When will the mage upgrades end?
Billy Shields
the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
component!
This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
regen?
Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
(druids and in particular wizards).
mida...@my-deja.com
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
?
>
> Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
> they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
> (druids and in particular wizards).
Druids? Is this a joke?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eric Schnoor
them correcting a bug that they'd left in there way too long. The shaman
malise comment I can only assume refers to that brief period that 49 mages
could scribe malosi through an error in one of the patches. I'm sure you
can't be refering to any post 50 spells because that just wouldn't be right.
So they get regen? So what? It's not like they have lich form or something
that really makes it that much more useful.
Eric
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au...
> If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
> the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
> mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
> component!
>
> This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
> getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
> regen?
>
Alasdair Allan
> Is this some kind of troll? The pet "upgrade" that you speak of was
actually
> them correcting a bug that they'd left in there way too long. The shaman
> malise comment I can only assume refers to that brief period that 49 mages
> could scribe malosi through an error in one of the patches. I'm sure you
> can't be refering to any post 50 spells because that just wouldn't be
right.
Level of gaining spell with update.
Shaman Mage
Malise 19 29
Malisement 34 44
Malosi 49 51
Malo 60 60
Umm, you see no problem here?
--
Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |England - Country where Marx developed
x-st...@null.net | the basis of Communism
X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scotland - Country where Smith developed
http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ | the basis of Capitalism
Alasdair Allan
> If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
> the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
> mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
> component!
>
> This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
> getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
> regen?
You forgot :-
Adding loads of summoned items to increase their range of utility beyond
that of Druid or Shaman
Adding *ROOT*, ffs, to their Earth Pet
Adding focus items after the pet nerf (basically meaning only Enchanters,
Shamans and to an extent Necromancers suffered at all).
None of this is *nearly* as idiotic, moronic and stupid as giving the
Necromancer the Mezmerise spell but it is pretty close in combination.
Eric Schnoor
functionality as a shaman. As a person that is neither of those classes, I
think that's great, but I could see shaman getting upset at having their
skillset encroached upon.
Eric
Alasdair Allan <posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01bf9f09$e475a320$240201c0@dell40...
> Eric Schnoor <esch...@hempseed.com> wrote
> > Is this some kind of troll? The pet "upgrade" that you speak of was
> actually
> > them correcting a bug that they'd left in there way too long. The shaman
> > malise comment I can only assume refers to that brief period that 49
mages
> > could scribe malosi through an error in one of the patches. I'm sure you
> > can't be refering to any post 50 spells because that just wouldn't be
> right.
>
> Level of gaining spell with update.
>
> Shaman Mage
>
> Malise 19 29
> Malisement 34 44
> Malosi 49 51
> Malo 60 60
>
> Umm, you see no problem here?
>
bal...@my-deja.com
understand what you mean though. However, I am happy that the worthless
Phanton Shielding line is being looked at.
-Balbus
> Shaman Mage
>
> Malise 19 29
> Malisement 34 44
> Malosi 49 51
> Malo 60 60
>
> Umm, you see no problem here?
>
> --
> Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |England - Country where Marx
developed
> x-st...@null.net | the basis of Communism
> X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scotland - Country where Smith
developed
> http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ | the basis of Capitalism
>
>
Randy Stoller
<01bf9f09$e475a320$240201c0@dell40>:
>Level of gaining spell with update.
>
> Shaman Mage
>
>Malise 19 29
>Malisement 34 44
>Malosi 49 51
>Malo 60 60
>
>Umm, you see no problem here?
>
I do, Mages do not receive Malo at 60. They receive the inferior Mala.
Phil Morris
"Billy Shields" <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au...
> the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
> mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
> component!
>
> This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
> getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
> regen?
>
Alasdair Allan
> > Shaman Mage
> >
> > Malise 19 29
> > Malisement 34 44
> > Malosi 49 51
> > Malo 60 60
> >
> > Umm, you see no problem here?
>
> understand what you mean though. However, I am happy that the worthless
> Phanton Shielding line is being looked at.
The problem is that Mages have 1 line which is of little use (and that is
*only* because Int caster AC cannot get to a level where it counts).
Shamans, for example, find *40%* of their spells are worthless.
Yet they get absolutely nothing.
Alasdair Allan
> postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk (Alasdair Allan) wrote
> >Level of gaining spell with update.
> >
> >
> >Malise 19 29
> >Malisement 34 44
> >Malosi 49 51
> >Malo 60 60
> >
> >Umm, you see no problem here?
> >
>
That's encouraging. When did that change make the spell list? Mages were
originally slated to get Malo (I don't recall a spell named Mala anywhere on
the Shaman list - but I haven't looked in a fortnight).
Graithe
they should just make one EQ "UberClass" that is a combination
of all the current classes and throw all the rest out the door :)
Then make all the spell lines skill-based so you have to go up
in skill in a certain line versus the other ;) I know, a whole
new can of worms, but at least then they won't be tweaking
classes so much :)
That way they won't have to worry anymore.
Graithe :)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Matthew Mc Clement
Eric Schnoor wrote:
>
> Is this some kind of troll? The pet "upgrade" that you speak of was actually
> them correcting a bug that they'd left in there way too long. The shaman
> malise comment I can only assume refers to that brief period that 49 mages
> could scribe malosi through an error in one of the patches. I'm sure you
> can't be refering to any post 50 spells because that just wouldn't be right.
> So they get regen? So what? It's not like they have lich form or something
> that really makes it that much more useful.
The pet "upgrade" turned level 49 mage pets into goddamed beasts. And the regen
is useful. If you spent anytime playing a shaman or druid you'll truely value hp
regen spells. And hell, if a mage has a crack stone lying around, they could
actually start using it. Now *that* is sickening.
Matt
somebody
<postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Just to upset you further 8) We get malise at 24, not 29. I
> > understand what you mean though. However, I am happy that the worthless
> > Phanton Shielding line is being looked at.
>
> The problem is that Mages have 1 line which is of little use (and that is
> *only* because Int caster AC cannot get to a level where it counts).
Rain spells and AE spells aren't useless?
The summoned weapons can be argued about as well.
Mason Barge
>*only* because Int caster AC cannot get to a level where it counts).
>
>
Bah! Mages have as many worthless spells as Shamans.
My favorite is the AoE "rain" series that does as much damage to the mage and
his pet as to the mobs. Boy, that one's a treat the first time you try it out.
The phantom armor series is awful, as any neutral bystander would immediately
notice. Giving it a little regen effect is a small but good tweak to make it
worth casting (and spending the 3 reagents per cast you have to carry around
and use if you want it).
I will say, it's an odd tweak because it will principally benefit solo play.
If somebody appointed me the Czar of Norrath, I might give mages and wizards a
little something for grouping. In fact, I'd give wizards clarity, and give
mages a group-only spell that would make them useful on those occasions when a
group leader (rightfully or wrongfully) makes the "no pet" call.
By the way, I was in a FG raid a few nights ago where the group leader forbid
pet casters from getting pets inside the throne room. The entire party died
AFTER Skarlon and Tranix (who popped at the same time) were dead, killed by a
FG who spawned while Tranix was being fought. Three or four pets would have
fairly clearly saved the entire raid.
There was not a snowball's chance in hell that even the most poorly handled pet
would have wandered completely out of the room.
You people with these bizarre anti-pet hangups need to get over them. They
will save your life.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
JubJub McRae
wrote:
>If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
>the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
>mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
>component!
>
>This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
>getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
>regen?
>
>Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
>they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
>(druids and in particular wizards).
Druids.. *chokes with laughter*. Get a fucking clue.
Ray Grant
haha). I have been wondering about this spell line also... As it
stands now, these AC spells are useless. If they add a regen effect,
they will be pretty damn nice, however... I would MUCH, _M U C H_
more prefer a simple allowance to cast it on ones pet. No big deal,
just let me add AC to my own damn pet. Seems to make a helluva lot
more sense than regen for a caster... the Pet can actualy USE the
AC... geez Verant! I wish they would THINK.
Elementus begins to cast a spell...
Jonab now wears a suit of phantom leather!
AC FOR PETS VERANT... I dont need regen, thats Druid/Shaman stuff.
Clear _ the _ clouds _ away _ from _ the _ "Vision" _ ...
Ray Grant
>
> The problem is that Mages have 1 line which is of little use (and that is
> *only* because Int caster AC cannot get to a level where it counts).
>
> Shamans, for example, find *40%* of their spells are worthless.
>
Personaly, I think the Phantom Armor lines should be a pet buff,
not a freekin regen/AC buff for the caster. But this is only if
Verant actualy wants this line of spells to be useful... I'd also
accept the ability to cast on players, but that really isnt in line
with the particular class' functionality (defensive buffing players).
Agreed on Shamen, they seem to need something in the area of 24th
level, that will round them out in that rough stage.
"Oh goodie, new spell animations...
but somehow, I feel relatively weaker..."
Marc Fuller
>
> If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
> the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
> mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
> component!
>
> This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
> getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
> regen?
>
> Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
> they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
> (druids and in particular wizards).
The spell line in question, Phantom Armor, was previously almost useless. In
exchange for a gem that costs between 2 and 3gp, you get... 10 points of AC.
Yep. 10 *whole* points. No extra hitpoints, no resistance bonuses, nothing.
For a level 16 spell that costs up to 3gp, and is inferior in *every* way to the
level 1!!! Druid spell, Skin Like Wood.
Now that it has the regen component, people might actually consider casting it,
if they already own it. I still don't think a lot of people will bother to buy
it unless they have some serious mad-money lying around.
Marc Fuller
Marc Fuller
>
> Eric Schnoor <esch...@hempseed.com> wrote
> > Is this some kind of troll? The pet "upgrade" that you speak of was
> actually
> > them correcting a bug that they'd left in there way too long. The shaman
> > malise comment I can only assume refers to that brief period that 49 mages
> > could scribe malosi through an error in one of the patches. I'm sure you
> > can't be refering to any post 50 spells because that just wouldn't be
> right.
>
>
> Shaman Mage
>
> Malise 19 29
I'm pretty sure that Magicians get Malaise at level 24, not level 29. At least,
my Magician could cast it at level 24. Maybe I'm just special. :)
> Malisement 34 44
> Malosi 49 51
> Malo 60 60
>
> Umm, you see no problem here?
>
It depends on how hard it is to get to level 60. Considering the power of the
spells that are added *each level* past 50, I'm betting that passing 51 is like
a Hell Level +++ for each one. Also, Verant has a year of experience watching
the zones, and I'm hoping that the Kunark Zones are a lot more power
gamer-proof.
Marc Fuller
Randy Stoller
>That's encouraging. When did that change make the spell list? Mages
>were originally slated to get Malo (I don't recall a spell named Mala
>anywhere on the Shaman list - but I haven't looked in a fortnight).
>
Hm.. checking spdats I have saved it went in as of March 31st. Shamans do
not receive Mala. Malo/Mala aren't exactly part of the Malosi line, which
ends in Malosini(SHM57/MAG58) and reduces resistances by 60. Malo only
reduces by 45 and Mala by 35 but they are unresistable.
Billy Shields
: On 05 Apr 2000 12:46:58 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: wrote:
:>If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
:>the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
:>mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
:>component!
:>
:>This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
:>getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
:>regen?
:>
:>Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
:>they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
:>(druids and in particular wizards).
: Druids.. *chokes with laughter*. Get a fucking clue.
Care to actually present some form of argument rather than parroting
ignorant newbie dogma? No? Didn't think so.
Billy Shields
: In article <38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au>,
:> Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
:> they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
:> (druids and in particular wizards).
: Druids? Is this a joke?
Let me know when you've got something useful or constructive to
say.
I won't hold my breath.
Spiffy
Billy Shields wrote in message <38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au>...
>If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
>the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
>mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
>component!
>
>This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
>getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
>regen?
>
>they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
>(druids and in particular wizards).
>
Druids?????
Please enlighten us with what is exactly wrong with druids right now. I
would love to hear it.
Other than the fact that some druids seem to be major asswipes, who have
little regard to other players, and KS up a storm whenever they feel like, I
can find nothing of great substance wrong with the class. What? Do you not
like the fact that you can't kite Cazic-Thule solo or something? Or perhaps
you don't think taking a faction hit while in wolf form is fair? Are you
angry because you can't kill your own kind and get away with it? I mean,
hell, druids kill just about anything that currently walks, crawls, slithers
or stomps in this game all int he name of pHaT L00T.
