MauvaisOeil said:I still await to see a rogue using poison in EQ classic, before pop era (where they became a sole proc with a buff duration).
They were expensive, one strike working only, with non mandatory neither game changing (they were even resisted by many mobs, to add to the usefullness). I've never ever seen a rogue use them in a group, and no one never asked them (or me, as a rogue main during my first years) to use them.
However, when you had no cleric HP buff with a cleric present, everyone blamed the cleric even if he was broke.
Is that justice ?
I guess you didn't group with a lot of clerics in the end, if you shamed every time they won't pierce their purse with 6 peridots every hour or so.
Grouped with alof of Clerics. Used poisons from the vert time they were introduced. Cost me alot of money to get my brewing skill to get high enough to make them so that I didn't have to buy them. Components still cost alot of money after that.
I played from 1999 until shortly after PoP came out. For me, because I prefer the "hardcore" play style, PoP was the sign of death for me of EQ. That's when EQ started turning into WoW. Played thee same in EQ2 and in Vanguard too.
I guess we had a far different experience, simply. I think I was one of the few rogue I know that leveled Poisonning, but I did that solely for "fluff" as they ended beeing too expensive for me to use them. I'd try them on bosses, when I started raiding, but it ended a big failure throught resists. In the end, except a few occasion, I never used poisonning nor did I see other rogues use poison.
Maybe it's a matter of server culture, or era, but in my times (from kunark to OoW I guess, even if I did really nothing in that last xpac) Poisonning was overlooked and Cleric's buff were counted as "group costs" just like any mandatory buffs, we simply made sure the cleric went back into his plats before splitting any additional money. I even handed them manually some Peridots when I was Pickpocketing drolvargs in KC (Well, the fairness of Pickpocket in group situation is probably an entire other debate, althought the game allowed a rogue to have a bigger share of the mob's loot this way.). Since I was quite young back then, I think I didn't really pay attention if they asked or not for a compensatory share, but when they did it seemed fine to me as I was permanently broke and couldn't afford buffs if I was them.
The same way when we raided some extra buffed bosses, like (for us) Idol of zek / statue of zek - Avatar of War, we had one enchanter chaining rune on the MT to counter the flurries, and the whole gem cost was not solely taken on him, but firstly paid back with the guild's chest before anything else.
Not sure this debate could have an end.
People have already pointed out that the looting was different in EQ. The group leader (or designated looter) took care of the hassle of looting, to keep things going. Of course reputation mattered because everyone trusted the person looting. I think the main emphasis was that the group wasn't focused on loot - at least not my groups. I would look around and see who's available for group and make my own (I was a Cleric). As the group filled up we would all throw out suggestions of what to do. The make-up of the group would determine which areas we were probably best suited for, then we'd go do it. Loot was never the focus of joining/ starting a group. It was just a neat perk you sometimes got.
Kalok said:Yep. I am absolutely "hard minded" on that. I won't group with people like that. The purpose of buffing your teem is keeping them alive, which is your job as a Cleric. Just like DPS is mine. That includes my poisons. My poisons are used to keep the group alive. It would be stupid of me to charge them for using them. If you let the group die because they didn't pay your "buff tax" you will quickly run out of people to group with.
I know that you are pretty upset about this idea, but we are not suggesting how people should play in the future, but rather how things happend in the past. This was pretty standard practice that the Cleric got re-inbursed for his gem investment. Perhaps you do not recall just how expensive it was for the Cleric buffs back in EQ1. It was by far way more expensive than any poisons or whatever else you may use during the course of your play.
Now if you don't want to play with people who follow this practice, this is totally within your right. But you seem to feel like this would alienate the Cleric rather than you yourself. But the way things worked back in EQ1, it would have been you who wouldn't have been welcome in groups if you were not willing to let the Cleric be reimbursed for the gems he used during the group. As I said, it was standard practice. And if you argued with it, you'd probably be the one looking for a new group.
In fact, many players used to carry around a stack of buff gems themselves so they could give the Cleric some after the group.
