Do we ever get a Mem Wipe?

Maroger · 03-15-2006, 01:17 AM

Do we get a mem wipe or is that just another spell that developers left out when they were hacking the old EQ1 Enchanter class apart to make 2 classes ( both of which are sadly gimped when compared to the superior Enchanter class in EQ1).

My EQ1 Enchanter had better spells at Level 22 than does my EQ2 Coercer :smileymad:

nithrill · 03-15-2006, 01:20 AM

Maroger wrote:
Do we get a mem wipe or is that just another spell that developers left out when they were hacking the old EQ1 Enchanter class apart to make 2 classes ( both of which are sadly gimped when compared to the superior Enchanter class in EQ1).

My EQ1 Enchanter had better spells at Level 22 than does my EQ2 Coercer :smileymad:

Yes, but it doesn't work like the one in EQ1 ... specifically you can't power level with it SMILEY

Mandelbro · 03-15-2006, 06:00 AM

Amnesia is the closest thing we get to a mem wipe. You are the only thing on the hate list, with a small amount of hate, after the stun wears off.

Maroger · 03-15-2006, 07:17 AM

Mandelbrodt wrote:Amnesia is the closest thing we get to a mem wipe. You are the only thing on the hate list, with a small amount of hate, after the stun wears off.

It is not just MEM WIPE I miss, but I see no Pacify to split mobs -- I mean they through all the great spell when they did a coercer. Why couldn't they leave well enough alone and just use the enchanter as he was in EQ1. I mean they didn't change Paladins, SKs, Necros that much why did they have to tinker and destroy enchanters. The designer who worked on COercers must have been a total [Removed for Content] to ruin and [Removed for Content] a class so badly.

Eriol · 03-16-2006, 12:53 AM

Maroger wrote:I mean they didn't change Paladins, SKs, Necros that much why did they have to tinker and destroy enchanters.

hahahaha!!! Didn't change them? I played 2/3 of those in EQ1 (sk and necro) and play 2/3 of those in eq2 (pally and necro (my main actually) ) and this statement is just ludicrous.A necromancer in EQ2 is almost NOTHING like a necromancer in EQ1. In eq1, you can be 90%+ effective in groups without a pet (and prior to having "/pet hold," groups often didn't WANT you to have your pet up), and often you didn't solo with a pet in many situations (or it was pure DPS, like fear/agro kiting). Considering that there was also no less than 8 (I think it was more) different stackable DoT lines, and everything ELSE a necro had (mana taps, greater focus on health transfers/taps, CC), it's a completely different character in EQ2: which is basically a disease-focused magician/conjuror. They're definitely a lot closer to the eq1 magician (of which I had a post-EP one, so I know what that was like too) than the eq1 necro.And Pallies/SKs? Ha! Warriors with some cleric/necro spells in eq1, now a complete division of fighters in EQ2, with main abilities with no parallel to eq1. Again, drastically different.Now that's not to say that they DIDN'T destroy the whole "enchanter package", but saying "look at x, y, z classes that they didn't change!" is completely bogus. It just destroys any credibility of your argument by bringing in such stupid and easily-refuted examples.

Maroger · 03-16-2006, 01:45 AM

Eriol wrote:
Maroger wrote:I mean they didn't change Paladins, SKs, Necros that much why did they have to tinker and destroy enchanters.
hahahaha!!! Didn't change them? I played 2/3 of those in EQ1 (sk and necro) and play 2/3 of those in eq2 (pally and necro (my main actually) ) and this statement is just ludicrous.A necromancer in EQ2 is almost NOTHING like a necromancer in EQ1. In eq1, you can be 90%+ effective in groups without a pet (and prior to having "/pet hold," groups often didn't WANT you to have your pet up), and often you didn't solo with a pet in many situations (or it was pure DPS, like fear/agro kiting). Considering that there was also no less than 8 (I think it was more) different stackable DoT lines, and everything ELSE a necro had (mana taps, greater focus on health transfers/taps, CC), it's a completely different character in EQ2: which is basically a disease-focused magician/conjuror. They're definitely a lot closer to the eq1 magician (of which I had a post-EP one, so I know what that was like too) than the eq1 necro.And Pallies/SKs? Ha! Warriors with some cleric/necro spells in eq1, now a complete division of fighters in EQ2, with main abilities with no parallel to eq1. Again, drastically different.Now that's not to say that they DIDN'T destroy the whole "enchanter package", but saying "look at x, y, z classes that they didn't change!" is completely bogus. It just destroys any credibility of your argument by bringing in such stupid and easily-refuted examples.

