> If the monk gets lucky with instill doubt and is able to keep
> up with the fleeing giant, he might be able to pull it off.
> He's the least likely to die of the bunch, since he can just
> feign. He also gets mend every 6 minutes, which at 1200 hp
> would equal 300 points. Dunno if that'll recycle fast enough
> for him to stay feigned without the giant's hp being set back
> to full.
I chalk that tactic up to the likes of kiting. It's true that
the monk could feign out of the battle to survive, but on a
successful feign the giant is going to utilize rapid npc non-
combat regen. I don't doubt the power of any of the classes
I'm mentioning, I'm debating the con scale in that what is
easy for one, isn't very easy at all for another. It's unheard
of for an aforementioned class to solo a giant with any success
based on only their skills alone. Reward vs. Risk simply doesn't
exist in this game.
I think the monk would be the worst off because while he/she would
take the giant's hp down rapidly, he/she couldn't absorb the extreme
dmg output. Even with mend, I think a feign/mend attack would be
a big /yawn, and possibly impossible due to regeneration of the npc.
A warrior could get lucky and pull it off. A paladin could get lucky
too with LoH. A ranger could dot and snare and bow kite the thing,
but toe to toe the ranger doesn't have the hp/ac a warrior does.
Thus, we are illustrating the disadvantage of making level based
experience dependacies. If a L30 deepwater goblin can tear me up
or a L31 cyclops can smoosh me, I'd better be rewarded in some way.
Even caster npcs hit with the precision of a melee based npc and
on top of that they cast spells too. If a L50 wanted to sit and
kill clops all day I think they should gain some fraction of
experience. No other game I've seen employs the 'you are too high
to receive exp reward' from killing npcs that are lower level than
the player.
I think part of the deeper problem in Everquest is the exp system
in itself. They don't show any numbers to justify any earnings, so
in essence they can pull the wool over our eyes and we simply do
not know what is going on. All the muds I've played on and coded
on have npc level and npc experience as two completely separate
variables. If I wanted to kill L1 snakes all day I'd only get
1 or 2 xp from them every kill, if I fought a seafurry clops I'd
get like 1,000 xp. The consider/level based decision on whether
you will earn the experience an npc gives is just not working
to the player's advantage. I understand the reasons they went
with the existing structure, but making such a definitive line
where exp is cut off makes the whole system less realistic. A
L50 bard player should still receive combat experience from a
L30 monster. A L50 druid player should not, for example.
They've made solo friendly classes, and a bard is not solo
friendly but rather very group dependant, which I understand.
However, if I solo a cyclops that's a pretty big feat for me being
a bard, and I've probably invested some time and a lot of risk.
I would like some reward for that.
In Verant's struggle to balance the classes between each other,
they failed to recognize that the player classes are not balanced
versus npcs at all. It's not that a warrior is too weak, or a
wizard is too strong, Verant simply didn't consider player and
npc combat. Because PaladinA thought DruidB was too powerful
and gaining levels too quickly, Verant steps in. The programmers
never looked at it like PaladinA versus NPC, and DruidB versus NPC.
Classes began to target each other in attacks, and now we've got
a highly unbalanced PC/NPC exp growth system.
Everything worked in the beginning, and it was pretty. It doesn't
matter if my L50 bard can outduel a L50 warrior or L50 wizard, it's
just the fact that I don't stand a chance against handfuls of low lvl
npcs that bothers me. My bard turned out nothing like what I
expected. It's sad too. As a class on the whole, we've been
overlooked, stepped on, ignored and made promises - but in the
end I don't see a L50 bard as the stable and robust class I thought
it would be.
If I had my 4 missing songs, and if Hymm healed 30-40 hp, and if
charm worked up to L45 even, and if Lullaby worked liked it used
to, and I could load up on CHA gear / toss a flute in my hand and
pixie strike anything with noticable accuracy --- I would be a much
happier bard. When CHA doesn't make much difference... When my flute
doesn't do anything noticable... When I wish I could use some of those
old songs that worked so well back then... I wonder what Verant's
vision for the class is and why anyone would want to deal with this
kind of frustration.
Harmonic, havent played EQ in 5 days.