000hp on the damage mitigated, and no
penalty to the Knight. (The level 61 disc is far easier to obtain
but has a 6,000hp cap on damage mitigated.)

Differences:
Defensive has no cap on damage mitigated,
- Knight discs absorb a set maximum amount of damage.
Defensive lasts 180 seconds,
- Knight discs last a maximum of 30 seconds.
Defensive blocks up to 42% or so of incoming damage (lotta variables),
- Knight discs block exactly 25% of incoming damage.
Defensive stacks with Vie and weapon Guard procs,
- Knight discs overwrite Vie and Guard procs (i.e. 25% = 15%).
Defensive allows a Warrior to tank a mob he could not tank without it,
- Knight discs won't allow you to tank a mob you can't tank without.

These are useful discs, a Paladin or SK will have greater safety
tanking some mobs that they can already tank with significant risk.
They are not however anywhere near as powerful as Defensive.

If you're wondering how limiting that 10k cap on damage mitigated is,
the only parse I've seen of Guard of Righteousness lasted all of 13
seconds before it wore off, the Paladin in question died 4 seconds
later (mobs with 3k melee DPS will do that to you, I guess).

>What grand increase do warriors get to compensate them for losing thier only
>advantage? They're going to slightly increase the usefulness of one of the
>three most pathetic warrior abilities ever added, and muck around with the
>endurance cost of disciplines a litle.
>
>I don't know. Maybe I've just been gone from the game too long, and warriors
>are currently so overpowered, from warrior only gear or some such thing, that
>this is justified, and they will maintain an offsetting advantage that wasn't
>present when I was playing. It's possible. But from what I saw, I doubt it.

At the highend Warriors are top dogs for aggro, and you can see
from the example above that they remain overwhelmingly superior
tanks as well.

Even in the mid-game, a 30 second disc isn't going to let Kaev
tank any mob he can't already tank, it'll just buy more time for
slow to land on mobs that are likely to kill him unslowed.


kaev
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 2:19:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

kaev <foreverspam@lamenames.net> wrote:
>Even in the mid-game, a 30 second disc isn't going to let Kaev
>tank any mob he can't already tank, it'll just buy more time for
>slow to land on mobs that are likely to kill him unslowed.

This binary thinking is what makes the designers' balancing job impossible.
The idea that you can tank or not tank a mob, with nothing in between is just
not helpful, and not accurate except on raid mobs (where the designers seem to
plan on warrior tanking, CH circle, and everyone else being less important)
and on a few one-group "trials" (which I think the designers don't
distinguish from raids as much as they should).

The reality is that there are various levels of success of tanking (between
complete failure and wipeout and encounter finished with no downtime to the
next), and various probabilities of each outcome depending on specific mob and
group/raid makeup.

Adding ANY combat-worthy ability to a class does in fact shift the probability
of the various outcomes toward success. For raid bosses, if it adds 3 seconds
of life to a knight, that will turn some very close losses into wins. For XP
groups, a 30-second disc is the difference between success and wipeout on an
overpull or multiple slow/mez resists. Not every fight, but often enough that
it adds a lot of tankability.

I'm saddened that Sony is taking the "toss out some proposed changes and see
what people like" rather than "describe what we think each class should be
contributing in various situations (raid boss, raid clearing, high-end
loot/trial group, high-end xp group, mid-end groups, mid-level groups,
soloing). Without that, it's very hard to know what problems they think
they're addressing.

I can't imagine they intend to make knights tank as well as warriors. The
question they (and we, as players) need to answer is "how well is well
enough"? I don't think it can be answered without far more detail than
they've given us.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:28:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Davian" <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote in
news:RpWdnebIwtv8-6HfRVn-qw@adelphia.com:

>
>
>
> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:MwY_d.171797$qB6.60963@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Davian scribbled:
>>
>> >> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the
>> >> ability and implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of
>> >> health you can do in a single hit. So one of you, facing a
>> >> million hit point boss mob (fairly common in today's game) can
>> >> expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of thousands of points of
>> >> damage in one hit.
>>
>> > This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand
>> > manaburn better than them, despite having never played a wizard
>> > past level 4.
>>
>> > A coup de grace for raids where the
>> > tanks and healers have mostly bought it, and the mob is almost
>> > dead. Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a win by spending
>> > all remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change, since
>> > it'll now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)
>>
>> Where does it specify "current" HP? "Implement a cap based on
>> the maximum percentage of health" doesn't necessarily mean
>> current health -- it just means they can uncap the damage while
>> still keeping certain mobs (Kunark dragons, whatever) out of
>> bounds...
>>
>
> "**So one of you,** facing a million hit point boss mob (fairly common
> in today's game) can expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of
> thousands of points of damage in one hit."
>
> (emphasis mine.)
>
> If it was based on total health, not current, as many wizards as were
> there could do a full manaburn.
>
> The only way that just one wizard would be able to "full" manaburn,
> and all the rest could not, is if it decreased the amount of damage
> due to the mob being injured after the first landed.
>

Not sure that was the intent of their wording. It's pretty ambiguous I
think. We will see how it works out, if there are enough wizards who
still have manaburn that is...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:33:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

foreverspam@lamenames.net (kaev) wrote in
news:423cea04.1368177@news.visi.com:

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, "Davian"
> <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>>What grand increase do warriors get to compensate them for losing
>>thier only advantage? They're going to slightly increase the
>>usefulness of one of the three most pathetic warrior abilities ever
>>added, and muck around with the endurance cost of disciplines a litle.
>>
>>I don't know. Maybe I've just been gone from the game too long, and
>>warriors are currently so overpowered, from warrior only gear or some
>>such thing, that this is justified, and they will maintain an
>>offsetting advantage that wasn't present when I was playing. It's
>>possible. But from what I saw, I doubt it.
>
> At the highend Warriors are top dogs for aggro, and you can see
> from the example above that they remain overwhelmingly superior
> tanks as well.
>
> Even in the mid-game, a 30 second disc isn't going to let Kaev
> tank any mob he can't already tank, it'll just buy more time for
> slow to land on mobs that are likely to kill him unslowed.
>

Yep, I'd rather have a warrior tank for me (well, a warrior I know
anyway) anytime. They now hold agro great, unless their equipment is
very bad, and they take damage noticably better than knights. Generally
they also have more HP than knights, which is quite handy for spikes in
damage output. Now, if I had to pick between an unknown warrior, and a
known knight, I'd go with the knight likely.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
March 21, 2005 11:44:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <2bj3h2-1j3.ln1@hydra.dagon.net>, dagon@dagon.net says...

>
> I can't imagine they intend to make knights tank as well as warriors. The
> question they (and we, as players) need to answer is "how well is well
> enough"? I don't think it can be answered without far more detail than
> they've given us.

I -can- imagine it.

Remember this:

"Another of our goals is to broaden the core grouping roles to allow all
classes to more easily put together groups. Similar to how any of the 3
main tanks should be able to perform that role in a group, we want any
of the 3 healers to be able to perform the role of a main healer in a
group."

EQ2 has 3 healers that are virtually interchangable and 3 tanks that are
virtually interchangable. Everything about this patch message, combined
with the the fact that they did this in EQ2 suggests to me that EQ1 is
getting an EQ2 make over.
!