racial traits are being revamped

real life rascism aside.. Dirges don't have so much in common with assassins lorewise half elf fit nice to dirges imo, especialy because they have no real culture(much to suffer and so on..). And please tell us how other races equal this scout superiority of dark elves in other aspects without using ogre and erudite as example, are they just inferior?

Lhangion@Innovation wrote:

This is a recent post on eq2flames. Note the changes to Fury of Innoruk. DE are not the gods of the scout class.

Originally Posted by Aeralik

When and were did SoE PROMISE that race would mean NOTHING?
What do you click I agree to every time you play this game?
With in the EULA does it or does it not say game play may change?


Please everyone who is complaining that the game is changing, remember this is a MMO, things change.

Even if we assume SoE did promise race would never mean anything, then we have to remember they also promised no epic weapons, so how many people are complain that epic weapons are being added?

shadowfalx wrote:

When? November 2004.

No they did not, they said "Any race CAN play any class" They never said "All races will be exactly equal to each other when playing any class" else why the stat differences?

Also just to add, I think it is great that some people do not like these changes, but instead of acting like 5 year olds saying "You promised me daddy" do some constructive criticisms and explain look at it logically, the Devs want race/class differences, so instead of complaining it is there, try and balance it out a bit. If you thin FoI is over powered, state exactly why it is over powered, and suggest a way to fix it.

Raveller wrote:

Here's a link to a site that hasn't been updated for a long time http://everquest2.gameamp.com/info/showRaces If you look closely at the overview of races, it certainly says that certain races are designed to be better at certain classes.
They said any race could be any class, but never said it would be equal.

TheSpin wrote:

I looked over that website, and it never says that races are designed to be better, it just says what is the traditional class, that is it. No more, no less.

But lets look at humans for example:

Alright, so with being a human, my traditional role is everything. Pretty awesome. But wait! My racial traits don't help me if I'm a priest or a mage, heck they don't help me if I'm either a fighter or a scout either. So should they be: "Traditional Roles: Harvesters and Tradeskillers" ? Thats what I get a bonus to.

But ya know what, fine. I'm still against racial traits in general, but if you want to give new and fun things to races, go for it. But please, give all races something amazing. Or if not, make them all pointless and fun like glide or super jump. Cause ya know, I can totally compare summoning pointless food and drink to a +15% speed increase in stealth. One is worthless, the other is kinda fun.

Seriously, I am sure that +2% crit will be about as important on level 80 raids as +20 to a specific stat was at level 50 raids. And for anyone saying that oddball combos didn't make a difference before, how much money did you use to pay for a 20 point upgrade to a stat?
Yeah, as level increases have come out, its become quite the norm to hit caps with gear alone so people seem to say don't worry about what class you pick. These caps are gonna get met in other areas for hardcore raiders for these other important numbers. Relax, it isn't going to be the game breaking difference you think it will be.
Someone said that the 2% crit of a non-DE would be noticable over the 4% crit of a DE scout (assuming one piece of +2% gear was found). Sure, thats a big difference. But when considering many pieces of gear, and AAs, 58% versus 60% (approximate possibilities guesstimated)....is almost nothing. When the hardcore raiders get to that point of raiding the high end RoK stuff, and suddently its a difference of 3500 DPS versus 3505 DPS....I mean come on.

Rifts@Unrest wrote:

Humans got a + to pretty much all combat oriented skills....at least a + to something each class can use. It's not completely useless. It would actually be pretty nice for some classes, especially hybrid ones that need both weapon skills and casting skills.
I'm not sure which races you mean when you say they got 'something amazing'

Gladiia@The Bazaar wrote:

I'm just curious if you've ever raided. And I don't mean the simpler zones, or casual raids, or whatnot, but actually been in a raid where the goal was to be the very best that you can be. 2% crit is still 2% crit that you didn't have. I've seen people bid a large amount of their dkp for something that has a proc or an extra crit percentage. Why do you think that scouts went after the Sour Song Choker over the MoA? Because it had that extra 2% crit that the other one didn't. But you could be quite right about the high end stuff. I've seen the trouby set gear, and it looks pretty amazing. Granted, we get no spell crits in it (in fact, the only thing that helps with our spells is the chest piece... figure that), so I would much rather have a racial bonus of 2% crit to make up for it. Because, as I said before, when you look at numbers 2% is still 2% more.

TheSpin wrote:

You're right, they get one decent thing. Except if you're a mage or a priest. Disruption? Please... you can hit any mob in the game as long as it's been debuffed. And ministration? The returns on that is pointless. So alright, ya got me. Humans are good (barely) at scouts and fighters. Though I'm sure most of them would rather have + double attacks, + crit, or even +ae attack.

As for amazing, I see the +crits, +ae attacks, +double attacks, +25% more poison, FoI, 100 ward for all damage (depending how long it replenishes), and 5% casting reduction amazing compared to anything Humans gets. Ooo, +skills and a 10 min faster call home sure do make up for those skills.