As I said, this was the past. Since we have no idea of the costs involved in buffing in Pantheon we have no idea if this will even be an issue in the future.
If the Cleric wasn't reimbursed for the peridots and other pricy gems then they didn't have the money to buy them and keep buffing. I never minded giving a couple gems to a Cleric to keep the group buffed if that's what it cost to do so. Many guilds would stock pile them and hand them out on raids. If you want to accomplish the goals you so speak of then you need to work together as a team to get it done.
As for the NBG topic...I wish we lived in a world where everyone played along nicely but the problem is some do not. I've set in too many groups and watched items I needed go to someone who need rolled with only the intention to sell for other gear. As well as having everyone greed on some items and then one person decides they're going to need when they don't actually need it. I've seen class specific items needed on by a different class because they "had an alt character" that could use. When it comes down to it the best way to not get hosed over and over is just to be greedy and sell what you can to buy the stuff you need.
If everyone was honorable and played by a set of rules that would be peachy, and the best way to handle it. But in a group of 6 random people usually there is 1 or even 2 of them that just need on everything. And the point someone brought up earlier it was bad in EQ because you had certain camps that dropped only certain items and if a Cleric or Tank couldn't use any of the loot they dropped it was hard finding those archetypes interested in grouping there. All in all the best way I have found to handle it is simply greed greed greed. And I hate that. I wish it wasn't that way but that's the most fair for everyone honestly. Up front honest and open greed. No sense in everyone else missing out because one person believes this and the rest do not. I always go in with a mindset to not be greedy. Only go for what I need. Then after I spent 6 hours at a camp with nothing to show for it and some guy came in halfway through and has 4 items it gets exhausting trying to gear your own character and play by the rules.
As for the "I need roll because I can sell this item and buy gear I need" people, that's just perpetuating the system. While it may be true, that Rogue only item that you got may be worth 5k gold or platinum or whatever at the auction house but it's priceless to that Rogue that needs it that can't afford it because everyone need rolls and they can't ever win it. Some items become currency over time in some games. With EQ it was definitely the Fungi Tunic, the Runed Bolster Belt, Golden Efreeti Boots, etc. that are mostly all/all and everyone wants/needs for various reasons. Those become a little more tricky as to who needs/greeds. Fungi tunic isn't going to do a warrior in a group much good yet they can use it and has some functionality to it when they're soloing. Yet for a Shaman (who could heal themselves) it was a game altering item.
I have to add my .02 here:
1) rogue poisons (eq1) were a joke, waste of time and money. Rogues were never needed in any group, and neither were their poisons.
2) Yes, clerics were "paid back" for buffs. Gems were 12.5 plat EACH for 6 members. that's: 75 Plat Per Hour and that's if No one left the group, and No one died. ever. Now, the way clerics were 'paid back' in groups was by giving gem drops like diamonds, and Peridots etc., to the cleric. This was common practice for Years in EQ "back in the day".
3) NBG is great in a friend group, or guild Only group. it is not NBG when in a pug group in Lower Guk camping the SMR(shining metalic robes)(caster only). Everyone should roll (need) because anyone can sell that robe to buy armor they can use.
I have seen it many times where a Mage gets in group, wins SMR, leaves 5 min later and then a New Mage jump in, he wins, leaves rinse and repeat. So the only thing the group is doing and handing out free SMR robes to any caster that comes alone. Sorry. That is not happening in my groups. I can sell the expensive SMR or trade that expensive SMR for Expensive Golden Efreeti boots. Sorry, but If I am grouping in a pug. I want a chance at something too. Why would I join a group doing the SMR camp if I know that I will Never have Any chance at loot? Without a healer, you won't be getting a robe either. I honestly can't remember ever seeing one piece of Cleric gear in Lower Guk. But there was a Lot of Tank and Caster gear there. So why should a healer Ever go to Lower guk if they can't ever win anything they can use.
