The EQ2 Necro, from a long time EQ1 Necro

Tinantier · 01-15-2005, 08:03 PM

I played a necro in EQ1. I was level 68, about 200AAs and time flagged. So, having seen a run down on the other mage classes and what the author of those pieces thought was wrong with them, I will do the same here. Now I am perfectly aware that this is a new game, but having been a Necro in EQ1 for well over 3 years, I can't help but make comparisons SMILEY

I came to EQ2 with the idea of playing a defiler, and indeed I did, up to 31. I became frustrated with the shamans inability to heal effectively and the generally insane aggro that a combination of runes/debuffs/heals seemed to give me (to the point where the tank could not get mobs off me). This may or may not have been me - but as far as I could see, I was just keeping the tank alive, and when he is low on health , I had to heal - the complaint about 25+ groups needing 2 healers was starting to ring very true and the claim that all healers were equal but they healed in different ways is just not true. So, I have switched (or rather gone back) to the necro.So for me, there were (are?) a few things that defined a necro:1) Lifetaps2) Dots3) Get out of jail1) These seem to be sorely missing. These are one or two in there somewhere, but not until higher level. IF there was one thing I could change about the EQ2 necro it would be to give them proper lifetaps.2) Yes again they are there, but again limited. DoTs tend to last only 20-30 seconds. By the time you have a 2nd dot on, the first is half done. 3) Get of ouf jail - Necros had various methods of escaping bad situations.The primary one was of course feign death. Again, we get this but at level 43? Why do monks, bruisers and shadowknights get this early on and Necros do not? We should get this in the early 20s In my opinion.You will no doubt also say 'what about the pets?'. Yes, true - but most necros I knew (the high level experienced ones) considered the pet to be another DoT - simply one that did not need constant recasting and you could control to some extent. It was no more than another tool in our arsenal and wasn't a vital part of what we did.Necros were, in my opinion, masters of conversion and DoTs. We could convert one thing to another (our own health to mana, a mobs health to our own, our health to anothers health etc). We had a wide range of dots.On top of what we had, we also had various methods of fighting, each of which as useful in various situations. None of these appear to apply in EQ2.1) Fear kiting - we dont get a fear until 38 which immobilizes us. Although this method, which was the staple of the EQ1 necro up to 55, got nerfed to oblivion in EQ1 not so long ago when the pathing of a feared mob was changed. Dirges get a decent usable fear before 30. 2) Root Dotting - a good viable method of killing a mob. The roots we have are so unreliable that this is not a good method of killing. Even if the roots were to stick more (about 1 in 4/5 sticks properly at the moment - and the only real chance of a root sticking is when you aren't damaging the mob) - the lack of a real snare means getting a root back on before the mob reaches you in next to impossible.3) Aggro Kiting - made hard by 2 things. First, the lack of a real snare and second, dump mode. What is dump mode? This is what happens when you engage any mob. You start to run like you are desperate to take a dump. Mobs of course do not suffer from this, they simply get the animation but with the benefit of little if any speed reduction. The new snare (sic) we get now makes this sort of possible, but in all honesty, it is only *just* a snare and is barely worth it - you pause to recast and the mob is on you.4) FD pulling - made impossible by linked mobs. This isn't a big deal really, but it was also nice and a good feeling when you managed to separate two awkward mobs who were close to one another.5) Pet tanking - well this seems to be the only viable method we have, the pet tanks while we put on dots and heal the pet. Now the pets do seem to be better in general than the EQ1 counterparts. Lets face it, without any othe viable method of killing, they need to be.So I have to ask-- Why don't we get proper lifetaps?- Why don't we get snares - really? what is so wrong with kiting?- Why don't we get feign death at a reasonable level?Fortunately, Necros do have one thing in their favour SMILEY

in EQ1, they were (or rather the people behind them) masters at finding ways around any limitations. I am sure that this will run true in EQ2. so what would i change?- Give us lifetaps- Give us FD at a more reasonable level (i can live with it killing the pet as if you need to FD, chances are your pet has bought it anyway)- Give us snares and get rid of dump mode. I mean really, what is wrong with kiting?Give us necromancers! not just mages who happen to have undead pets SMILEY

We shouldn't need to mostly rely on pets, they should be simply another tool we have.Well these are my opinions anyway, no doubt many of you will differ SMILEY

edarkcloud · 01-15-2005, 08:26 PM

Those are some of the reasons I quit the Necromancer ( if you can call it that ) here in EQ2.

I don't know what is this class but it isn't Necromancer, for example let's take a look at fear, what the heck is that? you fear the mob but you can't move???

A feign death at 43???? no harmshields of any kind, no snares, I mean by just taking all these out you can't possible call this a Necromancer.

When I got to 21 I just quit that sorry excuse that they call Necromancer, by away I know what a Necromancer is because I played 1 in EQ1 till level 65 with 250aa, so I know what I am talking about.

You could argue this is only my opinion and you are right because it is but in my server there are only 4 yes 4 necros above level 40 the highest being level 43 while if you do a search for any other class you get no less than 17 from 40-49 , that alone should tell you something.

I know this is supposed to be a differente game but they have changed greatly what Necromancers were in EQ1 and for the worst and until they do something to make them more fun to play I doubt I will ever continue that Necro.

UsulDaNeri · 01-16-2005, 04:55 AM

lvl 70 nec 700 AA no time gear here.

why do you write novels brother?

the eq2 nec is a nec for dummies. period.

like the entire eq2 is for dummies compared to eq1. its sony's fully controlled kindergarden. no offense against the players, its just sony's intention :smileywink:

i ordered wow. lets see what the wow warlock looks like. i doubt anyclass can beat the fun of an eq1 nec. but never give up to try some new things :smileyvery-happy:

we had alot of discussions in eq1 in the last 5 years, which spell is perhaps THE CLASS DEFINING SPELL?

after playing a nec in eq2 it became more clear:

1. LIFETAP

2. Snare

3. fd

you may switch 2 and 3, but #1 is pretty clear for me. i am missing it so badly. and the later lifetap in eq2 is a joke, isnt it?

Usul

Message Edited by UsulDaNeriak on 01-16-2005 01:06 AM

Qrgauth · 01-16-2005, 08:05 AM

I'll await the single star, but let me say:1) Kiting, of all forms, was never an intended tactic in EQ1, and they made considerable nerfs to discourage it there, and took great pains to eliminate it in EQ2. Sony and Verant before them stated that kiting was not an intended tactic on many occasions.2) FD pulling was never an intended tactic and this was also stated many times. FD was intended to be an escape measure for the classes that could do it, not a tool to trivialize encounters. In fact, it was stated that the whole concept of the single pull was not foreseen and not intended.So those two things kind of invalidate the half your post. You're essentially complaining that you can't do stuff in EQ2 that you were never intended to do in EQ1 but that couldn't be fixed in that game.And to answer your question: Kiting allows the player to gain experience with essentially no risk. In EQ1 there was always risk to the other players nearby some nimrod kiting, but the risk to the kiter was small to none if he was at least half awake/sober.I agree about one thing though... necros were masters of conversion and that seems to be lost in EQ2. Now we're not substantially different from an EQ1 Magician, except we get less variety in pets.