Rifts@Unrest wrote:

I just had to mention that dark elves don't get +2% crit....they get +2% double attack (so do frogloks). A lot of races do get 2% crit though. A couple (barb and troll) get 1% crit, 1% double attack.

TheSpin wrote:

Oh, forgive me for going off of the info that someone els posted as an example. Care to change the DE to say... ratonga and the point is made just fine. But then look at classes such as humans and frogloks who don't get anything like that. And it's slightly interesting to think that they are the only races that don't get crits at all. Care to think of a reason for that?

Rifts@Unrest wrote:

If that was really true, than harcore raiders right now would demand that their force pick races that give them the best stats for their class. And they don't. You're missing my point - at level 80 (not 70) it won't matter enough. Yeah, 2% is 2% no matter how you look at it...unless that 2% takes you past a cap. And then...well then it isn't 2%

Rifts@Unrest wrote:

I just mentioned in my above post that frogloks get 2% double attack. Humans get + to all weapon skills instead of just one so that's a perk (not saying it's 100% even, but you do have to land your attack before you get a chance to either crit or double attack)
I'm just trying to say that while many races are definately better suited to certain classes, there are no races that will have an obvious advantage over 2-3 other races for any given class combo for the most part.

Gladiia@The Bazaar wrote:

Actually, the raiders have said a lot of stuff about this, just on a more "user-unfriendly" forum because they have the freedom of flaming people where as this forum you do not.

So are you saying that we should be getting so much crit chances to go over the cap? That's pretty impressive, and I haven't seen any set of gear that will do that. Perhaps its in the fabled jewelery, haven't seen much of that. However, I still beg to differ. While the 2% crit chance may not matter so much at 80, I'm sure it'll matter below 80. I'd give a lot for gear at lvl 30 that gives me crit, would sure make farming a bit easier.

TheSpin wrote:

Um, so you stated in you're post that frogloks get double attack, could you please show me someplace else that has it? All I can find is:
"Froglok - Not Confirmed by me
Innates:
Gills - Water breathing
Hydromotion - water jumping

Choices:
Fervor of Marr - 10% Metal shaping power reduction (P)
Zealotry of Marr - 5% Metal working success chance (P)
Soft Landing - 25% falling damage reduction (P)
Hop - super jump
Astounding Leap - blink + deaggro
Cold Blooded - heat/cold split
Natural Acrobat - 5 agi
Valor in Battle - ? + crush / heal crit + minstration
Marr's Glorious Blade - ae melee attack
Spontaneous Metamorphosis - 3% health (P) "

Sure don't see +2% double attacks there. Unless of course thats the ?, in which case I'll apologize for being mis-informed.

You also say "I'm just trying to say that while many races are definately better suited to certain classes, there are no races that will have an obvious advantage over 2-3 other races for any given class combo for the most part." Alright, so it's for the most part, but it needs to be 100%. And not just that, it needs to be that no races have an obvious advantage over all other races for any given class combo to make things fair. I, for one, do not appreciate being told "Hey, you know that char that you've been playing with since launch? Yeah, that one that you've played for three years. Well, I know it won't matter to most people, but we are gimping that character because you chose the wrong race back when race ment nothing. You don't like it? Too bad, go re-roll. Should have played a Dark Elf."

Rifts@Unrest wrote:

Prior to level 80....yeah, probably will be a slightly noticable difference. Probably a rather big difference pre-70 (to crit damage at least). But, I think the people that are the hardest interested in the littler of details are most likely the ones that are making a beeline for 80. I don't know just how much of a difference 2% crit, versus some of the other options will play out while in the leveling process, but in the end, when the min/maxing is not so neccessary it probably isn't a big enough difference to warrent rerolling a level 70 toon to help level in the t8 zones. And I firmly believe that while their may be a minor difference to raiding effectiveness that it won't be any more noticable then a 20 point difference in stats was in level 50 raids.

Rifts@Unrest wrote:

Rifts, your response to me has nothing to do with what I meant in my post. SO I am going to disregard your reply. As for the bottom portion of your post, this IS EXACTLY what I was trying to say. I wholeheartedly agree! My whole point, which I was trying to make (to the other poster who was trying to say they're diversifying), in the end they are not diversifying. As you said all new mages will be erudite and as I said "What I see is they are making it less diverse by making every race suitable for a certain class. You'll be seeing a lot of Ogre tanks, a lot of harvest bots as Humans, a lot of Wood elves as rangers etc."

Edit: My opening message, in your quote, was my interpretation of the other poster. I forgive you though

shadowfalx wrote:

When? Never, It was never said, theres no link to it , theres no quote to it .. and there will never will be unless someone edits something to force it to be.

The only thing along the lines that was ever said, was that each Race could be any class with work done...

The races where not equal on stats and abilities at start.. It would have been contradiction for someone to say "we Promise that all races are equal for all classes"