Please. Educate us.
Spiff out!
Billy Shields
: Billy Shields wrote in message <38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au>...
:>If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
:>the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
:>mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
:>component!
:>
:>This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
:>getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
:>regen?
:>
:>Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
:>they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
:>(druids and in particular wizards).
:>
: Druids?????
: Please enlighten us with what is exactly wrong with druids right now. I
: would love to hear it.
I'll start by saying that I have some 50-60 days played of this game
since soon after retail. Most of that time has been as a druid (my
main character) who is currently level 49. I've played this class
every which way but loose. I've seen what others can do. I know
what I can do.
What can you claim to know about this game? Do you know anything or
are you merely another one of these parrots who spout "theres lots
of druids and they level quickly at low levels; they're overpowered!"?
What characters have you played to what level?
: Other than the fact that some druids seem to be major asswipes, who have
: little regard to other players, and KS up a storm whenever they feel like, I
Did a druid pick on you as a child?
Don't be so moronic as to condemn the class instead of the jerks who
might choose to play it.
: can find nothing of great substance wrong with the class. What? Do you not
: like the fact that you can't kite Cazic-Thule solo or something? Or perhaps
Idiot.
: you don't think taking a faction hit while in wolf form is fair? Are you
You do take faction hits in wolf form. Wolf form is like any other
illusion (like enchanters have): it changes your *base* faction
but you still take faction hits. Wolf form is handy in that it makes
you (base) indifferent to many factions. So what? Enchanters can do
that in spades.
: angry because you can't kill your own kind and get away with it? I mean,
: hell, druids kill just about anything that currently walks, crawls, slithers
: or stomps in this game all int he name of pHaT L00T.
Um, how is this different to any other class in the game? It seems
frothing at the mouth is about the limitation of your abilities.
Let me know as soon as you can construct any sort of argument.
: Please. Educate us.
Looking at the caster/healer classes:
Necro: very flexible, great DoTs, great pet, huge damage output.
One of (if not) the best soloing class as well.
Magician: not as flexible as necros but have a better pet and the
best damage shields in the game. Tremendous damage output.
Shamans: best speed debuffs in the game, mediocre pet, can do
most of the druid tricks like chloroplast and heal.
Enchanters: do I need to say anything at all?
Clerics: there are situations where druids are better and situations
where they're worse. For dragons/planes you need clerics for the
bigger heals and res. For non-planar stuff druids make better
healers (by virtue of damage shields and chloroplast).
Wizards: utterly useless.
Druids: lets look at a druid's abilities:
Damage shields: superseded by magicians.
Chloroplast: shared with shamans
Pack Chloroplast: nice in parties of 5-6 by really its just a parlour
trick.
Skin Like Nature: like Resolution but with a small regen component.
This is perhaps the most useful druid high level spell.
DDs: useless (see wizard)
DoTs: Drifting Death is reasonable but really in this department
they're completely outshone by shamans and necros.
Charming animals: parlour trick.
Healing: same as shamans and outclassed by clerics for dragons and
planes.
Teleport: useful for getting about. Other than that its a parlour
trick.
Snare: shared with rangers
Harmony: likewise shared with rangers. Outdoor only.
AE/Rain DDs: useless.
Once you get to the high level stuff you're almost certain to have
one of each of the classes and as such a druid is completely
redundant. There is no single class defining ability that druids
possess. In short there is no reason to use druids for anything.
In groups a whole bunch of other classes are more desirable.
Solo at high levels druids are extremely poor. They can kite things
in very selective areas but only creatures up to about level 40.
Compare that to shamans, necros, enchanters and magicians who run rings
around druids in *every* way, shape and form. These classes have more
useful group abilities and can out-solo druids by a huge margin.
Druids can level up through the *early* levels by kiting quite
easily. Then again you can't tell me these levels are any easier
for a druid than a 16+ necro.
So are you one of these ignorant fucks who sees the large number of
druids or the ease at which they get through the very early levels
and come to the moronic conclusion that they're overpowered or do
you have actually have some sort of clue?
I suspect the former based on everything you've said thus far.
Leon Strong
> >Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
> >they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
> >(druids and in particular wizards).
> >
>
> Druids?????
>
> Please enlighten us with what is exactly wrong with druids right now. I
> would love to hear it.
>
> Other than the fact that some druids seem to be major asswipes, who have
> little regard to other players, and KS up a storm whenever they feel like, I
> can find nothing of great substance wrong with the class. What? Do you not
> like the fact that you can't kite Cazic-Thule solo or something? Or perhaps
> you don't think taking a faction hit while in wolf form is fair? Are you
> angry because you can't kill your own kind and get away with it? I mean,
> hell, druids kill just about anything that currently walks, crawls, slithers
> or stomps in this game all int he name of pHaT L00T.
Good question, what is wrong with druids?, i'm level 35 and i dont see us
druids having any major problems?.. (anything i cant get done myself, i'll
group for). why are we suddenly underpowered?, i dont see us as
underpowered, we're one of the (if not THE) most versitile classes in the
game.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>JubJub McRae <mrju...@REMOVETHISPART.hotmail.com> wrote:
>: On 05 Apr 2000 12:46:58 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
>: wrote:
>
>:>If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
>:>the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
>:>mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
>:>component!
>:>
>:>This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
>:>getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
>:>regen?
>:>
>:>Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
>:>they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
>:>(druids and in particular wizards).
>
>
>: Druids.. *chokes with laughter*. Get a fucking clue.
>
>Care to actually present some form of argument rather than parroting
>ignorant newbie dogma? No? Didn't think so.
Very well, put your money where your mouth is. Go item by item and describe
in detail with verifiable examples, how the druid class is in need of a
major tuneup.
This should be good.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>mida...@my-deja.com wrote:
>: In article <38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au>,
>: Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>: ?
>:>
>:> Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
>:> they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
>:> (druids and in particular wizards).
>
>: Druids? Is this a joke?
>
>Let me know when you've got something useful or constructive to
>say.
>
>I won't hold my breath.
It must be a joke. Druids are the most well rounded class in the entire
game.
But, on a lark, what would YOU like to see them able to do that they cannot
now do, billy?
Billy Shields
: On 06 Apr 2000 02:06:00 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: scribed into the ether:
Up to level 34 they're fine. Its beyond that thats the problem.
Here are some suggestions:
1. An indoor Harmony
2. Give them inferior versions of some of the abilities enchanters
currently monopolise (ie crowd control) or even the enchanter speed
debuff line (which is inferior to the shaman line; thats OK).
3. A new (reasonable) DoT line.
4. Fire/cold debuffs. Ice (49 DD) already has a 3 tick 50 fire
resist debuff.
5. Druids really should have better damage shields than mages.
Mages already have the best pets. What more do they need?
If you want to balance it all out I have no problem nerfing
snare. Take it away from rangers and give it to druids at
29. That'll kill most of the early levelling which some
argue is too easy.
Or make the level 1 snare have the same chance of breaking that
root does and make ensnare (level 29 currently useless druid spell)
do what snare does now.
Also the "outdoors only" limitation on some abilities (quite a
few in the expansion) is not viable in EQ as it stands now because
there really are no viable high level outdoor dungeons. Until
there is "outdoors only" should be kept at a minimum.
People seem to get the idea that druids are ultrapowerful because
they have never played one or they've never played the game to
high level. At 40+ (especially) its quite grim.
Billy Shields
: On 06 Apr 2000 02:05:23 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: scribed into the ether:
:>JubJub McRae <mrju...@REMOVETHISPART.hotmail.com> wrote:
:>: On 05 Apr 2000 12:46:58 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
:>: wrote:
:>
:>:>If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
:>:>the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
:>:>mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
:>:>component!
:>:>
:>:>This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
:>:>getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
:>:>regen?
:>:>
:>:>Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
:>:>they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
:>:>(druids and in particular wizards).
:>
:>
:>: Druids.. *chokes with laughter*. Get a fucking clue.
:>
:>Care to actually present some form of argument rather than parroting
:>ignorant newbie dogma? No? Didn't think so.
: Very well, put your money where your mouth is. Go item by item and describe
: in detail with verifiable examples, how the druid class is in need of a
: major tuneup.
: This should be good.
Go read my response to a similar question in this same thread.
Mason Barge
>haha). I have been wondering about this spell line also... As it
>stands now, these AC spells are useless. If they add a regen effect,
>they will be pretty damn nice, however... I would MUCH, _M U C H_
>more prefer a simple allowance to cast it on ones pet. No big deal,
>just let me add AC to my own damn pet. Seems to make a helluva lot
>more sense than regen for a caster
You understand that this is the phantom leather spell they are talking about,
not the main shield (whatever it is called at that level)?
There is a very good pet buff, Burnout, that increases pet AC. It does slow
regen.
The trouble with the phantom armor line is that it has an almost negligible
effect at a high cost. The regen is going to be extremely nice, as you will
find yourself (especially at higher levels) sitting with a full tank of mana
waiting for two bubbs of HP to regen. Because the mage's HP are so low in the
first place, this puts you in a lot of danger. So IMHO this is a very helpful
tweak to an essentially broken spell.
Mason Barge
>Please enlighten us with what is exactly wrong with druids right now. I
>would love to hear it.
>
>Other than the fact that some druids seem to be major asswipes, who have
>little regard to other players,
I have to agree. This is one of those posts from a person who is going to be
angry about his class, no matter what it is.
Why am I bothering to post to this idiot thread?
: examines his psychological profile for similarity to the fool who started
this thread.
Olaf
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38ec58c5$0$73...@motown.iinet.net.au...
>
> Up to level 34 they're fine. Its beyond that thats the problem.
> Here are some suggestions:
>
> 1. An indoor Harmony
I dont think this would be unreasonable.
>
> 2. Give them inferior versions of some of the abilities enchanters
> currently monopolise (ie crowd control) or even the enchanter speed
> debuff line (which is inferior to the shaman line; thats OK).
No. I think some Enchanter crowd control duties should be shared but not with
Druids. Wizards maybe.
>
> 3. A new (reasonable) DoT line.
Why? The swarm one is great. Stacks with eveerything. Fast acting. Almost
never resisted.
>
> 4. Fire/cold debuffs. Ice (49 DD) already has a 3 tick 50 fire
> resist debuff.
Maybe a similar cold debuff.
>
> 5. Druids really should have better damage shields than mages.
> Mages already have the best pets. What more do they need?
OK, reasonable.
>
> If you want to balance it all out I have no problem nerfing
> snare. Take it away from rangers and give it to druids at
> 29. That'll kill most of the early levelling which some
> argue is too easy.
How noble of you. I especially love the 'take it away from Rangers' part.
> Or make the level 1 snare have the same chance of breaking that
> root does and make ensnare (level 29 currently useless druid spell)
> do what snare does now.
This would be more appropriate, but they still shouldnt do it. Nerfing snare
would perhaps be the most wide ranging nerf to date.
>
> Also the "outdoors only" limitation on some abilities (quite a
> few in the expansion) is not viable in EQ as it stands now because
> there really are no viable high level outdoor dungeons. Until
> there is "outdoors only" should be kept at a minimum.
We will see what the outdoor high level zone looks like.
>
> People seem to get the idea that druids are ultrapowerful because
> they have never played one or they've never played the game to
> high level. At 40+ (especially) its quite grim.
No one would argue that the Druid loses some power relative to the other classes
up top. The fact remains that, by far, there are more Druids than any other
class. There is a _reason_ for this. Maybe lots of reasons.
olaf
Ray Grant
>
> >I just started a Mage myself (20th)... (but then, you know that
> >haha). I have been wondering about this spell line also... As it
> >stands now, these AC spells are useless. If they add a regen effect,
> >they will be pretty damn nice, however... I would MUCH, _M U C H_
> >more prefer a simple allowance to cast it on ones pet. No big deal,
> >just let me add AC to my own damn pet. Seems to make a helluva lot
> >more sense than regen for a caster
>
> You understand that this is the phantom leather spell they are talking about,
> not the main shield (whatever it is called at that level)?
