If you're leveling up and using your own money to buy gear... that's not thinking. That's just gearing up. The whole point of twinking is that you're using a high level character to gear your low level.
Also tho. I would challenge people to get away from the idea of eq1 twinking and consider more of a wow style. Recently I leveled up on a wow classic server with no money. And it was extremely difficult. After I maxxed I helped a friend level the same class. Only I bought him level restricted gear every 5 levels. Trust me. It makes a world of difference.
You dont have to have 100hp gear and level 50 items to think. The pure fact that you can be fully equipt at level 10 is going to make you leagues stronger than a normal character.
Ok @porygon, no one that understands MMOs and gaming is calling items you buy on a games market and player exchanges - twinking (well I guess semantically it is, but it is being misused, it's a misnomer). At best, that would simply be gearing up or outfitting your character with the best gear you can acquire using the methods as engineered by the designers.
Twinking (as an exploit) is dragging/summoning your lowbie alt to a camp and a mini-boss/boss/named to loot high level "no trade, no drop" gear that the low level character otherwise would not have access to and was never intended to be able to get to. Which also introduces it's similiar twin, power-leveling.
Low level characters acquiring gear/xp that they realistically could not gain access to is generally the action of twinking. To keep this from happening all kinds of cheesy mechanics are forced to be added like lock-out timers, gear with level restrictions and zone access level restrictions.
It's an impossible problem to solve without putting stupid mechanics in that programmers would otherwise love not to have to.
BeaverBiscuit said:I think it's kinda unfair to be equating twinking to high level arse holes hoarding gear for their alts. I personally feel like that's boring.
Much more fun to use the trade system to turn smaller amounts of money into bigger amounts of money, and also kill rare spawns for rare valuable loots as I level up, and then use the money to twink myself and level up my tradeskills to further twink myself. If that doesn't count to you as "earning gear", then I can't help you.
It really sucks when there's level limits and whatnot. I get that it's to stop high levels from twinking friends and alts, but it also makes earning tons of cash early on effectively pointless.
The current plan to make really high level gears less effective due to character limitations is plenty, in my opinion, and it doesn't alienate my trade-before-experience playstyle.
Well said. To me this falls squarely in the less is more category. Don't ruin emergent economic gameplay by setting "artificial" requirements on gear. If it becomes a huge issue with inflation or whatever, then take action, but don't create mechanics ahead of time that may not even be necessary.
Keno Monster said:Well said. To me this falls squarely in the less is more category. Don't ruin emergent economic gameplay by setting "artificial" requirements on gear. If it becomes a huge issue with inflation or whatever, then take action, but don't create mechanics ahead of time that may not even be necessary.
The point is that we already know the mechanics will be necessary. Many numbers of games/MMOs have already taught us that over the last two decades. Where you leave gaps for players to exploit, they will. And thus you get level 10 characters running around with best in class planar armor and epic weapons.
Buying the best tradable gear you can get using the in game market or player trading is 100% normal game functionality. It is working exactly the way the designers expected it to be used.
You're entirely wrong on this aspect. People ABSOLUTELY consider twinking to include purchasing tradable items from markets and players. Infact that's the primary definition behind the mechanic in most peoples eyes. If there are no trade items that can also be used by lower level players, you might see people trying to min max their stats by finding a way to get that no drop gear on a level one. But a majority of players will just be buying their alt gear. (If you disagree with this, claiming it's intended by developers that's fine you're only arguing the semantics. If you go Google any wow twinking guide you'll see that purchasable gear is indeed to core of it).
That is precisely why I mentioned wows twinking. It was effective in the sense that it made your character significantly more powerful than a newbie character of the same level. But it did not create gamebreaking power that allowed a character to solo level equivalent dungeons etc.
Porygon said:You're entirely wrong on this aspect. People ABSOLUTELY consider twinking to include purchasing tradable items from markets and players. Infact that's the primary definition behind the mechanic in most peoples eyes. If there are no trade items that can also be used by lower level players, you might see people trying to min max their stats by finding a way to get that no drop gear on a level one. But a majority of players will just be buying their alt gear. (If you disagree with this, claiming it's intended by developers that's fine you're only arguing the semantics. If you go Google any wow twinking guide you'll see that purchasable gear is indeed to core of it).
That is precisely why I mentioned wows twinking. It was effective in the sense that it made your character significantly more powerful than a newbie character of the same level. But it did not create gamebreaking power that allowed a character to solo level equivalent dungeons etc.