Message Edited by Qrgauthil on 01-15-2005 10:09 PM

Tinantier · 01-16-2005, 04:15 PM

well, even if FD pulling and kiting were never 'intended' uses of the spells, they did become tried and tested methods used a lot. I think the excuse that 'we never intended you to use these methods' is a bit poor. One thing SoE can never nerf is the ingenuity of the players. Regardless of the restrictions you place on any method, the players will find ways to exploit the mechanics (i don't mean cheating here, I mean using the mechanics as provided to the fullest). So to me it does seem a bit silly to place artificial restrictions on methods players have been using for a long time simply because you don't like a method and you only want players to kill mobs in specific ways (Again, specifying how you want players to kill mobs is a bit of a poor excuse). Does it really matter how I kill a mob as long as I am not cheating? I also disagree that kiting was without risk - the necro snare was known to be annoyingly resistant just when you really needed it to stick (the druid snare of course was another matter).

Qrgauth · 01-16-2005, 08:22 PM

Tinantier wrote:Does it really matter how I kill a mob as long as I am not cheating? I also disagree that kiting was without risk - the necro snare was known to be annoyingly resistant just when you really needed it to stick (the druid snare of course was another matter).

Yes, it does matter.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that many of the discussions about EQ1 and EQ2 centre around game balance. Game balance is achieved in a number of ways, but one of them is setting up the encounter. If the encounter, of, say, the Avatar of War, was meant to be fought with the AoW and 5 guards, and players find a way to single pull all the guards then the AoW, the players have defeated the balance - they've succeeded at something with less risk than was intended. (Note: I'm not saying this applies to the Avatar of War encounter, I'm only making an example with that name). It doesn't matter that players are ingenious. When the players do that they have altered the balance of the game. To fix it in EQ1, you saw ever increasing numbers of hit points on mobs, weird special powers, and often nerfed down loot because eventually Sony had to assume every encounter would be single pulled (either by enchanters or FD capable people) regardless of the designer's intent. In EQ2 they just made it so you can't single pull. Now it's not an issue and the game designer's wishes for each encounter are more likely to be preserved.And although you may disagree with my observation on kiting, a simple observation of the number of necros and druids (and bards) doing it bears me out. If it wasn't so risk free, it would hardly have been a tactic so popular, and druids and necros wouldn't have been generally the richest players in the game. It was common to see a kiter grief some group of unknowing players, but it was rare to see a kiter get hosed.And let's face it here... nobody would be complaining about this if the game was easier. This is one place where the game is a little bit harder than EQ1, and that burns people's arses.

Message Edited by Qrgauthil on 01-16-2005 10:25 AM

Vidha · 01-17-2005, 02:47 AM

The lines between player ingenuity, utilization of the tools given to a class, and bending/breaking the intended manner in which an encounter is faced is Very gray.

Example: in Dark Age of Camelot, the level 50 epic quests were always intended to have to be done in groups, for every class. Some of them were even still incredibly difficult to do (with no deaths) with a full group and needed more people. Mythic wanted this this way, and most players do play their classes roughly within the scope that the devs wanted them to...however, at the time when the Sorcerer TL was lobbying the devs to decrease the difficulty of the Sorc Epic...a good friend of mine, who taught me to be a sorcerer...broke the mold and caused an uproar when she revealed that she did, indeed, solo the epic. No cheating, no 3rd party programs...but using the heck out of the skills a sorcerer had, using the right pets, running/ducking/dodging/kiting, along with a little prayer...and she was able to solo it.

People of course called her an outright liar, cheat, etc...and it wasn't true. The people on my server who grouped pve and rvr'd with and against her knew it was true. (They knew because she was the Only person ever to also solo a frontier keep). This was done by a player in a class thought of as being notoriously weak compared to other casters. Because of all this, Mythic went and changed a BUNCH of the mechanics of the game, so that this couldn't happen again. However, it also had the effect of having the devs look at many of the complaints about the class, and fix them. Most Daoc players still consider the sorcerer to be weak, and there aren't that many of them and they're not the highest realm ranks on any server...but by the skilled players who know, the sorcerer is the most dangerous caster in the game, with the most utility, most varied gameplay, and is the most fun to play. I've played every major mmorpg out, (um, except EQ1 :smileysurprised SMILEY

and in my opinion the sorcerer in daoc is the very best caster class developed in any game (closely followed by the metaphysicist in AO, and the Necro in Daoc, but that's another story).

However, it wasn't always so, and not by a longshot. It took 2+ years After release to finally get it right. The class was utterly broken on more than one occasion. Every time some players would figure something out that would marginally help the class or change the way they did things, people screamed nerf, the bat came out and was used. Some people quit the class, and even left the game. But, just like the game itself matured, so did the devs (players really never do) and fixes were eventually made, new things implemented to try, and eventually the class got to a point where, the players who bothered to become good at their class Knew that their class was pretty good, but not in fact overpowered.

Now, what does all this blather about the sorc in daoc have to do with the necro in EQ2? Everything. Advanced development of classes in mmorpgs is a lot like battle plans in the military...they don't survive first contact with the enemy, or in our case, with us, the gamers. I have several friends that played EQ1 necros, and they said it was a great class to play, at times overpowered and at other times not, BUT it was a good class that was FUN to play. Now, the question is, when looking at the necro in EQ2, will the devs learn from their previous development? Sony has, in my opinion, taken a huge, horrible gamble in that all the classes in EQ2 are basically cookie cutter as far as individuality amongst any single class is concerned. Until now, I've NEVER played a mmorpg where I had almost 0 say in how my character developed. Heck, I can't even allocate attribute points how I want...everything is done with nearly no input from the player. Other than facial features and height, if you've seen one level 41 dark elf necromancer, you have indeed seen them all. I think it is horribly insulting for Sony to have done it. HOWEVER, on the flip side of this, they have a lot clearer view of any given class and its development, so hopefully, if they're not stuck on wanting the game to be more work than fun, they'll hopefully be able to to make changes to classes to improve them.

I'm on my way with one of my characters being a necromancer (awesome looking pets, even if weak). I have to adapt a bit on how I play a pet class, because I'm used to my pets actually being able to do most of my fighting (which they should IMO, I'm definitely not a fan of my pet just being a controllable dot...at least not unless I have a slew of other nice abilities) but, I'm noping that the class will keep evolving and Sony will want to increase the fun factor and lessen the tedium. The one thing that people have to remember is that no class is done at release of the game, that's when the development really starts. Sony has a bad reputation for their nerfing, but this is THE big game for them, so for now and for a while to come I'll wait and see how things progress and hope that they'll want to improve the classes. I love the gigantic amount of content in the game even at low levels, so I'm looking forward to seeing how much I like the class.

Message Edited by Vidharr on 01-16-2005 03:00 PM

Qrgauth · 01-17-2005, 05:36 AM

Vidharr wrote:
The lines between player ingenuity, utilization of the tools given to a class, and bending/breaking the intended manner in which an encounter is faced is Very gray.

No, it's not grey at all. One need only ask the designer. If it's not the way the designer intended, then that's it... there's no "maybe" or "gray" about it. It's black and white.Whether or not something will be done about it is, perhaps, another issue, but lack of a response doesn't validate it either.There's no doubt that thousands of players are collectively smarter than a handful of designers... but that doesn't mean that when someone finds a way to trivialize an encounter - even if no official rules are broken - that the encounter doesn't need to be fixed in some way.

Vidha · 02-01-2005, 11:51 AM

Qrgauthil wrote:

Vidharr wrote:

The lines between player ingenuity, utilization of the tools given to a class, and bending/breaking the intended manner in which an encounter is faced is Very gray.

No, it's not grey at all. One need only ask the designer. If it's not the way the designer intended, then that's it... there's no "maybe" or "gray" about it. It's black and white.