Absolutely I do.
> There is a very good pet buff, Burnout, that increases pet AC. It does slow
> regen.
I use it relentlessly.
> The trouble with the phantom armor line is that it has an almost negligible
> effect at a high cost. The regen is going to be extremely nice, as you will
> find yourself (especially at higher levels) sitting with a full tank of mana
> waiting for two bubbs of HP to regen. Because the mage's HP are so low in the
> first place, this puts you in a lot of danger. So IMHO this is a very helpful
> tweak to an essentially broken spell.
And I agreed that it would be useful, but damn, mages have a
dirt/flame/water/gust shield to protect their hit points...
This just smacks of "F**K Wizards" even more. Regen seems to
me to be a pervue of a priest class. Mages can already make
tons of Bandages, so they can always be at at least 1/2 HP's
_AND_ have a an elemental to protect any down hit points.
And if they take the option of grouping with someone whom
can heal, a GHeal or 2 will make even that a non-issue.
Regen on a class that makes bandages by lots (10 at 20th),
_and_ has a powerful pet. That is sick... I (as a Mage...)
am just being fair, that is what (indirectly) "Renew Elements"
if for.
Bandage to half, then regen to full? Wow! I'll take some
of that! Pass it over! No more downtime... weeeeeeee
I'd prefer to add AC to my "Tank" hence my alternative
of making the Phantom line a pet buff.
Steven H
wrote:
>Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>: On 06 Apr 2000 02:06:00 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
>: scribed into the ether:
>
>:>mida...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:>: In article <38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au>,
>:>: Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>:>: ?
>:>:>
>:>:> Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
>:>:> they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
>:>:> (druids and in particular wizards).
>:>
>:>: Druids? Is this a joke?
>:>
>:>Let me know when you've got something useful or constructive to
>:>say.
>:>
>:>I won't hold my breath.
>
>: It must be a joke. Druids are the most well rounded class in the entire
>: game.
>
>: But, on a lark, what would YOU like to see them able to do that they cannot
>: now do, billy?
>
>Up to level 34 they're fine. Its beyond that thats the problem.
>Here are some suggestions:
>
>1. An indoor Harmony
nah harmony is powerful enough as it is, we do get lull animal though
;)
>
>2. Give them inferior versions of some of the abilities enchanters
>currently monopolise (ie crowd control) or even the enchanter speed
>debuff line (which is inferior to the shaman line; thats OK).
our whirling wind series of spells was really cool, pity it was
outdoors only.
>
>3. A new (reasonable) DoT line.
yes, if they dont make it faster at least make it have a better
damage/mana ratio or have better debuff effect.
>4. Fire/cold debuffs. Ice (49 DD) already has a 3 tick 50 fire
>resist debuff.
i believe we get these in our dots post 50.
>5. Druids really should have better damage shields than mages.
>Mages already have the best pets. What more do they need?
nah our damage shields are fine, we get an AC bonus to our spells
remember, mages get fire resis on theirs but i think the AC is more
usefull generally.
>If you want to balance it all out I have no problem nerfing
>snare. Take it away from rangers and give it to druids at
>29. That'll kill most of the early levelling which some
>argue is too easy.
for druids yes. but why? we already compensate for this by leveling
slower than other classes after 30.
>Or make the level 1 snare have the same chance of breaking that
>root does and make ensnare (level 29 currently useless druid spell)
>do what snare does now.
personally i think they never should have had these spells in the
game. people would rely on other classes much more without root and
snare, and the spells take out so much of the element of risk. its
not even funny.
As a druid though FUCK OFF DONT TOUCH MY SNARE!!
>Also the "outdoors only" limitation on some abilities (quite a
>few in the expansion) is not viable in EQ as it stands now because
>there really are no viable high level outdoor dungeons. Until
>there is "outdoors only" should be kept at a minimum.
You forgot our pet buff series of spells which are almost totally
useless given the unpredictable nature of our charms.
have more dungeons with animals or summoned mobs (the hole, which both
magicians and druids will benefit from)
Make bard,shaman, cleric, enchanter memory wipe spells not kill a
masterless pet die instantly so that the banish summoned line has a
use.
give us some quests that dont involve handing in 2 decent items for a
shitty scimitar.
make our root line a viable one (in the process of being fixed
apparently, look forward to trying it out in its new form next year).
be nice if we had an alterative indoor spell pre-50 thats not fire
based. at least in places that resist cold shamans can fall back on
their Dots for damage dealing.
the only real way i can damage in solb efficiently is through damage
shields (dots maybe on bats+). with a chanter/bard ive usually always
got full mana so would like to throw some nukes into the fray (not
every camp is a solid EXP grind which is when DD has its uses).
im sure theres more but im tired. to be honest though im happy with
the class, these are just some of my minor quibbles.
Steven H
wrote:
>Spiffy <sp...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Still, as a druid i find it funny that all the guards view us
indifferently as a wolf, when every other wolf they see they kill on
sight. youd think at least Halas guards wouldnt be able to tell the
difference :P.
>: angry because you can't kill your own kind and get away with it? I mean,
>: hell, druids kill just about anything that currently walks, crawls, slithers
>: or stomps in this game all int he name of pHaT L00T.
>
>Um, how is this different to any other class in the game? It seems
>frothing at the mouth is about the limitation of your abilities.
>Let me know as soon as you can construct any sort of argument.
Always found this funny too, paladin goes after nice items hes
Questing, druid goes after nice items hews a k3wl d3wd killing for
ph4t l3wt
>: Please. Educate us.
>
>Looking at the caster/healer classes:
>
>Necro: very flexible, great DoTs, great pet, huge damage output.
>One of (if not) the best soloing class as well.
>
>Magician: not as flexible as necros but have a better pet and the
>best damage shields in the game. Tremendous damage output.
>
>Shamans: best speed debuffs in the game, mediocre pet, can do
>most of the druid tricks like chloroplast and heal.
>
>Enchanters: do I need to say anything at all?
>
>Clerics: there are situations where druids are better and situations
>where they're worse. For dragons/planes you need clerics for the
>bigger heals and res. For non-planar stuff druids make better
>healers (by virtue of damage shields and chloroplast).
>
>Wizards: utterly useless.
>
>Druids: lets look at a druid's abilities:
>
>Damage shields: superseded by magicians.
still very very powerfull
>Chloroplast: shared with shamans
>Pack Chloroplast: nice in parties of 5-6 by really its just a parlour
>trick.
pack cholroplast is much more mana efficient and easier to keep track
of
>Charming animals: parlour trick.
At the moment useful in solb at higher levels only, but is VERY
powerfull when used well
>Healing: same as shamans and outclassed by clerics for dragons and
>planes.
>Teleport: useful for getting about. Other than that its a parlour
>trick.
>Snare: shared with rangers
>Harmony: likewise shared with rangers. Outdoor only.
>AE/Rain DDs: useless.
>
>Once you get to the high level stuff you're almost certain to have
>one of each of the classes and as such a druid is completely
>redundant. There is no single class defining ability that druids
>possess. In short there is no reason to use druids for anything.
Though i still find it one of the most fun classes to play *shrug*
>
Bonhomie
<xel...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au...
>> > If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
>> > the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
>> > mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
>> > component!
>> >
>> > This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
>> > getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
>> > regen?
>> >
>> > Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
>> > they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
>> > (druids and in particular wizards).
>
>Eric Schnoor wrote:
>>
>> Is this some kind of troll? The pet "upgrade" that you speak of was actually
>> them correcting a bug that they'd left in there way too long. The shaman
>> malise comment I can only assume refers to that brief period that 49 mages
>> could scribe malosi through an error in one of the patches. I'm sure you
>> can't be refering to any post 50 spells because that just wouldn't be right.
>> So they get regen? So what? It's not like they have lich form or something
>> that really makes it that much more useful.
>
>The pet "upgrade" turned level 49 mage pets into goddamed beasts. And the regen
>is useful. If you spent anytime playing a shaman or druid you'll truely value hp
>regen spells. And hell, if a mage has a crack stone lying around, they could
>actually start using it. Now *that* is sickening.
The bug correction made to the mage pets put them just past necro
pets, where they should have been all along. Pets/malise/nukes/damage
shield are all we have to work with.
4 hp/tick with a crackrock means 1.3 mana per tick. You are
"sickened" by that? It would take 2.7 hours to fill your manabar at
that rate.
mida...@my-deja.com
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
Bah! Druids are ultrapowerful until 35+ or so. Then they are merely
very powerful. Its only 'grim' compared to the situation you were in
before. You have to start grouping to get ahead.
Heal, regen, snare, damage shields, DoTs and Evac make druids very well
rounded and useful, even indoors at high levels. And outdoors they are
_still_ demigods. They still compare favorably to most classes.
Putting them in the same category as wizards is laughable. Wizards
really are in a grim place, along with shadowknights.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mida...@my-deja.com
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Necro: very flexible, great DoTs, great pet, huge damage output.
> One of (if not) the best soloing class as well.
Best before 14 and after 34. 14-34, druids have it awfully good.
> Magician: not as flexible as necros but have a better pet and the
> best damage shields in the game. Tremendous damage output.
Damage shields are barely better than those of druids. _just_ barely.
> Shamans: best speed debuffs in the game, mediocre pet, can do
> most of the druid tricks like chloroplast and heal.
But not evac, group regen, or skin like nature. And Shaman DD well and
truly sucks at all levels, not that nuking is usually a good idea.
> Enchanters: do I need to say anything at all?
>
> Clerics: there are situations where druids are better and situations
> where they're worse. For dragons/planes you need clerics for the
> bigger heals and res. For non-planar stuff druids make better
> healers (by virtue of damage shields and chloroplast).
So you admit druids are better healers than clerics unless you are on a
dragon run or the planes? Doesn't that make _clerics_ the broken class,
not druids?
I agree, but its often hard to get other players to understand this.
Druids are _excellent_ healers under most circumstances. I admit, most
druids are not accustomed to being healers when they hit L34, but that
seems to be the role they were actually designed to fill indoors.
> Wizards: utterly useless.
Least useful. That's different from being utterly useless. And they
get some useful tricks few other classes do.
> Druids: lets look at a druid's abilities:
>
> Damage shields: superseded by magicians.
By 1pt per hit?
> Chloroplast: shared with shamans
Whose mana is really, really stretched if the guy knows how to play.
> Pack Chloroplast: nice in parties of 5-6 by really its just a parlour
> trick.
No it isn't. ITs a very useful spell.
> Skin Like Nature: like Resolution but with a small regen component.
> This is perhaps the most useful druid high level spell.
> DDs: useless (see wizard)
> DoTs: Drifting Death is reasonable but really in this department
> they're completely outshone by shamans and necros.
One big problem with Shaman and Necros in the same group is that their
DoTs are not mutually stackable.
Your DoT (Which is probably the 3rd best DoT in the game) stacks with
either. Given 2 free slots, and a choice of druid, necro or shaman, it
actually makes sense to squeeze out either the necro or the shaman more
often than the druid.
> Charming animals: parlour trick.
People have _really_ different experiences with charm. Most thinks its
a parlour trick, but some would swear by its utility. I use the charm
undead line all the time, but unlike most necromancers, my Charisma is
usually >100, let alone 75.
> Healing: same as shamans and outclassed by clerics for dragons and
> planes.
Shaman don't get Teleport, Evac, Group Regen or DoTs that don't
overwrite necro DoTs.
> Teleport: useful for getting about. Other than that its a parlour
> trick.
"Getting about" is not currently useful for people L35 and above. They
are almost always in one of three places, and have a network of friends
who can tell them whether it is worthwhile to make the trip between
them. That is probably going to change quite a bit in the next several
months.
And of course then their is the Evac method of "getting out".
> Snare: shared with rangers
> Harmony: likewise shared with rangers. Outdoor only.
Who don't have any healing to speak of. And lack a killer DoT and
group wolfform.
> AE/Rain DDs: useless.
Rain spells are useless. AE spells are underrated because they require
planning. Most player groups have trouble with planning beyond
staggering a spawn.
> Once you get to the high level stuff you're almost certain to have
> one of each of the classes and as such a druid is completely
> redundant.
Just about every class makes this complaint.