Absolutely. Twinking was mostly people using powerful tradable drops, rarely was no-drop stuff involved.
Rubicite was removed because early in EQ’s life twinking was seen in a very negative way by a lot of players (and I think the devs were somewhat against it very early on too). For Rubicite (plate chest armor that mail users could also equip which had a permanent +3 hp regen per tick effect) it was seen as unfair that chain users could get plate and moreso it was unfair that a level 1 warrior or rogue could have a permanent regen.
Iksar said:Porygon said:You're entirely wrong on this aspect. People ABSOLUTELY consider twinking to include purchasing tradable items from markets and players. Infact that's the primary definition behind the mechanic in most peoples eyes. If there are no trade items that can also be used by lower level players, you might see people trying to min max their stats by finding a way to get that no drop gear on a level one. But a majority of players will just be buying their alt gear. (If you disagree with this, claiming it's intended by developers that's fine you're only arguing the semantics. If you go Google any wow twinking guide you'll see that purchasable gear is indeed to core of it).
That is precisely why I mentioned wows twinking. It was effective in the sense that it made your character significantly more powerful than a newbie character of the same level. But it did not create gamebreaking power that allowed a character to solo level equivalent dungeons etc.
Absolutely. Twinking was mostly people using powerful tradable drops, rarely was no-drop stuff involved.
Rubicite was removed because early in EQ’s life twinking was seen in a very negative way by a lot of players (and I think the devs were somewhat against it very early on too). For Rubicite (plate chest armor that mail users could also equip which had a permanent +3 hp regen per tick effect) it was seen as unfair that chain users could get plate and moreso it was unfair that a level 1 warrior or rogue could have a permanent regen.
That's not why it was removed. They added the temple of sol ro and all the classes EXCEPT MONKS, ahem, got quest armor. Ravenscale for rogues replaced those drops.
I mean...in OG EQ the mobs in PoF hit for 70 and dropped lustrous russet, and there was no level requirement to enter the zone. THAT was some twinking. And you're right, people got freaking pissssed off about that. A rubi BP was hard to get and rare.
kreed99 said:You can do have a rich gets richer scheme without having OP toons, PL spells, and just broken game mechanics. Just because something has existed for 19 years doesnt meant it isnt broken. EQ is and was an originally released broken game. Getting a fungi and two Scepters of Destruction at level 1 that proc... you tell me the game isnt broken.
Lol, you clearly know nothing about EQ. Launched broken with fungi and SoD? Fungi was Kunark expansion and SoD was Velious, almost 2 years after it launched. C'mon. I get your point, but EQ did not launch broken. You still had to work to get the Fungi and SoD was raid drops, I mean, you earned it. That and 2 SoD's at level 1 was monk only. And the SoDs weren't exactly cheap, nor common.
EDIT: For everyone commenting on beating mobs 10 levels over you, I'd love to see a level 2 effectively kill orc legionaire's in CB, and say that was worth their time, if they could even win. Sure, hook up with fungi staff and tunic you'll get regen out the anus, but you lack the skills to hit a level 12. Maybe at like level 6 I could see you beating up a level 12, but again we are back to time and efficiency, it will still take you some time to kill him, and it's not worth the exp.
Porygon said:You're entirely wrong on this aspect. People ABSOLUTELY consider twinking to include purchasing tradable items from markets and players. Infact that's the primary definition behind the mechanic in most peoples eyes. If there are no trade items that can also be used by lower level players, you might see people trying to min max their stats by finding a way to get that no drop gear on a level one. But a majority of players will just be buying their alt gear. (If you disagree with this, claiming it's intended by developers that's fine you're only arguing the semantics. If you go Google any wow twinking guide you'll see that purchasable gear is indeed to core of it).
That is precisely why I mentioned wows twinking. It was effective in the sense that it made your character significantly more powerful than a newbie character of the same level. But it did not create gamebreaking power that allowed a character to solo level equivalent dungeons etc.
No, you are incorrect. The term has come to be missued from it's original derivation.
Twinking referred to acquiring gear above the grade you could easily buy from players or at exchanges. But as better gear made it's way into MMO markets due to FTP and RNG games, you no longer had to actually go out and camp/farm the items. So the term twinking got degraded to just outfitting your alt with the best gear you could now buy, as everything was for sale.
Twink referred to having to work to acquire the items, different from just perusing the market and pushing "buy".
