Suggestions

What you describe is a mechanism that I had suggested a few years ago. It seems to be hard to implement or is not desired. Currently the higher level PCs are basically powerleveling the lower ones which has the effect that conventional experience groups or players tend to invite higher level PCs over lower level PCs. Without that current inherent mechanism PL won't be as OPed as it is atm.

Let me complete that for you:
...a bunch of great ideas.

There are no conventional xp groups. Please don't build your nerf request on a foundation of lies.

The 30 level spread is not as powerful as having level 120 buffs work for full on level 70 chars. Before they look at lowering the level spread they need to limit the power of high level buffs on lower level chars. When I think of power leveling I think more of high level druids buffing up lower level chars with huge DS and regen, hitting the mob once and letting it die to the DS. Its that type of PL that monopolize zones, not those actually grouped.

That is the claim? That a level 60 can group for xp with someone from level 60 to level 120? What exactly is the problem with that? I fail to see how someone having a wider variety of options for grouping with is a bad thing. Sure that one player can chose from that entire level range but once the group is going that is cut down to 30 levels.

Some people seem confused about the term 'balance'. Class balance doesn't mean that every class is equally capable at doing everything. It simply means there are fair and reasonable tradeoffs and that one class should not be the best at everything. It's perfectly fine that Warriors can't solo like an SK as long as they are the best overall at tanking, etc.

Then maybe devs should go back to reading some of the basics for each class and evaluating the original powers each class had pre luclin. SK should only be able to tank lesser raid bosses and only when very well geared. War should be required for most raid targets.

I view it as warrior is 100% of a tank and sk and pal should only be 75% as effective. But i hear that now sk and pal are tanking alot of raids using certain combinations of buffs/skills.

Along the same lines a wiz should be 100% a nuker and mage should only be 75% as effective at nuking, with pet dps factored in.

Cleric should be 100% best healer while druid and shaman should only be 75% as effective in healing. But most of the time people will get a shaman and pop a cleric merc instead of picking a cleric and adding another player.

And rangers should be at least 50-60% a tank too. I mean they have taunt after all.

There are exp groups but not many because the game is broken, get it ? Some years ago when I made a similar statement everyone here was trying to tell me that the game is fine. What you call a nerf request is actually the cure. Calling me a liar is just your own fear and hate because you think negative and selfish.

"a wider variety of options for grouping" is a sick euphemism for PL. Playing devils advocate ?

It is obvious that the majority of the active players in this thread see PL and the thereby arisen multiboxing as the new normal, as the now conventional playstyle and they have no clue what an experience group where all group members had about equal powers and were played by individual beings once was. I will tell you what the problem is: It are selfish and antisocial players like you that have ruined the game ! A lvl 60 PC is contributing NOTHING to the group when being grouped with an active level 90 PC that is doing the kills, but does level 100 times faster for doing NOTHING.

I suggest we roll the game back to velious and try to be even more accurate about it than p99, then call it everquest 1.5 and develop new expansions that dont include luclin ideas. Meaning no aa points and no vex thal candyland of gear. Instead the expansion after velious could have another continent beyond velious where there is a war between orcs and elves theme. The raid bosses could drop some gear equal to vulak aerrs and some new ancient spells but nothing exponentially more powerful.

I dont know, gonna see what lore people would like but need input from p99 crowd.

The original game was pretty bad at balance too so I don't expect them to make considerations going that far back. There's really no good year where everything was done right for them to use as a basis.

I am not sure what your obsession with people getting a power level is but there is absolutely no problem with the current and providing a wider range helps solve the problem that people don't have others in the level range to group with as they level up. There is absolutely no harm that is done by a player grouping lower level toons to help them and later grouping with higher level toons to get help themselves. It would be one thing if there was a larger player base and people can easily find groups at all levels ranges but that will likely never be the case on most servers again.

And what is wrong with that? It means they will be contributing to the group a lot sooner than if they didn't get that much exp.

I've had the same basic group since we went into lockdown in 2020, we all hooked up together as we all were stuck at home and slowly going insane. Group is basically, SK, Monk and me (rogue), we used to have a necro, beast and cleric who played with us as the perfect group, but as things returned to normal we have lost the last 3 and pick up players from general channel.

At the end of last year when we were level 115 we had a level 97 join us from general. He didn't contribute much to the killing of mobs but was chatty and fun, it did us no harm having him in the group, if anything having him with us added to the enjoyment of the group. We still group with them every once in a while when we have room, he is max level now and doing well for AA.

If you got your way that player would have been left LFG and we wouldn't have had half as much fun with a DPS merc. So while he didnt contribute much to the killing of the mob, he did contribute to the social side of things.

120 buffs sure are nice for getting from 70-80 or maybe 85. After that, grouping is faster in my experience. Not to mention much less work for the PL-ed.

Integration of two old suggestions. No need for re-discussion here !
Discussion in their own threads please, one is locked anyway.


2018-11-05
37. Adjusting the game to the actual market situation

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/adjusting-the-game-to-the-actual-market-situation.252429


2021-12-21
38. New account models including Limited Lifetime Membership

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/new-account-models-including-limited-lifetime-membership.279905

They are not going to lower the price of the game as it is actually cheaper then it used to be once you account for inflation. And lifetime memberships will not happen as that is bad for revenue.

I'd like to see you prove that. Of the five people I know who purchased a lifetime subscription, ever single one of them had quit with in two years of purchase.

Prove that people who are playing the game but not paying a subscription because they are lifetime don't generate subscription revenue? Just because you can point to 5 people who quit doesn't mean others can't point to many more people who purchased the lifetime subscription offer are are still playing. Or more people who could point to those who would jump at another lifetime subscription offer if they put one up again in order to never worry about paying a subscription fee again.

Lifetime member was $300 as of Dec 31st 2018, so the break even point was Dec 31st 2021. Those who quit before then 'lost' money.

The five people I know, lost the bet and would have been better off to go annual.

But, neither of us can prove the value of the lifetime subscriptions. We don't have all the membership numbers.

If you want to counter my data point answer:

How many people do you know purchased a lifetime subscription?
How many of them are still playing?

That fact that you know 5 players who quit after buying it or how many players I know who bought it and are still playing is not relevant. The life time membership does not bring any any revenue for Daybreak past that break even point and they have no reason to offer it again when it just means they have more players who are no longer paying.

This isn't about how many people that took advantage of that offer that are still playing but the overall calculation on what the long term impact will be. I don't think we will see that offer again unless they need an infusion of cash near the end of the year.

39. Magician - Monster Summoning

Conversion of the Monster Summoning spell line into a single dynamic pet illusion spell. No need for many ranks just Monster Summoning (I) would be enough. I partially like the idea how it currently works which is that the magician does receive a pet that does look like a mob NPC model from the current zone but the pets are much to weak and useless.

I only know of one quest where this spell line is currently used so that it would have to get adapted: An Epic Request / Retelling.

The concept of the Nostalgic lvl 60 gear upgrade quest has finally been completely tested, adjusted and finished. About 20 hours of work had been spent on the creation of this quest. An unique quality of life reward got added to make it even more favourable; for everyone.

Constructive feedback is welcome. Add a like (at the linked suggestion) if you want to support the idea !