The standard necro whine is that (off planes) their DoTs last longer
than the typical fight, and that their pet stinks compared to the
elemental.
Magicians whine that everything becomes useless but their elemental.
Warriors (let alone hybrids) complaint hat they can not do enough
damage to make a real difference, and that they depend on healers to
survive.
Shaman complain that their buffs are useless, their pet is weak, their
melee abilities stink, their healing is second rate, that the druid
gets all their best spells, and that the DoTs are not as good as a
necromancer's.
Like your complaint, these complaints require the whiner to downplay
his class strengths
> There is no single class defining ability that druids
> possess. In short there is no reason to use druids for anything.
Actually , your sort of in the same boat as necromancer and shaman.
Necromancers and Shaman routinely argue over which is the most
powerful "Dot" class, with the grass-is-greener syndrome playing a
strong role in the argument:
"You guys are better cause you get Envenomed Bolt"
"No You, cause you can stack up lots of Dots"
"No, its YOU guys"
"No You"
Druids share their "defining" ability with another class, wizards. I
don't think anyone would argue which class is the more useful of the
two at high levels.
> In groups a whole bunch of other classes are more desirable.
If you already have five particular characters maybe, with all the
holes a druid can fill plugged up already. But that's the same boat
everyone but the enchanter is in. (And the wizard. The Wizard is
adrift at sea without a lifejacket, though).
If I already have a healer and a magician, I admit I don't need a
druid. But if I am missing either, a druid looks really, really good.
> Solo at high levels druids are extremely poor. They can kite things
> in very selective areas but only creatures up to about level 40.
> Compare that to shamans, necros, enchanters and magicians who run
> rings around druids in *every* way, shape and form. These classes
> have more useful group abilities and can out-solo druids by a huge
> margin.
Necromancers have more useful "group" abilities? Care to describe them?
> Druids can level up through the *early* levels by kiting quite
> easily. Then again you can't tell me these levels are any easier
> for a druid than a 16+ necro.
Druids 14-34 are the easiest class to level by far. At 29 necromancers
start to close in, though. And at 34, Necromancers and shaman both
pull ahead.
> So are you one of these ignorant fucks who sees the large number of
> druids or the ease at which they get through the very early levels
> and come to the moronic conclusion that they're overpowered or do
> you have actually have some sort of clue?
> I suspect the former based on everything you've said thus far.
I always suspect that people who refer to those they disagree with
as "ignorant fucks" have problems _other_ than their class keeping them
out of groups. But class envy is a good form of denial, I suppose.
I'll give you a clue. The several guilds I got to know well on Cazic
all had several high level druids who were well respected and never had
any trouble getting into groups. Of course, these were the rarer
druids who had been grouping their entire careers and had friends.
On Luclin, my all-evil guild has been very strict about only accepting
dark race or evil class PCs (They only modified the "all dark race"
rule to admit me, they have yet to admit another human or an erudite).
We are considering modifying the admission rules to admit "unkempt"
druids. We are having trouble now, at high level, coping without the
abilities druids bring to the table. Combinations of wizards, shaman
and clerics just are not cutting it in the efficency department. We
miss our faithful wolfie friends from other servers.
Mason Barge
>I'd prefer to add AC to my "Tank" hence my alternative
>of making the Phantom line a pet buff.
>
This may just be a difference of higher level or may be a difference of play
style, I don't know. However, I would much prefer more AC for myself. Also, I
would say the most limiting factor in solo work is downtime due to HP regen.
I will also say that, while I relish some HP regen for solo work, this is not
making sense to me. If I were at Verant, I would be looking for a more
group-friendly tweak for mage. I always get regen in a group -- this will be
primarily helpful in eliminating solo downtime.
JackiePrice
> rounded and useful, even indoors at high levels. And outdoors they are
> _still_ demigods. They still compare favorably to most classes.
> Putting them in the same category as wizards is laughable. Wizards
> really are in a grim place, along with shadowknights.
>
You've gotta be kidding, Shadowknights?
Shadowknights, are without a doubt, the most useful of the hybrid classes.
With spells, they outdamage rangers, they are as durable as paladins, they
get awesome weaponry
(for example, a group of 12 of our guildmembers...that's right, only 12,
went into the plane of air and got a blade of abrogation for our top SK, was
relatively easy. 20/39, 1hs, nice meaningless bonuses, she can use a shield
with it which is great cause she was a dark elf and didn't have slam, and
with an enchanter around it becomes 20/16, with bash, she can outdamage just
about anybody in hand to hand.) Their spells are more effective in combat
than paladins or rangers, and their level 49 (and up) pets actually become
useful. Not to mention that they can feign pull as well as monks...
Ray Grant
>
> This may just be a difference of higher level or may be a difference of play
> style, I don't know. However, I would much prefer more AC for myself. Also, I
> would say the most limiting factor in solo work is downtime due to HP regen.
For AC to be useful for a Mage, he is getting hit, or rather
is trying not to get hit. In my opinion, that amount of AC on
a Mage is like putting a sock on a naked man and saying "there,
you are ready to go outside"... Hell no, Im not even close,
one sock aint gunna help! Im _STILL_ basically naked! Most Mages
try not to get hit, esp at high levels, so the AC is pointless.
The pet however is there to be hit, I'd wager a Elemental has a
better AC/HP situation than any puny Mage (mine included...).
So the magic AC would add a hat to the guy already wearing a
shirt, pants, and shoes... so its useful, he is already
presentable, now even moreso.
> I will also say that, while I relish some HP regen for solo work, this is not
> making sense to me. If I were at Verant, I would be looking for a more
> group-friendly tweak for mage. I always get regen in a group -- this will be
> primarily helpful in eliminating solo downtime.
I'd still rather put AC on the pet, the pet is what needs to
be mitigating/absorbing the damage, I rarely tank for my pet,
stuff just hits me (the Mage) too hard, aint no 10pnts of AC
ever made gunna help me... If the pet is alive and well, from
AC/HPs, then the Mage is normally doing well (bar the happy
trigger-finger Mages). Especially while soloing!
Scotchd
series of curses.
Druids are extremely powerful, and are more so than most other
classes, with the exception of the Necromancer.
I also have played a Druid to high levels and a Melee class to
high levels, and the Druid is so fantastically superior I can't
even take the time to write all the advantages here. Also, the
Druid is so far head and shoulders above my Mage (Who is fairly
low, I will admit).
Druids are near the Uber Class, in my opinion. But it is just
that, my opinion.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Billy Shields
: In article <38ec3eae$0$73...@motown.iinet.net.au>,
: Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
:> Necro: very flexible, great DoTs, great pet, huge damage output.
:> One of (if not) the best soloing class as well.
: Best before 14 and after 34. 14-34, druids have it awfully good.
I'll agree with that but my gripe is 34+.
:> Magician: not as flexible as necros but have a better pet and the
:> best damage shields in the game. Tremendous damage output.
: Damage shields are barely better than those of druids. _just_ barely.
At level 49 its 25 to 24 in the magicians favour. At 44-48 its
20 to 16. At other levels it varies. At differnet times it is
as much as 25% better for mages.
:> Shamans: best speed debuffs in the game, mediocre pet, can do
:> most of the druid tricks like chloroplast and heal.
: But not evac,
Parlour trick. Never used at high level.
: group regen,
Parlour trick.
: or skin like nature.
This is a nice spell. Shamans have it fairly well covered with
Talisman if necessary though. No regen component but its nearly
as good.
: And Shaman DD well and
: truly sucks at all levels, not that nuking is usually a good idea.
I'll trade my better DD for any of a number of the shaman abilities.
:> Enchanters: do I need to say anything at all?
:>
:> Clerics: there are situations where druids are better and situations
:> where they're worse. For dragons/planes you need clerics for the
:> bigger heals and res. For non-planar stuff druids make better
:> healers (by virtue of damage shields and chloroplast).
: So you admit druids are better healers than clerics unless you are on a
: dragon run or the planes? Doesn't that make _clerics_ the broken class,
: not druids?
Clerics are broken: yes. Thing is they do have a reason to be around
at high level and thats because they can res: its their class
defining ability. It also explains why so many clerics are pissed
at paladins getting exp resses in the expansion.
The problem is that for anything requiring 12 or more people druids
are almost entirely superfluous (at high levels).
: I agree, but its often hard to get other players to understand this.
: Druids are _excellent_ healers under most circumstances. I admit, most
: druids are not accustomed to being healers when they hit L34, but that
: seems to be the role they were actually designed to fill indoors.
Druids should be used to it. Up to level 34 their top heal is the
same as clerics. I partied for all but 5 of the first 35 levels.
I guess the k3wl d00dz don't know anything other than how to kite
though.
:> Wizards: utterly useless.
: Least useful. That's different from being utterly useless. And they
: get some useful tricks few other classes do.
I stand by my statement: utterly useless.
:> Druids: lets look at a druid's abilities:
:>
:> Damage shields: superseded by magicians.
: By 1pt per hit?
Varies by level (see above).
:> Chloroplast: shared with shamans
: Whose mana is really, really stretched if the guy knows how to play.
What does that tell you? It tells you that shamans have so many
useful things to do with their mana that they don't have spare
for chloro. Gee I wish I had that problem.
:> Pack Chloroplast: nice in parties of 5-6 by really its just a parlour
:> trick.
: No it isn't. ITs a very useful spell.
Parlour trick. You do know it lasts 2/3 of the duration that
chloro does don't you? It is convenient in a large party though.
:> Skin Like Nature: like Resolution but with a small regen component.
:> This is perhaps the most useful druid high level spell.
:> DDs: useless (see wizard)
:> DoTs: Drifting Death is reasonable but really in this department
:> they're completely outshone by shamans and necros.
: One big problem with Shaman and Necros in the same group is that their
: DoTs are not mutually stackable.
I'll believe this of shamans who have two major DoT lines: poison
and disease. Theres not that much reason to use the disease line
so you only have one shaman casting DoTs (envenomed bolt at 49)
on a single monster.
But necros??? Are you kidding? At 49 they have what? 6 major
DoT lines?
: Your DoT (Which is probably the 3rd best DoT in the game) stacks with
: either. Given 2 free slots, and a choice of druid, necro or shaman, it
: actually makes sense to squeeze out either the necro or the shaman more
: often than the druid.
The top druid DoT does about 800 damage over 1 minuter. Thats barely
scratching things. Druids need a second (viable) DoT line to stack
with their current line.
:> Charming animals: parlour trick.
: People have _really_ different experiences with charm. Most thinks its
: a parlour trick, but some would swear by its utility. I use the charm
: undead line all the time, but unlike most necromancers, my Charisma is
: usually >100, let alone 75.
I'm doing the same with my necro.
:> Healing: same as shamans and outclassed by clerics for dragons and
:> planes.
: Shaman don't get Teleport, Evac, Group Regen or DoTs that don't
: overwrite necro DoTs.
Necros have other DoTs they can use. The other two abilities
are ones I'd gladly give up because they're not that useful.
:> Teleport: useful for getting about. Other than that its a parlour
:> trick.
: "Getting about" is not currently useful for people L35 and above. They
: are almost always in one of three places, and have a network of friends
: who can tell them whether it is worthwhile to make the trip between
: them. That is probably going to change quite a bit in the next several
: months.
Not really. Theres one teleport point in Kunark. One. Everyone
is going to be walking.
: And of course then their is the Evac method of "getting out".
That'll be even less useful in Kunark. Why evac when it'll take
you 50 minutes to get back? Better just to die and get ressed
(like dragon/plane raids).
:> Snare: shared with rangers
:> Harmony: likewise shared with rangers. Outdoor only.
: Who don't have any healing to speak of. And lack a killer DoT and
: group wolfform.
I think I've already covered why outdoor only spells (like share
wolf form) aren't that useful in practical terms.
:> AE/Rain DDs: useless.
: Rain spells are useless. AE spells are underrated because they require
: planning. Most player groups have trouble with planning beyond
: staggering a spawn.
They are useless. Any real group takes down one target at a time.
Using AEs is a good way of getting the caster killed.
:> Once you get to the high level stuff you're almost certain to have
:> one of each of the classes and as such a druid is completely
:> redundant.
: Just about every class makes this complaint.
I can give you a reason for most other classes in the game. In
fact I think I already did in another post on this thread.