Dubah said:kreed99 said:You can do have a rich gets richer scheme without having OP toons, PL spells, and just broken game mechanics. Just because something has existed for 19 years doesnt meant it isnt broken. EQ is and was an originally released broken game. Getting a fungi and two Scepters of Destruction at level 1 that proc... you tell me the game isnt broken.
Lol, you clearly know nothing about EQ. Launched broken with fungi and SoD? Fungi was Kunark expansion and SoD was Velious, almost 2 years after it launched. C'mon. I get your point, but EQ did not launch broken. You still had to work to get the Fungi and SoD was raid drops, I mean, you earned it. That and 2 SoD's at level 1 was monk only. And the SoDs weren't exactly cheap, nor common.
EDIT: For everyone commenting on beating mobs 10 levels over you, I'd love to see a level 2 effectively kill orc legionaire's in CB, and say that was worth their time, if they could even win. Sure, hook up with fungi staff and tunic you'll get regen out the anus, but you lack the skills to hit a level 12. Maybe at like level 6 I could see you beating up a level 12, but again we are back to time and efficiency, it will still take you some time to kill him, and it's not worth the exp.
Most people know nothing about old EQ, they just like to think they do because since it has been around 19+ years just about everyone played a toon at one time or another. But the EQ that existed in 98/99 disappeared fast, maybe lasting till 2002/2003.
I had some guy who was desperate to legitimize his background explain to me how he started playing EQ when he was 4yo. And I had to laugh. His is one of the most extreme "wannbe" statements I have ever heard. His Dad might have sat him in front of the pc, or he may have watched occasionally, but to try and act like he had amazing history with EQ from 4yo was hilarious.
My buddy who I played a lot of EQ with me back at the start would let his 6yo daughter play, but he had to keep an eye on her closely due to not wanting any toxic players to create an issue. He said he felt bad at times when people would group her up, not knowing they were adding a 6yo girl. And she would go off chasing a butterfly or something.
I believe twinking has a very long established meaning. That may or may not be the same meaning it had in 1999 but today the meaning is fairly universal across many MMOs.
That meaning is simple - giving a lower level character things that it could not get on its own, whether gear or money that could be used to buy gear.
Any meaning limited to high level drops, and considering no other aid to the low level as being twinking, is as dead as Ninevah and Tyre.
zewtastic said:No, you are incorrect. The term has come to be missued from it's original derivation.
Things changed. It doesn't matter what it meant in 1995. What matters is now. If you open a dialogue with someone about twinking. They are talking about using any method to gear a low level character (but mainly droppable, purchasable items).
If you disagree with this. It's fine. But 99.9% of the people that use this term are going by its modern day meaning, like I explained.
kreed99 said: In my defense the reason i stated the game launched broken was due to the game allowing for items like those mentioned to exist and be fully usable at level 1. I know they were released 2 years after. I was 35 on my monk when Velious released and switched to Rogue around 45 on monk and leveled all through kunark/velious and raided during luclin era early pop. You didnt need to use the you dont know anyhing argument. I actually do know stuff i just cant word it properly sometimes. Usually cause im in a hurry.
But it didn't break the game, becuase it with the SoD's they only dropped til the slepper woke up, and once that happened they never dropped again, so that was the price either make it to where their were many out their and have them frun wild or you could simply wake up the sleeper and maybe none of them drop, so at least with the SoD's, it would be up to the people to decide how many their were, not the game. and fungi was a good twink item til like lvl 40 or so and than it needed to be replaced, cuase the regen vs the damage you were taking just wasnt working out at that point. but i also believe most raid gear needs to be no drop so when top guillds are finished with raid encounters they move on instead of farm them for easy plats to fond their guild, but this is just my only concern with it comes to raid gear not being no drop or at least most of it, understandable that some isn't just like in eq, but they shouldnt be class defining items, like in velious with BoC and such items like this, but more general itemslike the pal/sk wep that drops from necropolis that is great to lvl up with and to raid til you get a better weapon that drops from other raid bosses in the same expansion.
Plus you cant say the game "launched broken" if it was an expansion that made you feel this way, which was years after launch
"My opinion" is that EQ1 in general was and is broken. Nothing you say will change that. I appreciate the discussion, but trying to convince me that i am wrong for having my opinion of this is not going to win the argument. I was making a simple analogy and it blew up into something bigger that it should have. I am removing myself from this discussion, not because i am "wrong" but because my opinion is not needed/wanted here.