Whether or not something will be done about it is, perhaps, another issue, but lack of a response doesn't validate it either.

There's no doubt that thousands of players are collectively smarter than a handful of designers... but that doesn't mean that when someone finds a way to trivialize an encounter - even if no official rules are broken - that the encounter doesn't need to be fixed in some way.

If a game is made up of only black and white, then it becomes boring and tedious, or at best Chess (I love chess, but mmorpgs don't work that way) and it's my contention that no designer would like to think of their creation that way. However, I think you're slightly misunderstanding my post in that I wholeheartedly DO agree that if an encounter has a flaw in it that allows it to be easily beaten/abused when that was not the intention, then of course it needs fixing. Moreso, if there are game mechanics that can be manipulated in unforeseen ways that provide an advantage the devs didn't plan for, they also need to be fixed. However, a skilled and intelligent gamer shouldn't be punished or his class nerfed if he/she is skillful in using the tools of the class and does something unexpected in order to complete a quest/solve a problem.

I do not think that ANY encounter should be considered trivial when it falls inside the parameters set by the devs, i.e. character class N between levels X and XX should have Y% probability of completing the encounter, with Z(n) random factors possibly arising to complicate the encounter. If class N can blow through the encounter with little or none of the risk the devs intended, then the encounter needs fixed, the class doesn't need to be nerfed. (It's bad enough that SOE thinks that skillful use of terrain and environment is exploiting the game.)

It is the greatest shame that devs will nerf a class when its fun to play rather than adjust other factors in the game to compensate, and this is due to the universal cry of gamers NOT of said class not wanting any other class to be better than their own. Only Turbine (of major mmorpg developers) held off for so long, stating they would adjust the game rather than nerf a class or skill...and even they caved after 5 years (nerfed triple strike for dagger wielders, and indeed they finally had no choice, the ability was just too powerful...but they tried not to).

We're here in these games not because we want to grind away and toil for our entertainment, but because we want to be heroes. I'm not saying we don't want to work and earn things in our games, we just shouldn't have to suffer for them. The natural competitiveness in people make them want to be members of the class thought of as being the most powerful because somehow that reflects on their decision making and makes them intelligent...so it just won't do when someone can out-fight/out-cast/out-whatever them....and that's how most nerfs happen. Ticked off people who play other classes whine enough so that the devs gut their target class, just because a class, which IS supposed to be different from others, can accomplish an encounter easier than they can, or faster, etc.

Bah, I ramble therefore I am. I'm a fan of improving classes and encounters rather than nerfing them if they don't function within the intention of the devs. Don't nerf a class, make a monster stronger, for example. My hope for the Necromancer is that they greatly improve pets. I would rather have superior pets and less personal power. As it is, my current summoner adept 3 spider is no more powerful relatively speaking than if I were to bring my Scotty along to fight with me. I don't want my family dog to be the benchmark for my pet, I want a polar bear or siberian tiger (for starters). (Actually, I want my AO metaphysical demon to be the benchmark, but I'm not holding my breath). As it is, I'm looking forward to seeing how the Necromancer develops.

Chandigar · 02-01-2005, 07:34 PM

First of all, to the person who said "this is not a necro!"

This class is, in fact, a necro. Black magic. Undead slaves. What you mean to say is "this is not an EQ1 necro!". Which is true. Its been stated many times that this is not EQ1. Repeat after me, This is not EQ1.

Since this is not EQ1, this class hasn't been nerfed. You just expected to be playing the same game with better graphics. Get over it. Repeat after me, This is not EQ1.

In light of that, the rest of your arguments hold no water. They didn't take things away, they just never gave them to you to begin with. That is their planned design.

As a game designer, making monsters more powerful is NOT the answer. At some point you get monsters that are so insanely powerful they kill you in one hit if they get through your armor or rune or whatever. Or stuff is set so it arbitrarily is immune to certain spells/abilities. Then it really starts to be no fun. Theres no flexibility involved, every fight you put up the same spells do the exact same things, then its just luck if the mob gets a single ucky hit through and you're dead. The ebb and flow of battle is gone.

Oh and you want to be a hero? Whats heroic about dropping a dot then running as fast as you can in the opposite direction until the mob is dead?

Sheesh.

Qrgauth · 02-01-2005, 08:18 PM

Vidharr wrote:(It's bad enough that SOE thinks that skillful use of terrain and environment is exploiting the game.)

- Skillful use of terrain is firing a bow over a hill to hit an enemy on the other side that can't see you.- Exploiting pathing to trivialize an encounter is fearing a mob so it runs into a wall or other obstacle then picking on it with impunity.One of those two things happened in EQ1. Guess which.- Skillful use of terrain is using ground and cover to obscure your approach so you can launch a massive attack with surprise.- Exploiting pathing to trivialize an encounter is to drag a mob into a spot where the AI gets stuck and can't negotiate the terrain so the mob bounces back and forth while players kill it with impunity.One of those two things happened in EQ1. Guess which.- Skillful use of environment is putting on your fire resistance gear and swimming through the lava to sneak up on an enemy.- Exploiting AI to trivialize an encounter and kill things you'd normally not be able to touch is dragging orcs from their fort to dwarven NPCs and stealing the kill after the dwarfs put the beat down on the orc.One of those two things happened in EQ1. Guess which.A lot of your post makes sense, but I fully understand Sony's interpretation of what constitutes an exploit or trivializing an encounter. Perhaps because I worked designing games for a while and have a different insight than most people, otherwise I don't know. It seems pretty clear to me.

Message Edited by Qrgauthil on 02-01-2005 10:21 AM

backya · 02-01-2005, 09:16 PM

My necro friends, please do not be upset for the game is still young and SOE knows not what they do..... but behold, as you reach lvl 35+ you will no longer thirst. This is a new game so many who have never played EQ have to get the feel. I never played EQ1 so i hardly understood what i had to do none the less played an mmorpg, 1-29 is basicaly an intro to your character so you fully understand what you must do and how to use spells. I heard this gam is designedto go to lvl 200 over time, this means TOTALY new spells and abilities. If you read the notes by the presisdent you will see there will be 2 new expansions every year and adventure packs, meaning new spells armor and mobs ect. The game is still in a todler stage, if it movedany faster those with little time to play would be left behind. thisis why its best to kinda take it slow, the new expansion is already in the works and there no telling whats up for us in these. 1-29 out of 200 is a very small fraction lvl wise to understand howto play this game but it is enough seeing how its not really needed to have super duper spells in fallen gate or nek, though in high levels zones EL ZEK and so on 29+ zones you seems to get you class spells. At 33 i have a life tap which also it and AOE dot and im about to get a spell that turns health to power, not to mention my new root that is also a dot and lower diease resist inna mob. takes a little dedication and time but you will be a necro, full blooded and cold and when the new expansions come out you will sit back and look and be glad you had time to use those mage spells cuznow you can use your necro spells to the fullest. but long story short just be patient and quit complaning lol.