: The standard necro whine is that (off planes) their DoTs last longer
: than the typical fight, and that their pet stinks compared to the
: elemental.
They're morons.
: Magicians whine that everything becomes useless but their elemental.
They're morons.
: Warriors (let alone hybrids) complaint hat they can not do enough
: damage to make a real difference, and that they depend on healers to
: survive.
At high level melee classes (and pets) are the best sources of
damage in the game.
: Shaman complain that their buffs are useless, their pet is weak, their
: melee abilities stink, their healing is second rate, that the druid
: gets all their best spells, and that the DoTs are not as good as a
: necromancer's.
One word: Togor.
: Like your complaint, these complaints require the whiner to downplay
: his class strengths
So what exactly ARE the druid class strengths at high level?
:> There is no single class defining ability that druids
:> possess. In short there is no reason to use druids for anything.
: Actually , your sort of in the same boat as necromancer and shaman.
: Necromancers and Shaman routinely argue over which is the most
: powerful "Dot" class, with the grass-is-greener syndrome playing a
: strong role in the argument:
Thats a simple one: shamans have the single most powerful DoT.
Necros have the largest number and most choice of DoTs. Theres
pros and cons either way (which is good).
: "You guys are better cause you get Envenomed Bolt"
: "No You, cause you can stack up lots of Dots"
: "No, its YOU guys"
: "No You"
: Druids share their "defining" ability with another class, wizards. I
: don't think anyone would argue which class is the more useful of the
: two at high levels.
If thats my defining ability I'll happily give it up. It is a
convenience and nothing more. Oh and I don't think theres any
(real) argument that druids are more powerful than wizards.
Thats obvious.
:> In groups a whole bunch of other classes are more desirable.
: If you already have five particular characters maybe, with all the
: holes a druid can fill plugged up already. But that's the same boat
: everyone but the enchanter is in. (And the wizard. The Wizard is
: adrift at sea without a lifejacket, though).
At high level you always have that. At 50th level to do anything
other than get exp you're taking 12-50 of your closest friends
with you.
: If I already have a healer and a magician, I admit I don't need a
: druid. But if I am missing either, a druid looks really, really good.
Thats more of a low level situation.
:> Solo at high levels druids are extremely poor. They can kite things
:> in very selective areas but only creatures up to about level 40.
:> Compare that to shamans, necros, enchanters and magicians who run
:> rings around druids in *every* way, shape and form. These classes
:> have more useful group abilities and can out-solo druids by a huge
:> margin.
: Necromancers have more useful "group" abilities? Care to describe them?
Pets and DoTs. The pet got nerfed but it is still an *excellent*
source of damage combined with the other necro abilities.
:> Druids can level up through the *early* levels by kiting quite
:> easily. Then again you can't tell me these levels are any easier
:> for a druid than a 16+ necro.
: Druids 14-34 are the easiest class to level by far. At 29 necromancers
: start to close in, though. And at 34, Necromancers and shaman both
: pull ahead.
Theres more to it than that. Not only are shamans and necros (and
magicians for that matter) easier to level at 34+ they are *far*
more powerful (solo or group).
:> So are you one of these ignorant fucks who sees the large number of
:> druids or the ease at which they get through the very early levels
:> and come to the moronic conclusion that they're overpowered or do
:> you have actually have some sort of clue?
:> I suspect the former based on everything you've said thus far.
: I always suspect that people who refer to those they disagree with
: as "ignorant fucks" have problems _other_ than their class keeping them
: out of groups. But class envy is a good form of denial, I suppose.
: I'll give you a clue. The several guilds I got to know well on Cazic
: all had several high level druids who were well respected and never had
: any trouble getting into groups. Of course, these were the rarer
: druids who had been grouping their entire careers and had friends.
Thats a fairly meaningless argument. They get groups because they
have friends. That means nothing. Anyone (no matter how good or
bad) can get groups if they have friends. It proves nothing. Try
examining what groups do when there are no such ties. Thats where
they start examining what classes can do not who is playing them.
Eric Harding
>bal...@my-deja.com wrote
>> > Shaman Mage
>> >
>> > Malise 19 29
>> > Malosi 49 51
>> > Malo 60 60
>> >
>> > Umm, you see no problem here?
>>
>> understand what you mean though. However, I am happy that the worthless
>> Phanton Shielding line is being looked at.
>
>The problem is that Mages have 1 line which is of little use (and that is
>*only* because Int caster AC cannot get to a level where it counts).
>
>Shamans, for example, find *40%* of their spells are worthless.
>
>Yet they get absolutely nothing.
>
Tell you what, trade you our one worthless line for your uberdot,ac, and melee
skills compared to a mage. Oh, we have a whole set of useless spells. Any
summoning spells that don't summon a pet are useless. Roughly HALF of our
50+ spells are a fucking joke, you stupid twat.
Eric
Eric Harding
>Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote
>> If you check the Q&As to Brad on the Everquest Gameplay forum (find
>> the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
>> mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
>> component!
>>
>> This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
>> getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
>> regen?
>
>
>Adding loads of summoned items to increase their range of utility beyond
>that of Druid or Shaman
USELESS summone items, by the way. No one wants them, and I don't waste the
mana on them. Except Coldstone, and the occasional waterstone.
Ever seen the stats on those arrows? THEY SUCK. Or the weapons? Oh boy,
someone is gonna want a sword with almost as bad stats as a freaking newbie
weapon.
Eric
George Ruof
>nah our damage shields are fine, we get an AC bonus to our spells
>remember, mages get fire resis on theirs but i think the AC is more
>usefull generally.
You get an ac bonus from your personal damage shield, but the one you
cast on others does not add ac.
--
George Ruof
gr...@pacificnet.net
Mason Barge
>For AC to be useful for a Mage, he is getting hit, or rather
>is trying not to get hit.
You've got this rather backwards. The purpose of AC on a mage is to keep him
alive long enough to escape when he IS getting hit.
>Most Mages
>try not to get hit, esp at high levels, so the AC is pointless.
Doh! Most mages try not to die, so the xp penalty is not harmful to them?
This is nuts. A solo mage needs all the AC he can so that, when he gets hit
(for one of about 50 reasons) he can stay alive long enough to escape!
>. If the pet is alive and well, from
>AC/HPs, then the Mage is normally doing well (bar the happy
>trigger-finger Mages)
1) Second (third, fourth, whatever) mob aggros
2) Pet dies
3) Some druid pulls a Seafury right over you while you're medding
4) You get hit by a big green mob while petless
4a) You get hit by a green mob just after you've gated, petless, low on mana
and with less than a bubb of HP
5) A fire giant summons you
6) Mob comes after you -- let me tell you, after the 20's when killing blue
mobs gets tough, you will HAVE to DD to live and you WILL get aggro'd by very
hard-hitting mobs.
7) You get dotted by a lava duct crawler or a lava beetle or a death beetle
(lots of variations on this one, the worst being when you have zoned after
getting dotted and are screaming for a regen or heal while frantically trying
to stave off death with bandages).
Do what you want. Make all the "sock on a naked man" analogies you want. If
you don't maximize your AC, your number of deaths will increase.
When I solo, I use a shimmering orb instead of a Stein of Mogguk.
Mason Barge
driven by greed and blinded by ego.
Now, a druid complaining about his class being weak. It's a joke.
John Henders
>No one would argue that the Druid loses some power relative to the other classes
>up top. The fact remains that, by far, there are more Druids than any other
>class. There is a _reason_ for this. Maybe lots of reasons.
Mostly they are easy to play at low levels. With 200,000+ subscribers,
you are going to have a significant proportion who like easy and never
make it to high levels anyway.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Steven H
wrote:
>bl...@hotmail.com (Steven H) wrote:
>
>>nah our damage shields are fine, we get an AC bonus to our spells
>>remember, mages get fire resis on theirs but i think the AC is more
>>usefull generally.
>
>You get an ac bonus from your personal damage shield, but the one you
>cast on others does not add ac.
Shit, your right.... now i gotta go correct all the other posts were i
said we get AC on our shields, ah well, that makes mages damage shield
MUCH MUCH better :P
Jeremy Music
>In <0EF92B8C819DCB28.4A6FD2B9...@lp.airnews.net> "Olaf" <ol...@houston.rr.com> writes:
>
>>No one would argue that the Druid loses some power relative to the other classes
>>up top. The fact remains that, by far, there are more Druids than any other
>>class. There is a _reason_ for this. Maybe lots of reasons.
>
>Mostly they are easy to play at low levels. With 200,000+ subscribers,
>you are going to have a significant proportion who like easy and never
>make it to high levels anyway.
>
Excellent argument that entirely ignores the fact that at 45+ there are, by
far, more Druids than any other class.
There is a _reason_ for this. Maybe lots of reasons.
J
(Sorry for plagiarizing, Olaf.)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wyld Knight - wyld.qx.net 3333
http://wyld.qx.net/~rezo
re...@lords.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Matthew Mc Clement
>
> John Henders <jhen...@example.com> wrote:
> >In <0EF92B8C819DCB28.4A6FD2B9...@lp.airnews.net> "Olaf" <ol...@houston.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >>No one would argue that the Druid loses some power relative to the other classes
> >>up top. The fact remains that, by far, there are more Druids than any other
> >>class. There is a _reason_ for this. Maybe lots of reasons.
> >
> >Mostly they are easy to play at low levels. With 200,000+ subscribers,
> >you are going to have a significant proportion who like easy and never
> >make it to high levels anyway.
> >
>
> Excellent argument that entirely ignores the fact that at 45+ there are, by
> far, more Druids than any other class.
>
> There is a _reason_ for this. Maybe lots of reasons.
>
> J
> (Sorry for plagiarizing, Olaf.)
Yeah, the reason was before the DoT changes druids where nothing short of
excellent kiters. Our DoT is near unresistable, making it perfect for kiting a
red mob. Thats why there are so many high level druids. However, if you look at
some of the newer servers, you'll see a pretty low number of high level druids
about. In fact there appear to be more mages about on the newer servers.
Matt
hughes
wizard and cleric.(the other 2 broken mage classes). Any of the casters are
very strong if compared to the warrior types. All of those that think that
druids are a uberclass will get a very nasty shock if they play one up. My
druid is very fun to play , but is far far weaker than my enchanter.
skein dubh 50th druid innoruk
geilt 40th enchanter innoruk
guess away
Hint, it isn't DD that matters at that point.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 18:04:17 -0400, "hughes" <hugh...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Ray Grant
read my comments with that in mind:
Here, is, where, I, am, comming, from:
1. AC buffs are better spent on a Magician Pet, not the Mage.
2. The Regen effect _IS_ useful, but I think it in not in
the pervue of the Magician Class.
3. Read them again...
Mason Barge wrote:
>
> >
> >For AC to be useful for a Mage, he is getting hit, or rather
> >is trying not to get hit.
>
> You've got this rather backwards. The purpose of AC on a mage is to keep him
> alive long enough to escape when he IS getting hit.
Nope, what I am saying is, that for the Mages AC to come into play
the Mage is getting hit, or possibly I should have said "the target
of attack". That is not the position a Mage should willing be in.
If the Mage is not the target of attack, AC is irrelevant, not that
a Mages AC is ever going to be enough anyway, spell, or no spell.
> >Most Mages
> >try not to get hit, esp at high levels, so the AC is pointless.
>
> Doh! Most mages try not to die, so the xp penalty is not harmful to them?
XP penalty? Where did this come from? We are talking about AC
on a caster, and how the Phantom line might be better used.
> This is nuts. A solo mage needs all the AC he can so that, when he gets hit
> (for one of about 50 reasons) he can stay alive long enough to escape!
If you are in that position, you stand a good chance of being dead
already. Its not the fact that you are 280 points of AC to low
be effective, rather than 300 points to low to be effective that
is going to save you... Good tactics, preparation, and good group
members are actually a much better bet. Putting stock in a
minuscule amount (of what is necessary) points of AC for a Mage
so he can melee, or survive melee is _bad tactics_.
Where is your pet? Where are the Tanks? A Solo Mage needs to stay
out of the fight, that little bit of AC isnt going to do shit. A
Mage hasnt got enough AC for it to matter. The _PET_ needs to
stay alive...