Sorry, but it is Not a dick move to expect money for expensive group buffs. (hell, there were times I was so broke I didn't have money to buy gems to buff with symbol) There was nothing more fun that getting invited to a group in lower guk and getting down there, buffing the group and then everyone decides they wanna all leave 15 min later. so now the cleric is out 75 plat and has zero to show for it, not even exps. I would always just AC buff and Resolution buff and then add symbol AFTER I got my first gem that paid for Symbols. No other class was required to spend 75-200+ plat per hour (200+ if group died once or twice). if a group didn't wanna give me gems, I didn't cast symbol on anyone but myself. I also wasn't greedy. if I won a diamond that sold for 200 plat. I wouldn't just keep taking them. I would say, lets all Roll on that one. I would just take enough that I wasn't broke at the end of the day .
You did not have to use a peridot to keep your group alive. You should be buffing the tank, and maybe yourself. If other people are getting hit they are not playing properly. Claiming that you need 75pp an hour to keep a necromancer buffed is ridiculous. I 6 boxed and almost NEVER buffed anyone other than the tank. Because he should be the only one getting hit. Just play better.
There is a simple solution for a new game like Pantheon which may be locked into the EQ overall philosophy but certainly not into all the details.
Don't make it expensive for anyone to do their role in a group. Unless you make grouping expensive for all classes which would be an .....odd .... design decision for this game.
Rogue poisons should not be any more expensive than archer arrows or bolts (I mean in terms of cost per group or cost per raid not cost per use). Buffers shouldn't need to be rich or supported by the rest of the group. If the tank is going to die more than anyone else repair costs should be less for tank classes to even the cost out. Etc.
dorotea said:There is a simple solution for a new game like Pantheon which may be locked into the EQ overall philosophy but certainly not into all the details.
Don't make it expensive for anyone to do their role in a group. Unless you make grouping expensive for all classes which would be an .....odd .... design decision for this game.
Rogue poisons should not be any more expensive than archer arrows or bolts (I mean in terms of cost per group or cost per raid not cost per use). Buffers shouldn't need to be rich or supported by the rest of the group. If the tank is going to die more than anyone else repair costs should be less for tank classes to even the cost out. Etc.
Yeah the peridots/gems thing to cast buffs or certain teleport spells was a bit over the top. Back wayyy back, when we grouped, we saved any gems that dropped for the cleric in our group..because of the gem costs that the cleric incurred. Not sure if that changed over time, but that's what we did early on in EQ. And our focus wasn't really on "phat lewts" unless the expedition was built on the idea that we were going to get a class or two some needed upgrade armor. We did /random 100 then (for trash that dropped..or crafting matts)..and it was the luck of the draw if you won anything or not. I am hoping that people I group with are not all about NEEDING every pixel that drops. That's not the way I play.
I will however help someone get their upgrade if the group I am in is focussed on that task. :)
Porygon said:You did not have to use a peridot to keep your group alive. You should be buffing the tank, and maybe yourself. If other people are getting hit they are not playing properly. Claiming that you need 75pp an hour to keep a necromancer buffed is ridiculous. I 6 boxed and almost NEVER buffed anyone other than the tank. Because he should be the only one getting hit. Just play better.
in what way did i ever say I needed 75 plat an hour to keep a necro alive. it was WAY easier to keep people alive if they were fully buffed. and even the best necro or wizard would sometimes get agro and get beat on. What about a group with a Cleric, Tank, Monk, off Tank, Chanter, ranger. All of those class WILL get beat on. Now, watch the Fiona fight on the latest video and tell me if you want me to Symbol buff you before you try that fight. Maybe you like losing exps and dying. I'd rather buff and keep the group alive.
>I am hoping that people I group with are not all about NEEDING every pixel that drops. That's not the way I play.<
I totally agree. Often people would ask what loot I got and I wouldn't be able to answer - I checked inventory after we were all done (though if the purpose was to get certain loot from a boss I would keep an eye on the drop and the roll as much as anyone else).