Hadious · 02-02-2005, 09:47 AM

"1) Kiting, of all forms, was never an intended tactic in EQ1, and they made considerable nerfs to discourage it there, and took great pains to eliminate it in EQ2. Sony and Verant before them stated that kiting was not an intended tactic on many occasions."Give me a break. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that when you give a class somthing like a snare, some dot's and a unchanneled fear that there would be some form of kiting, alas Fear Kiting with the Necro. SOE can tell you all they want that kiting was never intended in EQ1, but you know what? If it wasnt never intended they had the tools to get rid of it, know why they preach the unintentions of kiting in EQLive? To get the class's that cant do it off their backs. It just boggles me, that during even the EQLive beta test years ago, the developers even during development didnt find somthing wrong with it? In fact giving the Necro a darkness line of spells (Snare+DoT) and fear was more so intended for the use of fear kiting then you want to believe. Like I said it doesnt take a rocket scientist, but if SOE told you China's population consisted of 100 people, you'd probably take that into consideration to boot.

Sylnt · 02-03-2005, 04:09 PM

You are right Necromancers stink. Please quit and delete your character immediately. Then sit in the corner and cry. Then go back to EQ1. Thanks please drive through.

Message Edited by Sylnt on 02-03-2005 03:10 AM

Travi · 02-04-2005, 12:10 PM

You know i have to agree that the EQ2 Necro's aren't as "easy" as the EQ1 Necro's. Yes, i said "easy", in EQ1 the word was around that the Necromancer Class was the easiest to be because of all the useful tools the game gave it. Hearing that i became a Necromancer and loved every second of it because it was easy to level and do what you pleased. But that is in the past, EQ2 made the Necromancer more challenging and i for one am not complaining because i like a challenge. Yes i agree that the class should get Lifetap a HECK OF A LOT sooner then we do but thats the rules and i tend to live by them then cry and see if crying can get me my way. These are the stakes, they won't change and they won't get better so if you dont like it just change your class and make a new character. And while you're doing that i will be happy and content with my Necromancer in Nektulos Forest killing some bears and skeletons.

Veroth, Hunter of the Undead

21 Necromancer

Travi · 02-04-2005, 12:10 PM

You know i have to agree that the EQ2 Necro's aren't as "easy" as the EQ1 Necro's. Yes, i said "easy", in EQ1 the word was around that the Necromancer Class was the easiest to be because of all the useful tools the game gave it. Hearing that i became a Necromancer and loved every second of it because it was easy to level and do what you pleased. But that is in the past, EQ2 made the Necromancer more challenging and i for one am not complaining because i like a challenge. Yes i agree that the class should get Lifetap a HECK OF A LOT sooner then we do but thats the rules and i tend to live by them then cry and see if crying can get me my way. These are the stakes, they won't change and they won't get better so if you dont like it just change your class and make a new character. And while you're doing that i will be happy and content with my Necromancer in Nektulos Forest killing some bears and skeletons.

Veroth, Hunter of the Undead

21 Necromancer

Delfoftheb · 02-06-2005, 11:53 AM

well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things

Qrgauth · 02-08-2005, 12:30 AM

Delfofthebla wrote:
well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things

Any chance someone could translate that into a language spoken on this planet?

Chandigar · 02-08-2005, 01:00 AM

Qrgauthil wrote:

Delfofthebla wrote:

well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things

Any chance someone could translate that into a language spoken on this planet?

Tr4nzl8ion:

I managed to phonetically read some of this forum and it reminded me of what the old necro was like. I had a 65 enchanter and loved it and had a necro alt. I loved the old necro. Come to think of it, the necro here sucks more than my grandma. Lol. This isn't the right place for it, but wouldn't an enchanter be more fun to someone who liked the eq1 necro? Because everything about necros here suck. I wish I were playing EQ1.

Ageariashi · 02-08-2005, 01:21 AM

Nice l33t translation parser there amigo.

*Edit cause I misspelled l33t...twice.

Message Edited by Ageariashi on 02-07-2005 03:25 PM

Qrgauth · 02-08-2005, 02:00 AM

Chandigar wrote:
Qrgauthil wrote:

Delfofthebla wrote:
well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things

Any chance someone could translate that into a language spoken on this planet?

Tr4nzl8ion:

I managed to phonetically read some of this forum and it reminded me of what the old necro was like. I had a 65 enchanter and loved it and had a necro alt. I loved the old necro. Come to think of it, the necro here sucks more than my grandma. Lol. This isn't the right place for it, but wouldn't an enchanter be more fun to someone who liked the eq1 necro? Because everything about necros here suck. I wish I were playing EQ1.

5* for you SMILEY

Castegyre · 02-08-2005, 06:06 AM

I played EQ1 in beta and off and on since release. I started with a Shaman main and then moved to a Mage, but I have always had a Necro alt in that game when playing.

I played DAoC for almost 2 years and my main 2 Alb characters were a Cabalist and a Necro.

I played RoE for over 6 months as a Necro.

I have also played numerous other games/classes where a dot casting pet class was my main pick if ever available.

I have now started over on a new server, and my main is now a Necro in EQ2.

Reading this thread it seems to me that the main problem here is not with the EQ2 Necro, but the fact that people want the EQ2 Necro to be what the EQ1 Necro was. Many of the things that made the EQ1 Necro king of the hill for so many years, as was already stated, were not intentional design features. I remember a time when we were actually threatened with punishment if we were caught kiting in EQ1. It only lasted about a week or two until they finally let it go, but that is how strongly they felt that it was an exploitative way to hunt. They couldn't really stop kiting without all but recoding chunks of the game, so now we have what we have.

I have always seen these classes, in their various guises game to game, along certain lines. There are a few things that tie them together (in no particular order);

Dots: The ability to poison, disease, and generally deal damage over time thorugh nasty ways by influencing your victims body

Pets: You can't be a 'Necro' type without controlling the undead.

Utility: Taps generally fall under utility, but it is usually one of the universal utility features of such a class game to game. You take your targets life/power/endurance/whatever, and add it to your own. Debuffs are another key utility, second only to taps imo, that binds these class types together. It doesn't matter if they are stat decreasers, slows, snares, stuns, or whatever, debuffs are important.

I canot imagine a good necro type class without these three things. The first two are pretty concrete and easy to define. The third is harder to grasp but may be the most important. Of all the caster types in nearly every game I have played, the Necro type is always amongst the most utilitarian. It's control. Their ability to master the situation through skillful use of a broad array of spells and abilities gives them their edge when other casters are nuking things to oblivion or befuddling everyone's mind.

There is one last item that always seems to define these classes, though maybe not so completely as it did in EQ1: Soloability.... we won't go there in this game

I am not completely happy with the EQ2 Necro. The addition of more life (or some other forms of) taps would be a great start to making the class better. I won't make the mistake of comparing them directly to the EQ1 Necro, though, because I know that the EQ1 Necro came about as more a matter of dumb luck than by any sort of purposeful design.