> >. If the pet is alive and well, from
> >AC/HPs, then the Mage is normally doing well (bar the happy
> >trigger-finger Mages)
>
> 1) Second (third, fourth, whatever) mob aggros
How many AC points do you think you might need to keep you
alive so that this is actually a good point? I have a colossal
hint for you - you are dead anyway. Zone, or make a mad
run (SoWed) out of there.
> 2) Pet dies
> 3) Some druid pulls a Seafury right over you while you're medding
Do you really think your AC with this spell is going
to make a difference? It hits you, pet attacks it,
next step? Get the hell out of melee range... gate,
run, or whatever. You AC isnt the problem, nor the
solution here.
> 4) You get hit by a big green mob while petless
>
> 4a) You get hit by a green mob just after you've gated, petless, low on mana
> and with less than a bubb of HP
...or a giant taco falls out of the air, or you bang into
a low level doorknob, CMON man... sometimes the bear _DOES_
get you...
> 5) A fire giant summons you
Let me ask you then, how much difference in damage is it
going to be from your non-phantomed AC to when you do wear
it? Enough to matter? Anything at all? Give me a dang
break dude, YOU ARE a CASTER, back the hell away, and quit
getting hit... or get massive Magic resistance, now _THAT_
would be really useful... 10 AC, and 10 MP, now we're at
least talkin'.
> 6) Mob comes after you -- let me tell you, after the 20's when killing blue
> mobs gets tough, you will HAVE to DD to live and you WILL get aggro'd by very
> hard-hitting mobs.
Dont, burn too much, be careful, or group.
> 7) You get dotted by a lava duct crawler or a lava beetle or a death beetle
> (lots of variations on this one, the worst being when you have zoned after
> getting dotted and are screaming for a regen or heal while frantically trying
> to stave off death with bandages).
>
> Do what you want. Make all the "sock on a naked man" analogies you want. If
> you don't maximize your AC, your number of deaths will increase.
I didnt say the regen wasnt useful now did I? What I said about
regen was that it wasnt a Magicians skill IMO, it is a Priest
class skill/spell. I, as a Magician would prefer to be able to
buff my Pet with AC that is useful to it, Im not going to buff
my already puny AC, to _slightly less puny_ for the cost of
this spell relative to the gain.
Maximize AC you say? Well yes, of course, but Id rather keep the
meleeing to the pet. As an example a 25th level Warrior _just in
bronze_ will have better than 500 AC, as a 25th level Magician youll
have a SHITload less, under 300, depending on what you have access
to. 10 points from Phantom leather is pointless. But if you were
already "up there" 10 points might help, say 495 to 505... Whats
more, IM BEING CONSERVATIVE! Thats probably the "pretty picture"...
As for deaths mounting, it is you, with what seems to be a fixation
on the fact that you actually think you can survive in melee, even
with this laughable AC boost that will mount a death toll. Especially
at high level, melee for casters is nuts.
Spiffy
Billy Shields wrote in message <38ec3eae$0$73...@motown.iinet.net.au>...
>Spiffy <sp...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>: Billy Shields wrote in message <38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au>...
>:>the link at eq.castersrealm.com) you find that they're changing the
>:>mage armour spell line (leather, chain, etc) to give them a regen
>:>component!
>:>
>:>This is getting ridiculous. First the mage pet upgrade, then mages
>:>getting the (full) shaman malise line and now they're being given
>:>regen?
>:>Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
>:>they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
>:>(druids and in particular wizards).
>
>: Druids?????
>
>: Please enlighten us with what is exactly wrong with druids right now. I
>: would love to hear it.
>
>I'll start by saying that I have some 50-60 days played of this game
>since soon after retail. Most of that time has been as a druid (my
>main character) who is currently level 49. I've played this class
>every which way but loose. I've seen what others can do. I know
>what I can do.
>
>What can you claim to know about this game? Do you know anything or
>are you merely another one of these parrots who spout "theres lots
>of druids and they level quickly at low levels; they're overpowered!"?
>
>What characters have you played to what level?
>
Human Warrior to level 50. (Hit the rocky road in mid 30's, and almost gave
up, stuck with it tho.)
Human Mage to level 45. (current favorite char... =))
DE Necro to 50 ( Necros rule! Nuff said!)
Troll Shaman to 48 (Is hated by 99.99% of Norrath, but he doesn't care. )
>: Other than the fact that some druids seem to be major asswipes, who have
>: little regard to other players, and KS up a storm whenever they feel
like, I
>
>Did a druid pick on you as a child?
No, but of the many KS'rs I've encountered during my trials (over 50%) they
were all druids. All fucking jerks. Probably eBay harvesters.
>
>Don't be so moronic as to condemn the class instead of the jerks who
>might choose to play it.
>
Re-read my post genius, I wasn't condemning the whole class, just those few
who feel the need to play that class like a jerk.
>: can find nothing of great substance wrong with the class. What? Do you
not
>: like the fact that you can't kite Cazic-Thule solo or something? Or
perhaps
>
>Idiot.
>
Guess my sarcasm was too subtle for you, eh? Oh well....
>: you don't think taking a faction hit while in wolf form is fair? Are you
>
>You do take faction hits in wolf form. Wolf form is like any other
>illusion (like enchanters have): it changes your *base* faction
>but you still take faction hits. Wolf form is handy in that it makes
>you (base) indifferent to many factions. So what? Enchanters can do
>that in spades.
"You don't think taking a faction hit while in wolf form is fair?"
MEANS: Yes, I know you take a faction hit, but you probably don't think that
is fair.
Try reading before typing. (Something I've been guilty of more often than
not. =))
>
>: angry because you can't kill your own kind and get away with it? I mean,
>: hell, druids kill just about anything that currently walks, crawls,
slithers
>: or stomps in this game all int he name of pHaT L00T.
>
>Um, how is this different to any other class in the game? It seems
>frothing at the mouth is about the limitation of your abilities.
>Let me know as soon as you can construct any sort of argument.
I can, and have.
Scumbag Druids will kill anything. Dwarves, humans, halflings, ect.... They
just don't care. A lot do care tho. But a lot don't. One of my good friends
is a druid, and he's never once bitched about his class, actually, that's
not true. The one complaint he had, was about the lack of good armor for
druids. I agree with him there. There should be a class armor for druids. I
know about the BCP, and the Efreeti armor is nice, but hard to obtain.
Something else should be there in between.
Many people won't kill certain creatures, simply because the faction hit is
so severe, and will / can cause them problems down the road. I know of
several folks who wished they never killed a treant. Corrupt guards don't
count, no one really cares, except those who like to mooch off the corpses,
and don't work for their stuff. Go into Grobb some night when a group is in
there killing city guards, there will be like 4 or 5 newbie trolls all
standing around trying to out-left-click on the corpses for the loot. When I
loot, I destroy anything I don't want off guards, makes the newbies
squirm.... hehehe.
>: Please. Educate us.
>
>Looking at the caster/healer classes:
>
>Necro: very flexible, great DoTs, great pet, huge damage output.
>One of (if not) the best soloing class as well.
>
You'll get no argument here.
>Magician: not as flexible as necros but have a better pet and the
>best damage shields in the game. Tremendous damage output.
>
I loved watching some warrior melee a Griffawn at 16, and run for the guards
after about 10 seconds. Whereas I would send in the pet, and in about that
same span of time, kill one dead.
>Shamans: best speed debuffs in the game, mediocre pet, can do
>most of the druid tricks like chloroplast and heal.
Can't melee for crap tho. But it's not really important later on. And I
wouldn't call the pet mediocre, it's good, not great.
>
>Enchanters: do I need to say anything at all?
If you did, then I would be wondering what the hell you've been smoking. j/k
>
>Clerics: there are situations where druids are better and situations
>where they're worse. For dragons/planes you need clerics for the
>bigger heals and res. For non-planar stuff druids make better
>healers (by virtue of damage shields and chloroplast).
>
Never played one, but as a warrior, they were my gods. =)
>Wizards: utterly useless.
>
*Yawn* Are they still bitching? Not totally useless, try going to Hate
without one. (Oh wait, Hate is hosed, no one goes there. Nevermind)
>Druids: lets look at a druid's abilities:
>
>Damage shields: superseded by magicians.
You aren't a pure caster.
>Chloroplast: shared with shamans
>Pack Chloroplast: nice in parties of 5-6 by really its just a parlour
>trick.
Still nice. But you aren't a shaman.
>Skin Like Nature: like Resolution but with a small regen component.
>This is perhaps the most useful druid high level spell.
I would call it so. Glad they fixed it, was stupid to mess with it in the
first place.
>DDs: useless (see wizard)
Uh, you aren't a pure caster.
>DoTs: Drifting Death is reasonable but really in this department
>they're completely outshone by shamans and necros.
Only by the teey tinyist of margins for a shaman, and well, a necro is a
necro. That's just sounds like class envy talking.
>Charming animals: parlour trick.
Uh huh, I've seen many creative uses for the "parlour trick" as you call it,
all on some pretty nasty mobs.
>Healing: same as shamans and outclassed by clerics for dragons and
>planes.
You aren't a cleric, you're a druid.
>Teleport: useful for getting about. Other than that its a parlour
>trick.
I would kill for the ability to TP like a druid or wiz while playing my
mage. (We are the Gatecallers are we not? Pipe dream I know, I know.)
>Snare: shared with rangers
>Harmony: likewise shared with rangers. Outdoor only.
Druids: Snare level 1. Harmony level 5.
Rangers: Snare level 9. Harmony 22.
I'd say the druid has the edge here at lower levels. Keep in mind tho, that
you will probably have much more wisdom than a ranger, therefore more mana
than a ranger will, so you still win out at higher levels.
>AE/Rain DDs: useless.
AE/rain spells. Useless for any caster / hybrid class. Totally useless. Ends
up getting you killed more often than not. Only good for cleaning up low
green mobs quickly.
>
>Once you get to the high level stuff you're almost certain to have
>one of each of the classes and as such a druid is completely
>redundant. There is no single class defining ability that druids
>possess. In short there is no reason to use druids for anything.
Don't sell yourself so short.
>
>In groups a whole bunch of other classes are more desirable.
>
>Solo at high levels druids are extremely poor. They can kite things
>in very selective areas but only creatures up to about level 40.
>
It's a grouping game, not a soloing game. Live with it, since Verant has
seen fit to force it on us, like it or not.
>Compare that to shamans, necros, enchanters and magicians who run rings
>around druids in *every* way, shape and form. These classes have more
>useful group abilities and can out-solo druids by a huge margin.
That's because you aren't a shaman, necro, enchanter or mage. You're a
druid, as such, you have certain limitations like every class does. A mage,
shaman or necro without his pet is a very dead >insert class here<.
Enchanters don't really count, as their pets suck pretty bad now, even at
higher levels. Only good for reverse kiting mostly.
I will use the cliche' "If you don't like your class, play a different one."
Preferably one that you envy. =)
>
>Druids can level up through the *early* levels by kiting quite
>easily. Then again you can't tell me these levels are any easier
>for a druid than a 16+ necro.
>
Hmmm, about the same I would say.
>So are you one of these ignorant fucks who sees the large number of
>druids
Hardly ignorant. And yes, there are a shitload of druids out there. So what?
There's a shitload of Necros too.
or the ease at which they get through the very early levels
My mage went from level 8 to 16 in less than 2 RL days. And he wasn't
twinked or powerleveled. 17 to 20 was a breeze too.
My warrior hit 20 in less than a week.
Necro, about the same as my mage, maybe a bit quicker, it's been a while.
Shaman, very tough to level. Not an easy class at all, but fun as hell.
(Hell levels were truly hell)
>and come to the moronic conclusion that they're overpowered or do
>you have actually have some sort of clue?
No, I never said druids were overpowered. As a matter of fact, I think
they're just dandy the way they are right now.
Your post came across as another class whine, I was completely boggled that
you consider druids "underpowered".
>
>I suspect the former based on everything you've said thus far.
>
>
>
You would be wrong.
Spiff out!
hughes
> Hint, it isn't DD that matters at that point.
Bullshit right back at you ! My 40 enchanter can solo 2 seafuries at the
same time . My druid couldnt solo 1 till 49. That is a direct and obnoxious
example, if you wish to argue argue with evidence.