I soloed the Necro and so Pet Hold was not a problem for me --- I find the Necro in EQ2 as soloable as she was in EQ1 but at least we still get Lifetap. While the spells may be somewhat different the solability of the necro was not destroyed as is the case with the enchanter. I don't however, find them close to an EQ1 mage.

I mean Pallies and SK's were always considered tanks in EQ1 and often used as tanks in groups. I know my SK sure was but I wish I still got the lifetaps the SK got, but even with the spell changes I still considered them pretty similar to EQ1 -

I just don't think those classes were as badly ruined as the enchanter was -- and I still insist that whatever developer worked on coercers was a [Removed for Content].

The problem goes back to the archetype design -- that was where they hurt themselves. I think they should have made all the classes very similar to their EQ1 versions instead of trying to do something different. I think now they should make a big effort to put them back the way they used to be instead of marching down the failure route which they are embarked on.

But I still think enchanters were the MOST destroyed class by the developers.

durro68 · 03-16-2006, 07:39 AM

I never played EQ1 and I get tired of people comparing this game to 'the good old days' of EQ2 - it is a different game, made by different people.

Go play EQ1 if you want EQ1 toons ... it is as easy as that.

As for solo ability I just started a Coercer 10 days ago (04/03/06 or if you are not australian 03/04/06) I will hit L40 tonight 90% of this has been solo (I am grinding this toon up for my guild). I admit the game is getting easier than when it was released but none of my other toons can solo ^^^ mobs orange to them - yes I die alot but I can still do it.

I am having a great time on the Coercer - yes it gets borring mincing ^^^ solos one after the other but I would never have even dreamed of doing that on my L62 monk or L58 templar, they just could not do it.

Coercers are very strong solo and fun in groups. When I start to raid I hope am sure I will still enjoy it - but as I said I dont look back at EQ1 and think the class is so much less now.

Cheers

Queeky L39 Coercer - Nexus - Najena

03-15-2006, 01:20 AM	#2
nithrill Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 124	Maroger wrote: Do we get a mem wipe or is that just another spell that developers left out when they were hacking the old EQ1 Enchanter class apart to make 2 classes ( both of which are sadly gimped when compared to the superior Enchanter class in EQ1). My EQ1 Enchanter had better spells at Level 22 than does my EQ2 Coercer :smileymad: Yes, but it doesn't work like the one in EQ1 ... specifically you can't power level with it __________________ ... I see you - Nithrill - 65 Coercer - Harlequin, The world of Runnyeye

03-16-2006, 12:53 AM	#5
Eriol Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,125	Maroger wrote:I mean they didn't change Paladins, SKs, Necros that much why did they have to tinker and destroy enchanters. hahahaha!!! Didn't change them? I played 2/3 of those in EQ1 (sk and necro) and play 2/3 of those in eq2 (pally and necro (my main actually) ) and this statement is just ludicrous.A necromancer in EQ2 is almost NOTHING like a necromancer in EQ1. In eq1, you can be 90%+ effective in groups without a pet (and prior to having "/pet hold," groups often didn't WANT you to have your pet up), and often you didn't solo with a pet in many situations (or it was pure DPS, like fear/agro kiting). Considering that there was also no less than 8 (I think it was more) different stackable DoT lines, and everything ELSE a necro had (mana taps, greater focus on health transfers/taps, CC), it's a completely different character in EQ2: which is basically a disease-focused magician/conjuror. They're definitely a lot closer to the eq1 magician (of which I had a post-EP one, so I know what that was like too) than the eq1 necro.And Pallies/SKs? Ha! Warriors with some cleric/necro spells in eq1, now a complete division of fighters in EQ2, with main abilities with no parallel to eq1. Again, drastically different.Now that's not to say that they DIDN'T destroy the whole "enchanter package", but saying "look at x, y, z classes that they didn't change!" is completely bogus. It just destroys any credibility of your argument by bringing in such stupid and easily-refuted examples. __________________ Eriol Ancalagon A Summoner's Fall into Darkness