As a foot note, if any of you die-hard EQ1 Neco fans want to really talk solo, play a Necro in DAoC... I got mine to level 50 in less than three days /played without using the /level command SMILEY

Sentari · 02-08-2005, 06:32 PM

If EQ1 had the graphics engine from EQ2, Quest system from EQ2 and a few of those additional nice little things like houses etc. I would probably go back to EQ1.. Heh hehIn my honest oppinion SOE really dumbified the classes in EQ2, not just the necro. Alot of spells have been taken out, and EQ2 necros are REALLY missing the lifetaps. Necros were supposed to be the masters of tapping life from one enemy, channeling that life to their pet's / group members, using same life to recover mana, to drain more life and basically the source of all these draining chains in combat while still trying to avoid aggro. Thats what made the class fun to play, one mistake / one wrong move and you will have to FD lol

Message Edited by Sentarius on 02-08-2005 05:36 AM

01-16-2005, 08:05 AM	#4
Qrgauth Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 64	I'll await the single star, but let me say:1) Kiting, of all forms, was never an intended tactic in EQ1, and they made considerable nerfs to discourage it there, and took great pains to eliminate it in EQ2. Sony and Verant before them stated that kiting was not an intended tactic on many occasions.2) FD pulling was never an intended tactic and this was also stated many times. FD was intended to be an escape measure for the classes that could do it, not a tool to trivialize encounters. In fact, it was stated that the whole concept of the single pull was not foreseen and not intended.So those two things kind of invalidate the half your post. You're essentially complaining that you can't do stuff in EQ2 that you were never intended to do in EQ1 but that couldn't be fixed in that game.And to answer your question: Kiting allows the player to gain experience with essentially no risk. In EQ1 there was always risk to the other players nearby some nimrod kiting, but the risk to the kiter was small to none if he was at least half awake/sober.I agree about one thing though... necros were masters of conversion and that seems to be lost in EQ2. Now we're not substantially different from an EQ1 Magician, except we get less variety in pets. Message Edited by Qrgauthil on 01-15-2005 10:09 PM __________________

01-16-2005, 04:15 PM	#5
Tinantier Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 89	well, even if FD pulling and kiting were never 'intended' uses of the spells, they did become tried and tested methods used a lot. I think the excuse that 'we never intended you to use these methods' is a bit poor. One thing SoE can never nerf is the ingenuity of the players. Regardless of the restrictions you place on any method, the players will find ways to exploit the mechanics (i don't mean cheating here, I mean using the mechanics as provided to the fullest). So to me it does seem a bit silly to place artificial restrictions on methods players have been using for a long time simply because you don't like a method and you only want players to kill mobs in specific ways (Again, specifying how you want players to kill mobs is a bit of a poor excuse). Does it really matter how I kill a mob as long as I am not cheating? I also disagree that kiting was without risk - the necro snare was known to be annoyingly resistant just when you really needed it to stick (the druid snare of course was another matter). __________________

01-16-2005, 08:22 PM	#6
Qrgauth Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 64	Tinantier wrote:Does it really matter how I kill a mob as long as I am not cheating? I also disagree that kiting was without risk - the necro snare was known to be annoyingly resistant just when you really needed it to stick (the druid snare of course was another matter). Yes, it does matter.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that many of the discussions about EQ1 and EQ2 centre around game balance. Game balance is achieved in a number of ways, but one of them is setting up the encounter. If the encounter, of, say, the Avatar of War, was meant to be fought with the AoW and 5 guards, and players find a way to single pull all the guards then the AoW, the players have defeated the balance - they've succeeded at something with less risk than was intended. (Note: I'm not saying this applies to the Avatar of War encounter, I'm only making an example with that name). It doesn't matter that players are ingenious. When the players do that they have altered the balance of the game. To fix it in EQ1, you saw ever increasing numbers of hit points on mobs, weird special powers, and often nerfed down loot because eventually Sony had to assume every encounter would be single pulled (either by enchanters or FD capable people) regardless of the designer's intent. In EQ2 they just made it so you can't single pull. Now it's not an issue and the game designer's wishes for each encounter are more likely to be preserved.And although you may disagree with my observation on kiting, a simple observation of the number of necros and druids (and bards) doing it bears me out. If it wasn't so risk free, it would hardly have been a tactic so popular, and druids and necros wouldn't have been generally the richest players in the game. It was common to see a kiter grief some group of unknowing players, but it was rare to see a kiter get hosed.And let's face it here... nobody would be complaining about this if the game was easier. This is one place where the game is a little bit harder than EQ1, and that burns people's arses. Message Edited by Qrgauthil on 01-16-2005 10:25 AM __________________

01-17-2005, 02:47 AM	#7
Vidha Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3	The lines between player ingenuity, utilization of the tools given to a class, and bending/breaking the intended manner in which an encounter is faced is Very gray. Example: in Dark Age of Camelot, the level 50 epic quests were always intended to have to be done in groups, for every class. Some of them were even still incredibly difficult to do (with no deaths) with a full group and needed more people. Mythic wanted this this way, and most players do play their classes roughly within the scope that the devs wanted them to...however, at the time when the Sorcerer TL was lobbying the devs to decrease the difficulty of the Sorc Epic...a good friend of mine, who taught me to be a sorcerer...broke the mold and caused an uproar when she revealed that she did, indeed, solo the epic. No cheating, no 3rd party programs...but using the heck out of the skills a sorcerer had, using the right pets, running/ducking/dodging/kiting, along with a little prayer...and she was able to solo it. People of course called her an outright liar, cheat, etc...and it wasn't true. The people on my server who grouped pve and rvr'd with and against her knew it was true. (They knew because she was the Only person ever to also solo a frontier keep). This was done by a player in a class thought of as being notoriously weak compared to other casters. Because of all this, Mythic went and changed a BUNCH of the mechanics of the game, so that this couldn't happen again. However, it also had the effect of having the devs look at many of the complaints about the class, and fix them. Most Daoc players still consider the sorcerer to be weak, and there aren't that many of them and they're not the highest realm ranks on any server...but by the skilled players who know, the sorcerer is the most dangerous caster in the game, with the most utility, most varied gameplay, and is the most fun to play. I've played every major mmorpg out, (um, except EQ1 :smileysurprised and in my opinion the sorcerer in daoc is the very best caster class developed in any game (closely followed by the metaphysicist in AO, and the Necro in Daoc, but that's another story). However, it wasn't always so, and not by a longshot. It took 2+ years After release to finally get it right. The class was utterly broken on more than one occasion. Every time some players would figure something out that would marginally help the class or change the way they did things, people screamed nerf, the bat came out and was used. Some people quit the class, and even left the game. But, just like the game itself matured, so did the devs (players really never do) and fixes were eventually made, new things implemented to try, and eventually the class got to a point where, the players who bothered to become good at their class Knew that their class was pretty good, but not in fact overpowered. Now, what does all this blather about the sorc in daoc have to do with the necro in EQ2? Everything. Advanced development of classes in mmorpgs is a lot like battle plans in the military...they don't survive first contact with the enemy, or in our case, with us, the gamers. I have several friends that played EQ1 necros, and they said it was a great class to play, at times overpowered and at other times not, BUT it was a good class that was FUN to play. Now, the question is, when looking at the necro in EQ2, will the devs learn from their previous development? Sony has, in my opinion, taken a huge, horrible gamble in that all the classes in EQ2 are basically cookie cutter as far as individuality amongst any single class is concerned. Until now, I've NEVER played a mmorpg where I had almost 0 say in how my character developed. Heck, I can't even allocate attribute points how I want...everything is done with nearly no input from the player. Other than facial features and height, if you've seen one level 41 dark elf necromancer, you have indeed seen them all. I think it is horribly insulting for Sony to have done it. HOWEVER, on the flip side of this, they have a lot clearer view of any given class and its development, so hopefully, if they're not stuck on wanting the game to be more work than fun, they'll hopefully be able to to make changes to classes to improve them. I'm on my way with one of my characters being a necromancer (awesome looking pets, even if weak). I have to adapt a bit on how I play a pet class, because I'm used to my pets actually being able to do most of my fighting (which they should IMO, I'm definitely not a fan of my pet just being a controllable dot...at least not unless I have a slew of other nice abilities) but, I'm noping that the class will keep evolving and Sony will want to increase the fun factor and lessen the tedium. The one thing that people have to remember is that no class is done at release of the game, that's when the development really starts. Sony has a bad reputation for their nerfing, but this is THE big game for them, so for now and for a while to come I'll wait and see how things progress and hope that they'll want to improve the classes. I love the gigantic amount of content in the game even at low levels, so I'm looking forward to seeing how much I like the class. Message Edited by Vidharr on 01-16-2005 03:00 PM __________________ Nobility is defined by one's actions and ideals, not by birth. Everyone is redeemable.