P.s. I play an enchanter also , I certainly do not rely on DD:) If you count
the rune line enchanters have we psuedo heal better than druids too . Since
I made twinky for the hell of it, the sheer power he commands astounded me,
even after numerous and vile nerfs. I also consider necros, magicians, and
shaman as more powerfull than my enchanter in most situations . (the one
exception is crowd control)
guess away
wrote:
Charm isn't soloing, you git. The moment you drag a pet into it, it
becomes caster and pet, not caster solo. An enchanter trying to really
solo a single seafury at 40 is asking to die. If you want to play that
game, the druid can 'solo' all the HGs in NK with the help of pet
'Grimfeather', they can also 'solo' all the guards to boot. Try
getting an enchanter to do that ever. Pffft.
Druids at 50 are still a very powerful force to be reckoned with. They
are just as powerful as shamans in their own right.
Sang K. Choe
>Bullshit. At 50 druids are a very versatile and powerful class still.
>Hint, it isn't DD that matters at that point.
Right, but what does matter at this point?
Debuffs for the most part, and druids get what debuffs?
-- Sang.
George Ruof
>Charm isn't soloing, you git. The moment you drag a pet into it, it
>becomes caster and pet, not caster solo. An enchanter trying to really
>solo a single seafury at 40 is asking to die. If you want to play that
>game, the druid can 'solo' all the HGs in NK with the help of pet
>'Grimfeather', they can also 'solo' all the guards to boot. Try
>getting an enchanter to do that ever. Pffft.
Huh? Soloing is me using whatever means my class has to hunt without a
party. A caster with a pet is just as solo as any other class outside a
group.
--
George Ruof
gr...@pacificnet.net
Ecwfrk
ran...@opera.iinet.net.au says...
> Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> : On 06 Apr 2000 02:06:00 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
> : scribed into the ether:
>
> :>mida...@my-deja.com wrote:
> :>: In article <38eb35c2$0$4...@motown.iinet.net.au>,
> :>: Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> :>: ?
> :>:>
> :>:> Arguably mages are one of the best classes out there already. Yet
> :>:> they'll do nothing about classes that are much worse than magicians
> :>:> (druids and in particular wizards).
> :>
> :>
> :>Let me know when you've got something useful or constructive to
> :>say.
> :>
> :>I won't hold my breath.
>
> : It must be a joke. Druids are the most well rounded class in the entire
> : game.
>
> : But, on a lark, what would YOU like to see them able to do that they cannot
> : now do, billy?
>
> Up to level 34 they're fine. Its beyond that thats the problem.
> Here are some suggestions:
>
> 1. An indoor Harmony
>
> 2. Give them inferior versions of some of the abilities enchanters
> currently monopolise (ie crowd control) or even the enchanter speed
> debuff line (which is inferior to the shaman line; thats OK).
>
> 3. A new (reasonable) DoT line.
>
> 4. Fire/cold debuffs. Ice (49 DD) already has a 3 tick 50 fire
> resist debuff.
>
> 5. Druids really should have better damage shields than mages.
> Mages already have the best pets. What more do they need?
>
> If you want to balance it all out I have no problem nerfing
> snare. Take it away from rangers and give it to druids at
> 29. That'll kill most of the early levelling which some
> argue is too easy.
>
> Or make the level 1 snare have the same chance of breaking that
> root does and make ensnare (level 29 currently useless druid spell)
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was supposed to be a joke right?
George Ruof
>On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 02:24:51 -0700, George Ruof <gr...@pacificnet.net>
>wrote:
>
>Incorrect. Soloing is you vs mob. No pets. No buffs you can't cast.
>Etc. Once you have or charm a pet, you become a group.
You're an idiot. Necros solo well because they have the pet. Shamans
solo well because they have the pet. The pet is part of the class.
--
George Ruof
gr...@pacificnet.net
Ray Grant
>
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 02:24:51 -0700, George Ruof <gr...@pacificnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >n...@here.org (guess away) wrote:
> >
> >>Charm isn't soloing, you git. The moment you drag a pet into it, it
> >>becomes caster and pet, not caster solo. An enchanter trying to really
> >>solo a single seafury at 40 is asking to die. If you want to play that
> >>game, the druid can 'solo' all the HGs in NK with the help of pet
> >>'Grimfeather', they can also 'solo' all the guards to boot. Try
> >>getting an enchanter to do that ever. Pffft.
> >
> >Huh? Soloing is me using whatever means my class has to hunt without a
> >party. A caster with a pet is just as solo as any other class outside a
> >group.
>
> Incorrect. Soloing is you vs mob. No pets. No buffs you can't cast.
> Etc. Once you have or charm a pet, you become a group.
This is so wrong... Soloing has always been, anything a
character/player combination can do, without _help_ from
another character/player combination, including accidental
intervention, and buffing, etc.
<potentially gray area>
Player made potions, armor, weapons, jewelry are all
fair game in my opinion, because the idea is to _buy_
them. I wouldnt tell someone they didnt really Solo a
Crypt Mummy because a player sold them a peice of
Banded a coupla days ago... I _would_ say heavy twinking
might be a valid exception to be honest, it would
certainly taint the victory... Verant seems to have
an odd view of twinking anyway. Someone else may see
this differently though. I'll leave it to others to
haggle this out...
</potentially gray area>
Without the help of others, a Magician (for example) can
cast an intregal spell to his class - an elemental... or
a Druid can cast a charm to force an animal to his will.
That _IS_ a Solo activity by virtue of the player/character
using his own inherent abilities to defeat a foe.
Now, if you were to say someone didnt Solo because another
player/character cast SoW on him during, or immediately
before the fight, then you would be correct...
guess away
What matters most is lowering downtime and keeping fights short.
Druids do both quite well.
guess away
Billy Shields
: Billy Shields wrote in message <38ec3eae$0$73...@motown.iinet.net.au>...
Utterly irrelevant to a discussion about the relative power of the
class.
:>
:>Don't be so moronic as to condemn the class instead of the jerks who
:>might choose to play it.
:>
: Re-read my post genius, I wasn't condemning the whole class, just those few
: who feel the need to play that class like a jerk.
Irrelevant.
:>: can find nothing of great substance wrong with the class. What? Do you
: not
:>: like the fact that you can't kite Cazic-Thule solo or something? Or
: perhaps
:>
:>Idiot.
:>
: Guess my sarcasm was too subtle for you, eh? Oh well....
It wasn't missed. It was just another irrelevant comment.
:>: you don't think taking a faction hit while in wolf form is fair? Are you
:>
:>You do take faction hits in wolf form. Wolf form is like any other
:>illusion (like enchanters have): it changes your *base* faction
:>but you still take faction hits. Wolf form is handy in that it makes
:>you (base) indifferent to many factions. So what? Enchanters can do
:>that in spades.
: "You don't think taking a faction hit while in wolf form is fair?"
: MEANS: Yes, I know you take a faction hit, but you probably don't think that
: is fair.
: Try reading before typing. (Something I've been guilty of more often than
: not. =))
So where do I implicitly or explicitly state that I was against
taking faction hits in wolf form?
:>
:>: angry because you can't kill your own kind and get away with it? I mean,
:>: hell, druids kill just about anything that currently walks, crawls,
: slithers
:>: or stomps in this game all int he name of pHaT L00T.
:>
:>Um, how is this different to any other class in the game? It seems
:>frothing at the mouth is about the limitation of your abilities.
:>Let me know as soon as you can construct any sort of argument.
: I can, and have.
: Scumbag Druids will kill anything. Dwarves, humans, halflings, ect.... They
: just don't care. A lot do care tho. But a lot don't. One of my good friends
So what? If something gives exp its a valid target. The game was
*designed* that way. Roleplaying doesn't mean playing your class
to fit all the stereotypes you can think of. And for those that
don't roleplay who cares?
: is a druid, and he's never once bitched about his class, actually, that's
: not true. The one complaint he had, was about the lack of good armor for
: druids. I agree with him there. There should be a class armor for druids. I
: know about the BCP, and the Efreeti armor is nice, but hard to obtain.
: Something else should be there in between.
Yes it should. I still don't understand why armour pieces were
added for the pure casters when the Temple of Solusek Ro was added
but monks and druids missed out even though the armour for the
other classes was meant to replace the rubicite they lost.
:>Shamans: best speed debuffs in the game, mediocre pet, can do
:>most of the druid tricks like chloroplast and heal.
: Can't melee for crap tho. But it's not really important later on. And I
: wouldn't call the pet mediocre, it's good, not great.
Um, shamans CAN melee decently. Certainly the best of the non-tanks
via a combination of Rage, Togor and Alacrity.
:>Wizards: utterly useless.
:>
: *Yawn* Are they still bitching? Not totally useless, try going to Hate
: without one. (Oh wait, Hate is hosed, no one goes there. Nevermind)
They are still bitching. With good reason. Yet all Verant can do is
add hacks to try and make the class desirable (like limiting Sky and
Hate to only be accessible by wizards). All this means is that the
big guilds pull their wizards out of storage (most of their wizards
now have level 50s in other classes) to taxi everyone in.
:>Druids: lets look at a druid's abilities:
:>
:>Damage shields: superseded by magicians.
: You aren't a pure caster.
So?
:>Chloroplast: shared with shamans
:>Pack Chloroplast: nice in parties of 5-6 by really its just a parlour
:>trick.
: Still nice. But you aren't a shaman.
So?
:>Skin Like Nature: like Resolution but with a small regen component.
:>This is perhaps the most useful druid high level spell.
: I would call it so. Glad they fixed it, was stupid to mess with it in the
: first place.
They messed with it because their entire spell stacking code is
flawed. I'd call this the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
:>DDs: useless (see wizard)
: Uh, you aren't a pure caster.
So? The point is that DDs are mostly useless not that wizards have
better DDs.
:>DoTs: Drifting Death is reasonable but really in this department
:>they're completely outshone by shamans and necros.
: Only by the teey tinyist of margins for a shaman, and well, a necro is a
: necro. That's just sounds like class envy talking.
Envenomed Bolt beats Drifting Death by quite a wide margin. Quicker
duration, 50% more damage.
:>Charming animals: parlour trick.
: Uh huh, I've seen many creative uses for the "parlour trick" as you call it,
: all on some pretty nasty mobs.
I used to think this way but its too unreliable. Occasionally you'll
have a sonic bat come out of charm twice in a single combat and
you could very well die.
:>Healing: same as shamans and outclassed by clerics for dragons and
:>planes.
: You aren't a cleric, you're a druid.
And the point is this: what IS a druid good at?
:>Teleport: useful for getting about. Other than that its a parlour
:>trick.
: I would kill for the ability to TP like a druid or wiz while playing my
: mage. (We are the Gatecallers are we not? Pipe dream I know, I know.)
I would say that you fall into the same category as a lot of people:
they want the ability to TP without giving anything up or by giving
up something they really don't care about. I think if it came down
to getting TP and losing something they valued they'd probably choose
to keep what they've got (assuming its of reasonable value).
:>Snare: shared with rangers
:>Harmony: likewise shared with rangers. Outdoor only.
: Druids: Snare level 1. Harmony level 5.
: Rangers: Snare level 9. Harmony 22.
: I'd say the druid has the edge here at lower levels. Keep in mind tho, that
: you will probably have much more wisdom than a ranger, therefore more mana
: than a ranger will, so you still win out at higher levels.
But I'm talking about higher levels (34+).
:>
:>Once you get to the high level stuff you're almost certain to have
:>one of each of the classes and as such a druid is completely
:>redundant. There is no single class defining ability that druids
:>possess. In short there is no reason to use druids for anything.
: Don't sell yourself so short.
I should rephrase that slightly: the number of druids that are useful
is vastly outstripped by supply.
:>
:>In groups a whole bunch of other classes are more desirable.
:>
:>Solo at high levels druids are extremely poor. They can kite things
:>in very selective areas but only creatures up to about level 40.
:>
: It's a grouping game, not a soloing game. Live with it, since Verant has
: seen fit to force it on us, like it or not.
You're missing the point: there are a bunch of classes that both
out-solo AND out-group druids. Grouping game or not that IS a
problem.