03-16-2006, 01:45 AM	#6
Maroger Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,313	Eriol wrote: Maroger wrote:I mean they didn't change Paladins, SKs, Necros that much why did they have to tinker and destroy enchanters. hahahaha!!! Didn't change them? I played 2/3 of those in EQ1 (sk and necro) and play 2/3 of those in eq2 (pally and necro (my main actually) ) and this statement is just ludicrous.A necromancer in EQ2 is almost NOTHING like a necromancer in EQ1. In eq1, you can be 90%+ effective in groups without a pet (and prior to having "/pet hold," groups often didn't WANT you to have your pet up), and often you didn't solo with a pet in many situations (or it was pure DPS, like fear/agro kiting). Considering that there was also no less than 8 (I think it was more) different stackable DoT lines, and everything ELSE a necro had (mana taps, greater focus on health transfers/taps, CC), it's a completely different character in EQ2: which is basically a disease-focused magician/conjuror. They're definitely a lot closer to the eq1 magician (of which I had a post-EP one, so I know what that was like too) than the eq1 necro.And Pallies/SKs? Ha! Warriors with some cleric/necro spells in eq1, now a complete division of fighters in EQ2, with main abilities with no parallel to eq1. Again, drastically different.Now that's not to say that they DIDN'T destroy the whole "enchanter package", but saying "look at x, y, z classes that they didn't change!" is completely bogus. It just destroys any credibility of your argument by bringing in such stupid and easily-refuted examples. I soloed the Necro and so Pet Hold was not a problem for me --- I find the Necro in EQ2 as soloable as she was in EQ1 but at least we still get Lifetap. While the spells may be somewhat different the solability of the necro was not destroyed as is the case with the enchanter. I don't however, find them close to an EQ1 mage. I mean Pallies and SK's were always considered tanks in EQ1 and often used as tanks in groups. I know my SK sure was but I wish I still got the lifetaps the SK got, but even with the spell changes I still considered them pretty similar to EQ1 - I just don't think those classes were as badly ruined as the enchanter was -- and I still insist that whatever developer worked on coercers was a [Removed for Content]. The problem goes back to the archetype design -- that was where they hurt themselves. I think they should have made all the classes very similar to their EQ1 versions instead of trying to do something different. I think now they should make a big effort to put them back the way they used to be instead of marching down the failure route which they are embarked on. But I still think enchanters were the MOST destroyed class by the developers.

03-15-2006, 01:17 AM	#1
Maroger Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,313	Do we get a mem wipe or is that just another spell that developers left out when they were hacking the old EQ1 Enchanter class apart to make 2 classes ( both of which are sadly gimped when compared to the superior Enchanter class in EQ1). My EQ1 Enchanter had better spells at Level 22 than does my EQ2 Coercer :smileymad:

03-15-2006, 06:00 AM	#3
Mandelbro Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 235	Amnesia is the closest thing we get to a mem wipe. You are the only thing on the hate list, with a small amount of hate, after the stun wears off.

03-15-2006, 07:17 AM	#4
Maroger Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,313	Mandelbrodt wrote:Amnesia is the closest thing we get to a mem wipe. You are the only thing on the hate list, with a small amount of hate, after the stun wears off. It is not just MEM WIPE I miss, but I see no Pacify to split mobs -- I mean they through all the great spell when they did a coercer. Why couldn't they leave well enough alone and just use the enchanter as he was in EQ1. I mean they didn't change Paladins, SKs, Necros that much why did they have to tinker and destroy enchanters. The designer who worked on COercers must have been a total [Removed for Content] to ruin and [Removed for Content] a class so badly.

03-16-2006, 07:39 AM	#7
durro68 Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 8	I never played EQ1 and I get tired of people comparing this game to 'the good old days' of EQ2 - it is a different game, made by different people. Go play EQ1 if you want EQ1 toons ... it is as easy as that. As for solo ability I just started a Coercer 10 days ago (04/03/06 or if you are not australian 03/04/06) I will hit L40 tonight 90% of this has been solo (I am grinding this toon up for my guild). I admit the game is getting easier than when it was released but none of my other toons can solo ^^^ mobs orange to them - yes I die alot but I can still do it. I am having a great time on the Coercer - yes it gets borring mincing ^^^ solos one after the other but I would never have even dreamed of doing that on my L62 monk or L58 templar, they just could not do it. Coercers are very strong solo and fun in groups. When I start to raid I hope am sure I will still enjoy it - but as I said I dont look back at EQ1 and think the class is so much less now. Cheers Queeky L39 Coercer - Nexus - Najena