01-17-2005, 05:36 AM	#8
Qrgauth Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 64	Vidharr wrote: The lines between player ingenuity, utilization of the tools given to a class, and bending/breaking the intended manner in which an encounter is faced is Very gray. No, it's not grey at all. One need only ask the designer. If it's not the way the designer intended, then that's it... there's no "maybe" or "gray" about it. It's black and white.Whether or not something will be done about it is, perhaps, another issue, but lack of a response doesn't validate it either.There's no doubt that thousands of players are collectively smarter than a handful of designers... but that doesn't mean that when someone finds a way to trivialize an encounter - even if no official rules are broken - that the encounter doesn't need to be fixed in some way. __________________

01-15-2005, 08:03 PM	#1
Tinantier Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 89	I played a necro in EQ1. I was level 68, about 200AAs and time flagged. So, having seen a run down on the other mage classes and what the author of those pieces thought was wrong with them, I will do the same here. Now I am perfectly aware that this is a new game, but having been a Necro in EQ1 for well over 3 years, I can't help but make comparisons I came to EQ2 with the idea of playing a defiler, and indeed I did, up to 31. I became frustrated with the shamans inability to heal effectively and the generally insane aggro that a combination of runes/debuffs/heals seemed to give me (to the point where the tank could not get mobs off me). This may or may not have been me - but as far as I could see, I was just keeping the tank alive, and when he is low on health , I had to heal - the complaint about 25+ groups needing 2 healers was starting to ring very true and the claim that all healers were equal but they healed in different ways is just not true. So, I have switched (or rather gone back) to the necro.So for me, there were (are?) a few things that defined a necro:1) Lifetaps2) Dots3) Get out of jail1) These seem to be sorely missing. These are one or two in there somewhere, but not until higher level. IF there was one thing I could change about the EQ2 necro it would be to give them proper lifetaps.2) Yes again they are there, but again limited. DoTs tend to last only 20-30 seconds. By the time you have a 2nd dot on, the first is half done. 3) Get of ouf jail - Necros had various methods of escaping bad situations.The primary one was of course feign death. Again, we get this but at level 43? Why do monks, bruisers and shadowknights get this early on and Necros do not? We should get this in the early 20s In my opinion.You will no doubt also say 'what about the pets?'. Yes, true - but most necros I knew (the high level experienced ones) considered the pet to be another DoT - simply one that did not need constant recasting and you could control to some extent. It was no more than another tool in our arsenal and wasn't a vital part of what we did.Necros were, in my opinion, masters of conversion and DoTs. We could convert one thing to another (our own health to mana, a mobs health to our own, our health to anothers health etc). We had a wide range of dots.On top of what we had, we also had various methods of fighting, each of which as useful in various situations. None of these appear to apply in EQ2.1) Fear kiting - we dont get a fear until 38 which immobilizes us. Although this method, which was the staple of the EQ1 necro up to 55, got nerfed to oblivion in EQ1 not so long ago when the pathing of a feared mob was changed. Dirges get a decent usable fear before 30. 2) Root Dotting - a good viable method of killing a mob. The roots we have are so unreliable that this is not a good method of killing. Even if the roots were to stick more (about 1 in 4/5 sticks properly at the moment - and the only real chance of a root sticking is when you aren't damaging the mob) - the lack of a real snare means getting a root back on before the mob reaches you in next to impossible.3) Aggro Kiting - made hard by 2 things. First, the lack of a real snare and second, dump mode. What is dump mode? This is what happens when you engage any mob. You start to run like you are desperate to take a dump. Mobs of course do not suffer from this, they simply get the animation but with the benefit of little if any speed reduction. The new snare (sic) we get now makes this sort of possible, but in all honesty, it is only just a snare and is barely worth it - you pause to recast and the mob is on you.4) FD pulling - made impossible by linked mobs. This isn't a big deal really, but it was also nice and a good feeling when you managed to separate two awkward mobs who were close to one another.5) Pet tanking - well this seems to be the only viable method we have, the pet tanks while we put on dots and heal the pet. Now the pets do seem to be better in general than the EQ1 counterparts. Lets face it, without any othe viable method of killing, they need to be.So I have to ask-- Why don't we get proper lifetaps?- Why don't we get snares - really? what is so wrong with kiting?- Why don't we get feign death at a reasonable level?Fortunately, Necros do have one thing in their favour in EQ1, they were (or rather the people behind them) masters at finding ways around any limitations. I am sure that this will run true in EQ2. so what would i change?- Give us lifetaps- Give us FD at a more reasonable level (i can live with it killing the pet as if you need to FD, chances are your pet has bought it anyway)- Give us snares and get rid of dump mode. I mean really, what is wrong with kiting?Give us necromancers! not just mages who happen to have undead pets We shouldn't need to mostly rely on pets, they should be simply another tool we have.Well these are my opinions anyway, no doubt many of you will differ __________________

01-15-2005, 08:26 PM	#2
edarkcloud Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6	Those are some of the reasons I quit the Necromancer ( if you can call it that ) here in EQ2. I don't know what is this class but it isn't Necromancer, for example let's take a look at fear, what the heck is that? you fear the mob but you can't move??? A feign death at 43???? no harmshields of any kind, no snares, I mean by just taking all these out you can't possible call this a Necromancer. When I got to 21 I just quit that sorry excuse that they call Necromancer, by away I know what a Necromancer is because I played 1 in EQ1 till level 65 with 250aa, so I know what I am talking about. You could argue this is only my opinion and you are right because it is but in my server there are only 4 yes 4 necros above level 40 the highest being level 43 while if you do a search for any other class you get no less than 17 from 40-49 , that alone should tell you something. I know this is supposed to be a differente game but they have changed greatly what Necromancers were in EQ1 and for the worst and until they do something to make them more fun to play I doubt I will ever continue that Necro.

01-16-2005, 04:55 AM	#3
UsulDaNeri Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 37	lvl 70 nec 700 AA no time gear here. why do you write novels brother? the eq2 nec is a nec for dummies. period. like the entire eq2 is for dummies compared to eq1. its sony's fully controlled kindergarden. no offense against the players, its just sony's intention :smileywink: i ordered wow. lets see what the wow warlock looks like. i doubt anyclass can beat the fun of an eq1 nec. but never give up to try some new things :smileyvery-happy: we had alot of discussions in eq1 in the last 5 years, which spell is perhaps THE CLASS DEFINING SPELL? after playing a nec in eq2 it became more clear: 1. LIFETAP 2. Snare 3. fd you may switch 2 and 3, but #1 is pretty clear for me. i am missing it so badly. and the later lifetap in eq2 is a joke, isnt it? Usul Message Edited by UsulDaNeriak on 01-16-2005 01:06 AM