:>Compare that to shamans, necros, enchanters and magicians who run rings
:>around druids in *every* way, shape and form. These classes have more
:>useful group abilities and can out-solo druids by a huge margin.
: That's because you aren't a shaman, necro, enchanter or mage. You're a
: druid, as such, you have certain limitations like every class does. A mage,
: shaman or necro without his pet is a very dead >insert class here<.
Ok, I've got limitations. So what exactly are my bonuses?
You're saying that a pet class without their pet is dead. So what?
I'd take that over having no pet at all.
Oh and necros without their pets don't suck at all.
: Enchanters don't really count, as their pets suck pretty bad now, even at
: higher levels. Only good for reverse kiting mostly.
Yep.
: I will use the cliche' "If you don't like your class, play a different one."
: Preferably one that you envy. =)
Thats exactly what I'm doing.
:>
:>Druids can level up through the *early* levels by kiting quite
:>easily. Then again you can't tell me these levels are any easier
:>for a druid than a 16+ necro.
:>
: Hmmm, about the same I would say.
Maybe in the teens/early 20s. By the 30s its not even close.
Alasdair Allan
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 05:12:42 -0400, "hughes" <hugh...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> >P.s. I play an enchanter also , I certainly do not rely on DD:) If you
count
> >the rune line enchanters have we psuedo heal better than druids too .
Since
> >I made twinky for the hell of it, the sheer power he commands astounded
me,
> >even after numerous and vile nerfs. I also consider necros, magicians,
and
> >shaman as more powerfull than my enchanter in most situations . (the one
> >exception is crowd control)
>
> becomes caster and pet, not caster solo. An enchanter trying to really
> solo a single seafury at 40 is asking to die. If you want to play that
> game, the druid can 'solo' all the HGs in NK with the help of pet
> 'Grimfeather', they can also 'solo' all the guards to boot. Try
> getting an enchanter to do that ever. Pffft.
There are things a Druid can Charm but an Enchanter cannot now?
--
Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |England - Country where Marx developed
x-st...@null.net | the basis of Communism
X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scotland - Country where Smith developed
http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ | the basis of Capitalism
Sergey Dashevskiy
static.demon.co.uk says...
> guess away <n...@here.org> wrote
> > On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 05:12:42 -0400, "hughes" <hugh...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> > >P.s. I play an enchanter also , I certainly do not rely on DD:) If you
> count
> > >the rune line enchanters have we psuedo heal better than druids too .
> Since
> > >I made twinky for the hell of it, the sheer power he commands astounded
> me,
> > >even after numerous and vile nerfs. I also consider necros, magicians,
> and
> > >shaman as more powerfull than my enchanter in most situations . (the one
> > >exception is crowd control)
> >
> > Charm isn't soloing, you git. The moment you drag a pet into it, it
> > becomes caster and pet, not caster solo. An enchanter trying to really
> > solo a single seafury at 40 is asking to die. If you want to play that
> > game, the druid can 'solo' all the HGs in NK with the help of pet
> > 'Grimfeather', they can also 'solo' all the guards to boot. Try
> > getting an enchanter to do that ever. Pffft.
>
> There are things a Druid can Charm but an Enchanter cannot now?
Druids get advantage of having SoW, which helps a lot while charming.
However, Grimfeather can outrun druids in any shape and form, and
enchanters pretty much get SoW at level 29.
>
>
--
Vedun, 24th medicine man
Xirin, 31st retired druid
Xirinia Gusl'ar, 41st tanking bard of Povar, guildless
Run fast, die often, leave a well dressed corpse.
Steven H
<xi...@tcimet.net> wrote:
>Druids get advantage of having SoW, which helps a lot while charming.
>However, Grimfeather can outrun druids in any shape and form, and
>enchanters pretty much get SoW at level 29.
LoL, and Skin like steel for him and his pet, and maybe even a strengh
buff, and levitate.....
hughes
> >However, Grimfeather can outrun druids in any shape and form, and
> >enchanters pretty much get SoW at level 29.
>
> LoL, and Skin like steel for him and his pet, and maybe even a strengh
> buff, and levitate.....
Grimfeather is probably just too damn dangerous to ever charm for anything
but a duel. He runs about cheeta speed, hits hard and incredibly fast.
Griffons are probably also giant size creatures so cant be stunned mezzzed.
This means that as an enchanter I would have to root park him to get a charm
off.(the same way I do seafuries) I have had jboots since 35th so dont need
sow :) spirit of the scale might be nice though. Killing pairs of seafuries
is relatively easy but spectres are even easier so I generally solo them
instead , and plan on doing so till 46 when they start to go green. It is
easy enough that I dont bother peddling clarity for any buffs so end up with
just the random ones from people who come to me. Incidently I soloed a
single seafury at 37th with my enchanter and did it again at 40th. Soloing
one is indeed far harder than soloing 2 at once but is by no means
impossible. Both of the ones I soloed without charm I had a pet for. One I
kept feared and dotted on ac island, The other chased me over the whole zone
with pet beating on its back. Incidently enchanters have levitate but we
never use it. Air elemental form lasts 20 times as long, does not require a
batwing, gives levitate , and looks better. Another 5 levels or so and my
twinky will actually have caught up enough to my guild members to be
usefull:)
guess away
<posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>guess away <n...@here.org> wrote
>> Charm isn't soloing, you git. The moment you drag a pet into it, it
>> becomes caster and pet, not caster solo. An enchanter trying to really
>> solo a single seafury at 40 is asking to die. If you want to play that
>> game, the druid can 'solo' all the HGs in NK with the help of pet
>> 'Grimfeather', they can also 'solo' all the guards to boot. Try
>> getting an enchanter to do that ever. Pffft.
>
>There are things a Druid can Charm but an Enchanter cannot now?
Nah, there's just certain things a druid can do in a given amount of
time that an enchanter can't. The opposite is equally true.
guess away
wrote:
>n...@here.org (guess away) wrote:
>You're an idiot. Necros solo well because they have the pet. Shamans
>solo well because they have the pet. The pet is part of the class.
You are incorrect. Necros don't need other PCs in their group, but
necro and pet *are* a group, and not solo. The truly sick thing in
this case, though, is how well the necro can solo in earnest.
Mason Barge
>becomes caster and pet, not caster solo.
Yes it is. As long as the person is working without assistance from another
PC, he is soloing.
guess away
wrote:
>>Charm isn't soloing, you git. The moment you drag a pet into it, it
>>becomes caster and pet, not caster solo.
>
>Yes it is. As long as the person is working without assistance from another
>PC, he is soloing.
Nope. Once you have a pet, you are a group. It may be a group without
a second PC, but still a group nonetheless.
Morgan
I think this may be your own private definition. I believe most
people would consider fighting solo with a pet to be solo play.
Certainly the game does not consider pets to be group members.
They are not affected by bard song, they don't show up on the
group roster, and they have a separate mechanism for assigning
experience from the normal group split.
--
Morgan
(crossposting all posts to rec.games.computer.everquest)
Mason Barge
>Nope. Once you have a pet, you are a group. It may be a group without
>a second PC, but still a group nonetheless.
You are living in a society of one. Throughout EQ, the word "soloing" is
defined to mean anything a player can do without assistance from another
player, and definitely includes a pet caster with a pet. See all the posts
complaining about how well various classes can solo. Necro's and mages, two of
the top solo classes, sure don't do it without pets!
You can certainly decide to change the definition, dorkhead, but you won't be
able to communicate effectively with other people. By the way, "dorkhead"
means a really nice person and intelligent person who has his own private
meaning for words. All other definitions are incorrect.
guess away
wrote:
>>Nope. Once you have a pet, you are a group. It may be a group without
>>a second PC, but still a group nonetheless.
>
>You are living in a society of one. Throughout EQ, the word "soloing" is
>defined to mean anything a player can do without assistance from another
>player, and definitely includes a pet caster with a pet. See all the posts
>complaining about how well various classes can solo. Necro's and mages, two of
>the top solo classes, sure don't do it without pets!
That is a why those threads are so irritating. A class is no longer
soloing when they have a pet. Pets eat xp just like a regular player,
and they always take a chunk of the casters xp, more noticeably in
groups where the caster doesn't have much opportunity to outdamage the
pet. I have both a necro and a mage, and I don't pretend I'm soloing
when I have fluffy summoned.
>You can certainly decide to change the definition, dorkhead, but you won't be
>able to communicate effectively with other people. By the way, "dorkhead"
>means a really nice person and intelligent person who has his own private
>meaning for words. All other definitions are incorrect.
Well, thank you. The purpose of these messages has been to point out
where people are erroneously assuming a caster with a pet is soloing.
Edward James Kilsdonk
>On 12 Apr 2000 15:02:37 GMT, mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge)
>wrote:
>
>soloing when they have a pet. Pets eat xp just like a regular player,
>and they always take a chunk of the casters xp, more noticeably in
>groups where the caster doesn't have much opportunity to outdamage the
>pet. I have both a necro and a mage, and I don't pretend I'm soloing
>when I have fluffy summoned.
>
>where people are erroneously assuming a caster with a pet is soloing.
/em wonders what this pointy thing sticking in his cheek is
Ahem, if a mage casting his pet is not soloing, then is a
ranger buffing himself not soloing? How about a cleric buffing
himself - that is hit points not on the original character. Oh
no, now the cleric has summoned a hammer. We can't have that!
Just because you say that people are "erroneously assuming"
does not mean that they are wrong.
The commonly accepted definition of soloing is self-buffed, not
outside buffs or heals, self-equipped (items bought at market
certainly count).
You might wish to argue that this is an incorrect definition,
but just saying that it is erroneous will not convince many
people.
Ted K., who feels like arguing about the best way to argue
about terms.
--
Edward J. Kilsdonk Look, ytte is written in Olde. It muste
Graduate Student, History bee fromme before they invented fpelling.
Univerfity of Virginia
Red...@Virginia.EDU http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ejk4e
Billy Shields
: On 12 Apr 2000 15:02:37 GMT, mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge)
: wrote:
:>>Nope. Once you have a pet, you are a group. It may be a group without
:>>a second PC, but still a group nonetheless.
:>
:>You are living in a society of one. Throughout EQ, the word "soloing" is
:>defined to mean anything a player can do without assistance from another
:>player, and definitely includes a pet caster with a pet. See all the posts
:>complaining about how well various classes can solo. Necro's and mages, two of
:>the top solo classes, sure don't do it without pets!
: That is a why those threads are so irritating. A class is no longer
: soloing when they have a pet.
Yes they are.
: Pets eat xp just like a regular player,
No they don't. Solo pets take half exp if and only if they do half
(or more) of the damage. In a group they take half of the *group's*
exp if they do more than 50% of the damage. Of course this is quite
difficult to accomplish in a group--especially one with multiple
pets.
: and they always take a chunk of the casters xp, more noticeably in
No they don't.
: groups where the caster doesn't have much opportunity to outdamage the
: pet. I have both a necro and a mage, and I don't pretend I'm soloing
: when I have fluffy summoned.
You are soloing because theres only one *player* and pets are not
players. They don't always suck exp like players and they're
expendable and easily replaced.
By your definition you're turning non-pet classes into more second
class citizens than they already are since you're not trying to
judge them by the same standards.
:>You can certainly decide to change the definition, dorkhead, but you won't be
:>able to communicate effectively with other people. By the way, "dorkhead"
:>means a really nice person and intelligent person who has his own private
:>meaning for words. All other definitions are incorrect.
: Well, thank you. The purpose of these messages has been to point out
: where people are erroneously assuming a caster with a pet is soloing.
You are the one in error.
Ed Bradley
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38f12b6e$0$28...@motown.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> And the point is this: what IS a druid good at?
>
Most things. Which is why they aren't GREAT at anything. That goes to the
other, more focused classes.
Daniel DuBois
You're definition of solo is different than 99% of every other EverQuest
user. A pet does not constitute a 'Group', for the purposes of the game
(group spells, groups tells, group XP bonus, group listing), or for the
purposes of conversation. For the good of everyone who has to have a
conversation about EQ with you, please use the same definitions as the
rest of us.
-----
Daniel DuBois
ddu...@pobox.com
IRC: Pizzatog
The guy with the red shoes.