Thats one reason I truly hate any free-for-all looting system. I want to focus on the dungeon and the mobs not on being the first one to a body.
dorotea said:There is a simple solution for a new game like Pantheon which may be locked into the EQ overall philosophy but certainly not into all the details.
Don't make it expensive for anyone to do their role in a group. Unless you make grouping expensive for all classes which would be an .....odd .... design decision for this game.
Rogue poisons should not be any more expensive than archer arrows or bolts (I mean in terms of cost per group or cost per raid not cost per use). Buffers shouldn't need to be rich or supported by the rest of the group. If the tank is going to die more than anyone else repair costs should be less for tank classes to even the cost out. Etc.
I would have to disagree.
I think adding in the extra challenge makes the game more memorable. People remember this mechanic of having to have expensive gems to play a class to its fullest. It was part of the experience. It added a whole new layer to playing a cleric. Some classes need to have things like this that make them unique. Balance is boring. I think many classes should have something that makes them stand out and I don't mean a unique spell. I am talking about something that changes the nature of the class. Doesn't have to be combat related, like Iksar being hated by everyone when they started in EQ. Sure you could change it later but the leveling of an Iksar was far different than leveling anything else. Something like having to have these gems is out of the box enough and different enough to make playing a cleric a different experience than playihng a shaman. It's not just a different set of spells or role in a group, its added more depth by requireing you to plan for something that no one else had to plan for.
And also it's important to remember these gems were not required. All they did was make it easier and faster to go through content. I played in may groups and didn't use a gem because I didn't have one and no one else did. Things were more difficult but not impossible. I knew rangers that would not have the best arrows out there but they still could contribute.
It's not game breaking to have this kind of thing in the game. It makes it for fun as far as I am concerned. I mean we all remember having this in game. That alone should make it worth considering. It's a memory maker.
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but it seems like the thread is meandering through a number of different ideas, including the old EQ mechanic of requiring expensive gems for some buffs, so maybe y'all will forgive me :)
I haven't really thought this through completely, so it might be a terrible idea, but there's a part of me that would kind of like to see some high-end spells that require super-rare, no-drop/no-trade spell components - maybe even components that you can only have one of in your possession. I think requirements like that could allow the devs to include really powerful spells which are balanced because they require the caster to go on a fairly involved quest between each casting. I think that would be more interesting than just adding a multi-day cooldown.
Not a fan of that type of thing, Nihimon, here's my reasons..
I would prefer to be able to use a less powerful spell more often. Extremely long & punitive cooldowns suck, for a lot of reasons. Even AA abilities in EQ1 suffered from this. They were so worried about people using them, that they eventually made many of them so bad that the mission was accomplished: no-one used them. Meh, then, why put them in at all?
If something is so powerful that you can only use it once per RL day? The balance of that is (forever) going to be a source of contention. You're much better off actually letting players use what they have more often, imo.
This type of thing is also the problem with systems like Progeny, for example. It has to be so extremely powerful, to be attractive, versus having another entire character on another account, for a comparison. Well, that's a ***** to balance, and I don't envy VR in their attempt.
What I'm saying is I don't like binary mechanics like this, personally. Even something like Mana Burn from EQ1 ended up being nerfed so badly it was -resisted-, yes, resistable! I'm much more in favor of things like duo, trio, group required synergistic effects and/or things like personal environments, in order to increase the power of spells. Requiring co-operation within a group to do something amazing is something I would prefer engaging in, mechanically, versus a more self-centered / long-cooldown approach to a spell or ability.
If buff reagent costs aren't fairly trivial AND only some players in the group actually have buffs I can understand those players getting a bit extra loot/coin as compensation. Depending on how egregious the cost is I probably wouldn't care much as the cleric but I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.
dorotea said:I really dislike any ability that can be used so rarely that you need to agonize endlessly over deciding what is the perfect opportunity to use it. I will typically wait and wait and wait and perhaps never actually use the accursed thing.
That's a really good point. I remember playing my Paladin in Vanguard and almost never wanting to spend my Virtue points. You're definitely making me lean towards "bad idea" :)