02-01-2005, 11:51 AM	#9
Vidha Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3	Qrgauthil wrote: Vidharr wrote: The lines between player ingenuity, utilization of the tools given to a class, and bending/breaking the intended manner in which an encounter is faced is Very gray. No, it's not grey at all. One need only ask the designer. If it's not the way the designer intended, then that's it... there's no "maybe" or "gray" about it. It's black and white. Whether or not something will be done about it is, perhaps, another issue, but lack of a response doesn't validate it either. There's no doubt that thousands of players are collectively smarter than a handful of designers... but that doesn't mean that when someone finds a way to trivialize an encounter - even if no official rules are broken - that the encounter doesn't need to be fixed in some way. If a game is made up of only black and white, then it becomes boring and tedious, or at best Chess (I love chess, but mmorpgs don't work that way) and it's my contention that no designer would like to think of their creation that way. However, I think you're slightly misunderstanding my post in that I wholeheartedly DO agree that if an encounter has a flaw in it that allows it to be easily beaten/abused when that was not the intention, then of course it needs fixing. Moreso, if there are game mechanics that can be manipulated in unforeseen ways that provide an advantage the devs didn't plan for, they also need to be fixed. However, a skilled and intelligent gamer shouldn't be punished or his class nerfed if he/she is skillful in using the tools of the class and does something unexpected in order to complete a quest/solve a problem. I do not think that ANY encounter should be considered trivial when it falls inside the parameters set by the devs, i.e. character class N between levels X and XX should have Y% probability of completing the encounter, with Z(n) random factors possibly arising to complicate the encounter. If class N can blow through the encounter with little or none of the risk the devs intended, then the encounter needs fixed, the class doesn't need to be nerfed. (It's bad enough that SOE thinks that skillful use of terrain and environment is exploiting the game.) It is the greatest shame that devs will nerf a class when its fun to play rather than adjust other factors in the game to compensate, and this is due to the universal cry of gamers NOT of said class not wanting any other class to be better than their own. Only Turbine (of major mmorpg developers) held off for so long, stating they would adjust the game rather than nerf a class or skill...and even they caved after 5 years (nerfed triple strike for dagger wielders, and indeed they finally had no choice, the ability was just too powerful...but they tried not to). We're here in these games not because we want to grind away and toil for our entertainment, but because we want to be heroes. I'm not saying we don't want to work and earn things in our games, we just shouldn't have to suffer for them. The natural competitiveness in people make them want to be members of the class thought of as being the most powerful because somehow that reflects on their decision making and makes them intelligent...so it just won't do when someone can out-fight/out-cast/out-whatever them....and that's how most nerfs happen. Ticked off people who play other classes whine enough so that the devs gut their target class, just because a class, which IS supposed to be different from others, can accomplish an encounter easier than they can, or faster, etc. Bah, I ramble therefore I am. I'm a fan of improving classes and encounters rather than nerfing them if they don't function within the intention of the devs. Don't nerf a class, make a monster stronger, for example. My hope for the Necromancer is that they greatly improve pets. I would rather have superior pets and less personal power. As it is, my current summoner adept 3 spider is no more powerful relatively speaking than if I were to bring my Scotty along to fight with me. I don't want my family dog to be the benchmark for my pet, I want a polar bear or siberian tiger (for starters). (Actually, I want my AO metaphysical demon to be the benchmark, but I'm not holding my breath). As it is, I'm looking forward to seeing how the Necromancer develops. __________________ Nobility is defined by one's actions and ideals, not by birth. Everyone is redeemable.

02-01-2005, 07:34 PM	#10
Chandigar Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 196	First of all, to the person who said "this is not a necro!" This class is, in fact, a necro. Black magic. Undead slaves. What you mean to say is "this is not an EQ1 necro!". Which is true. Its been stated many times that this is not EQ1. Repeat after me, This is not EQ1. Since this is not EQ1, this class hasn't been nerfed. You just expected to be playing the same game with better graphics. Get over it. Repeat after me, This is not EQ1. In light of that, the rest of your arguments hold no water. They didn't take things away, they just never gave them to you to begin with. That is their planned design. As a game designer, making monsters more powerful is NOT the answer. At some point you get monsters that are so insanely powerful they kill you in one hit if they get through your armor or rune or whatever. Or stuff is set so it arbitrarily is immune to certain spells/abilities. Then it really starts to be no fun. Theres no flexibility involved, every fight you put up the same spells do the exact same things, then its just luck if the mob gets a single ucky hit through and you're dead. The ebb and flow of battle is gone. Oh and you want to be a hero? Whats heroic about dropping a dot then running as fast as you can in the opposite direction until the mob is dead? Sheesh. __________________ Queeg - Necromancer / Carpenter - Crushbone Sumas - Illusionist / Jeweller - Crushbone Neddy - Brawler / Woodworker - Crushbone

02-01-2005, 08:18 PM	#11
Qrgauth Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 64	Vidharr wrote:(It's bad enough that SOE thinks that skillful use of terrain and environment is exploiting the game.) - Skillful use of terrain is firing a bow over a hill to hit an enemy on the other side that can't see you.- Exploiting pathing to trivialize an encounter is fearing a mob so it runs into a wall or other obstacle then picking on it with impunity.One of those two things happened in EQ1. Guess which.- Skillful use of terrain is using ground and cover to obscure your approach so you can launch a massive attack with surprise.- Exploiting pathing to trivialize an encounter is to drag a mob into a spot where the AI gets stuck and can't negotiate the terrain so the mob bounces back and forth while players kill it with impunity.One of those two things happened in EQ1. Guess which.- Skillful use of environment is putting on your fire resistance gear and swimming through the lava to sneak up on an enemy.- Exploiting AI to trivialize an encounter and kill things you'd normally not be able to touch is dragging orcs from their fort to dwarven NPCs and stealing the kill after the dwarfs put the beat down on the orc.One of those two things happened in EQ1. Guess which.A lot of your post makes sense, but I fully understand Sony's interpretation of what constitutes an exploit or trivializing an encounter. Perhaps because I worked designing games for a while and have a different insight than most people, otherwise I don't know. It seems pretty clear to me. Message Edited by Qrgauthil on 02-01-2005 10:21 AM __________________

02-01-2005, 09:16 PM	#12
backya Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 105	My necro friends, please do not be upset for the game is still young and SOE knows not what they do..... but behold, as you reach lvl 35+ you will no longer thirst. This is a new game so many who have never played EQ have to get the feel. I never played EQ1 so i hardly understood what i had to do none the less played an mmorpg, 1-29 is basicaly an intro to your character so you fully understand what you must do and how to use spells. I heard this gam is designedto go to lvl 200 over time, this means TOTALY new spells and abilities. If you read the notes by the presisdent you will see there will be 2 new expansions every year and adventure packs, meaning new spells armor and mobs ect. The game is still in a todler stage, if it movedany faster those with little time to play would be left behind. thisis why its best to kinda take it slow, the new expansion is already in the works and there no telling whats up for us in these. 1-29 out of 200 is a very small fraction lvl wise to understand howto play this game but it is enough seeing how its not really needed to have super duper spells in fallen gate or nek, though in high levels zones EL ZEK and so on 29+ zones you seems to get you class spells. At 33 i have a life tap which also it and AOE dot and im about to get a spell that turns health to power, not to mention my new root that is also a dot and lower diease resist inna mob. takes a little dedication and time but you will be a necro, full blooded and cold and when the new expansions come out you will sit back and look and be glad you had time to use those mage spells cuznow you can use your necro spells to the fullest. but long story short just be patient and quit complaning lol.

02-02-2005, 09:47 AM	#13
Hadious Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 19	"1) Kiting, of all forms, was never an intended tactic in EQ1, and they made considerable nerfs to discourage it there, and took great pains to eliminate it in EQ2. Sony and Verant before them stated that kiting was not an intended tactic on many occasions."Give me a break. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that when you give a class somthing like a snare, some dot's and a unchanneled fear that there would be some form of kiting, alas Fear Kiting with the Necro. SOE can tell you all they want that kiting was never intended in EQ1, but you know what? If it wasnt never intended they had the tools to get rid of it, know why they preach the unintentions of kiting in EQLive? To get the class's that cant do it off their backs. It just boggles me, that during even the EQLive beta test years ago, the developers even during development didnt find somthing wrong with it? In fact giving the Necro a darkness line of spells (Snare+DoT) and fear was more so intended for the use of fear kiting then you want to believe. Like I said it doesnt take a rocket scientist, but if SOE told you China's population consisted of 100 people, you'd probably take that into consideration to boot.

02-03-2005, 04:09 PM	#14
Sylnt Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 27	You are right Necromancers stink. Please quit and delete your character immediately. Then sit in the corner and cry. Then go back to EQ1. Thanks please drive through. Message Edited by Sylnt on 02-03-2005 03:10 AM __________________

02-04-2005, 12:10 PM	#15
Travi Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3	You know i have to agree that the EQ2 Necro's aren't as "easy" as the EQ1 Necro's. Yes, i said "easy", in EQ1 the word was around that the Necromancer Class was the easiest to be because of all the useful tools the game gave it. Hearing that i became a Necromancer and loved every second of it because it was easy to level and do what you pleased. But that is in the past, EQ2 made the Necromancer more challenging and i for one am not complaining because i like a challenge. Yes i agree that the class should get Lifetap a HECK OF A LOT sooner then we do but thats the rules and i tend to live by them then cry and see if crying can get me my way. These are the stakes, they won't change and they won't get better so if you dont like it just change your class and make a new character. And while you're doing that i will be happy and content with my Necromancer in Nektulos Forest killing some bears and skeletons. *Veroth, Hunter of the Undead* *21 Necromancer*

02-06-2005, 11:53 AM	#17
Delfoftheb Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6	well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things

02-08-2005, 12:30 AM	#18
Qrgauth Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 64	Delfofthebla wrote: well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things Any chance someone could translate that into a language spoken on this planet? __________________

02-08-2005, 01:00 AM	#19
Chandigar Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 196	Qrgauthil wrote: Delfofthebla wrote: well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things Any chance someone could translate that into a language spoken on this planet? Tr4nzl8ion: I managed to phonetically read some of this forum and it reminded me of what the old necro was like. I had a 65 enchanter and loved it and had a necro alt. I loved the old necro. Come to think of it, the necro here sucks more than my grandma. Lol. This isn't the right place for it, but wouldn't an enchanter be more fun to someone who liked the eq1 necro? Because everything about necros here suck. I wish I were playing EQ1. __________________ Queeg - Necromancer / Carpenter - Crushbone Sumas - Illusionist / Jeweller - Crushbone Neddy - Brawler / Woodworker - Crushbone

02-08-2005, 01:21 AM	#20
Ageariashi Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 59	Nice l33t translation parser there amigo. *Edit cause I misspelled l33t...twice. Message Edited by Ageariashi on 02-07-2005 03:25 PM

02-08-2005, 02:00 AM	#21
Qrgauth Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 64	Chandigar wrote: Qrgauthil wrote: Delfofthebla wrote: well up until i read this forum (most of it) i kinda forgot wut the old necro was like...i had 65 enchanter as my main and a necro alt..i luved the nec..OLD nec..come to thing bout it...the necromancer sux more [FaarNerfed!] then...grandma..lol...anywho this isnt really the forum for it but would an enchanter be more fun to sum1 that enjoid playing eq1 enchanter? coz...well...necros get crap spells....and i miss lifetap...death pact...those kind of things Any chance someone could translate that into a language spoken on this planet? Tr4nzl8ion: I managed to phonetically read some of this forum and it reminded me of what the old necro was like. I had a 65 enchanter and loved it and had a necro alt. I loved the old necro. Come to think of it, the necro here sucks more than my grandma. Lol. This isn't the right place for it, but wouldn't an enchanter be more fun to someone who liked the eq1 necro? Because everything about necros here suck. I wish I were playing EQ1. 5* for you __________________

02-08-2005, 06:06 AM	#22
Castegyre Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 26	I played EQ1 in beta and off and on since release. I started with a Shaman main and then moved to a Mage, but I have always had a Necro alt in that game when playing. I played DAoC for almost 2 years and my main 2 Alb characters were a Cabalist and a Necro. I played RoE for over 6 months as a Necro. I have also played numerous other games/classes where a dot casting pet class was my main pick if ever available. I have now started over on a new server, and my main is now a Necro in EQ2. Reading this thread it seems to me that the main problem here is not with the EQ2 Necro, but the fact that people want the EQ2 Necro to be what the EQ1 Necro was. Many of the things that made the EQ1 Necro king of the hill for so many years, as was already stated, were not intentional design features. I remember a time when we were actually threatened with punishment if we were caught kiting in EQ1. It only lasted about a week or two until they finally let it go, but that is how strongly they felt that it was an exploitative way to hunt. They couldn't really stop kiting without all but recoding chunks of the game, so now we have what we have. I have always seen these classes, in their various guises game to game, along certain lines. There are a few things that tie them together (in no particular order); Dots: The ability to poison, disease, and generally deal damage over time thorugh nasty ways by influencing your victims body Pets: You can't be a 'Necro' type without controlling the undead. Utility: Taps generally fall under utility, but it is usually one of the universal utility features of such a class game to game. You take your targets life/power/endurance/whatever, and add it to your own. Debuffs are another key utility, second only to taps imo, that binds these class types together. It doesn't matter if they are stat decreasers, slows, snares, stuns, or whatever, debuffs are important. I canot imagine a good necro type class without these three things. The first two are pretty concrete and easy to define. The third is harder to grasp but may be the most important. Of all the caster types in nearly every game I have played, the Necro type is always amongst the most utilitarian. It's control. Their ability to master the situation through skillful use of a broad array of spells and abilities gives them their edge when other casters are nuking things to oblivion or befuddling everyone's mind. There is one last item that always seems to define these classes, though maybe not so completely as it did in EQ1: Soloability.... we won't go there in this game I am not completely happy with the EQ2 Necro. The addition of more life (or some other forms of) taps would be a great start to making the class better. I won't make the mistake of comparing them directly to the EQ1 Necro, though, because I know that the EQ1 Necro came about as more a matter of dumb luck than by any sort of purposeful design. As a foot note, if any of you die-hard EQ1 Neco fans want to really talk solo, play a Necro in DAoC... I got mine to level 50 in less than three days /played without using the /level command __________________ "The only limitations to our potential are those boundaries which we refuse to cross." Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

02-08-2005, 06:32 PM	#23
Sentari Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 11	If EQ1 had the graphics engine from EQ2, Quest system from EQ2 and a few of those additional nice little things like houses etc. I would probably go back to EQ1.. Heh hehIn my honest oppinion SOE really dumbified the classes in EQ2, not just the necro. Alot of spells have been taken out, and EQ2 necros are REALLY missing the lifetaps. Necros were supposed to be the masters of tapping life from one enemy, channeling that life to their pet's / group members, using same life to recover mana, to drain more life and basically the source of all these draining chains in combat while still trying to avoid aggro. Thats what made the class fun to play, one mistake / one wrong move and you will have to FD lol Message Edited by Sentarius on 02-08-2005 05:36 AM