With that eq 200 lvl rangers wont have to heal in azure dragons i guess. So it would affect more than just mages. Labaddia will be able to deso 8 hellish magus at once.

You know adding some percentage based resistance helps more those who already have a lot of it.
Like fortification helps warriors a lot more than mages, so magic resistance helps mages (in pvp) more than the others. (thats about blocking part). On the other hand mages will get weaker in pvp cuz their all damage will be reduced as warriors/rangers only a smaller part of dmg (spells).

If a mage wears full magic resistance eq rangers will be way more dangerous than other mages for them. Even now mages are scared of rangers and I would rather get atacked by 3lvl 100 mages than 100lvl rangers (maybe neither of these will have power to take me down, but constant damage from rangers wont let me kill any of those while i could time to headshot one of mages.

Balance is very hard to talk about... read again what u writed... and what lot of ppl write before... you will notice that we can never take a decision... is always matter of pros and cons... if you balance 100% than no one will kill no one...

On the pvp classes must have vantages and weakness against each other... if balanced 100% no one dies.

Problem is when ONE class is the master of the universe... right thing is when u close a chain where, for exemples: Warrior strong against ranger, ranger strong against mage, mage strong against warrior or so on...

I don't know if I put my ideais right, if you can understand... but... you got it?

In my last few posts I stated the magic resist from EQ should be the same as the talents/pots which only apply to monsters.

The problem currently is mages are the tankiest and most powerful classes which skews PvP a little, it also makes it so monsters have to be balanced oddly.

Also whats the problem with rangers not having to heal on azures? currently mages don't have to heal in any spawn and thats one of the main reasons no ranger/warrior can get close to the EXP/H a mage makes.

At dark knights a 225 ranger makes on average 1.8kk/h(on Pharos, with 100 distance) that's with spamming lethal ambush(costs more than all mages except pyro to hunt) while a warlock of the same level was making 2.6kk/h wasting less.
I think a few of these stats will benefit rangers/warriors more and may actually bring them somewhat close to mages.

All I'm saying is currently mages have a lot more Pros than cons. (We all know mages scale a LOT more per level based on the formulas K-Z gave us)

One more time I log in and the server goes down. There is One problem with my character.......

Pharos is a little different than 1x world cuz rangers didnt manage to get their distance. Also u take rangers not the best spawn versus warlock best spawn.
In platon at lvl 70 ranger i was doing 600k exp/h in dire boars (120dist) which would be 1.8kk on pharos.
Okay i got higher dist than 225ranger, but that ranger deals a lot more dmg with spells so he can easily get more exp/h than 70lvl 120dist. 225ranger can make over your stated 1.8kk in many places. Crystals, yetis, azure dragons, xyo dragons...
And u take 225 warlock and say he make 2.6kk? 2 places lince ghosts (need quest) and maybe just maybe nocturnes (he wont keep it for hour).

Deadpool can get more exp/h than baltas in platon.
Take your 225ranger and take 225 shaman, go to azures and check if shaman will make more exp/h.

P.s. i believe 2x on training should stay after 100 as well. Cuz after a 100 skill is reached i agree that mage starts to run away from rangers/warriors.

P.s.s. if u play 10hours a day mage is better to play. But if u try to balance it so that 10h a day play time will help warrior/ranger the same then those who play little will rock too good on rangers/warriors. Because if u play 1h a day its better to play warrior/ranger in 1h playing time u not only get 1h of exping but also 48hours (in pharos) of training~. And because u cant train more. Every other hour when u r not doing a task lets mage first catch u and then pass.

How balance makes impossible to kill anyone? Balance doesnt mean that i survive all and everyone survives me. It means that i hurt others as much as they hurt me. If some voc is worse in pvp, it should be as much better in pvm. Thats the balance. You probably miss understanding the term.

The EXP/h I stated was at Dark knight on both the ranger (Vizier) and the warlock (Geezus) the thing is to get 120+ distance it's 1? year of training, so for a warrior/ranger to even come close to getting the same exp/h I have to just wait a year plus first?

Taking deadpool in to account is crazy as he has 147+18 Distance and is the highest ranger on the game of course he out damages a 247 warlock.

The only thing I can give my opinion on is Pharos as that's the server I play and the last server I played was Everath which made it worse.

The other fact is a Ranger has a lot worse survive-ability and damage output than any of the mages while still costing more to hunt (If you even think about not using lethal ambush 24/7 your going to be on stupidly low exp/h)

You cant compare a ranger with anything thats been on training for 5 years? i dont know.. probs not 5 years but that beside the point.
You cant compare a ranger with 280 lvl, 147+18 and a belgian pistol.. you cant really compare that to anything as hes been training for that for a very long time.

Look at pharos, its been up for 4 months now and mages always had a lead on EVERYONE.
I wont be able to compare to ANY mages exp for atleast 1 year.

Rangers do have a very slow eurly game as a mage ONLY has to put time in their character and be the most tank and deal the most dmg.

Rogue's need to spend more money to hunt to compare to a mages his exp.
Rogues do less exp than a mage cuz they have a very slow eurly game and it takes ages to get up at a decent distance.
Rogues cant hunt on lifesteal unless they spam their spells and have a decent bow/skill.

Mages can straight up hunt ANYTHING that doesnt paralyze them as they run around comboing for 2k each 4/5 seconds.
Hunting everything off lifesteal with tons of magic resist.

Mages are made to be better in anything according to k-z's formulas.

You look short term guys. I am wont srgue that if u start a game and u gonna pg as hell, pick mage to get the most of it. But u say "he trained for 5years bla bla bla. U cant compare warlock with deadpool. Why not? Hes one of the top distance baltas one of the top m lvl. Hes top rogue, i am top warlock. He played 5 years, i played 5 years. I started my char with 20% absorbing aura no money (cards were 100gp each back then, so no one could afford combo hunts) he started with manually training. Now i have money to combo, he have offline training system.

U say a guy was training so long. Ask dancore, he have top distance in game on his noob char. And he have top pyro in platon. He trained many years ye. But where he actually put more efforts. He will say his pyro i am pretty sure. He spent rl money on cards to be able to hunt on pyro, he spent rl money to be able to train his ranger (and also he spent my products trololo).

And u say i cant compare deadpool to baltas. Give normal arguments instead of "people spend years to train". I have almost 100dist on my ranger in pharos. I spent 5hours for that not 4 months. I just make a task in 3 days which is 20minutes.

What u take on warlock/shaman in 5hours. You take lvl 40 and subvocation right. And whos stronger after 5hours lvl 40 mage or any lvl ranger with 100distance?


People dont spend years to get high distance. Their skills go up by time and little efforts.

P.s. if ranger use belgium pistol and i cant compare that. I use flame sceptre. Its best in game unlike belgium pistol. But i cant compare for some reason...

No you cant compare the highest ranger with the highest mage.

Lets see it from another angle,
If both classes ( mage / ranger, on pharos ) spend the exact same time on the game who would be better?
Ofcourse, a mage will be.

After 4 months a mage will be level 260 with 78 magic level.(Ht savage)
Now, if you would play a ranger for 4 months, with low skills... you'd have to spend twice as much hours to even get close to what a mage can achieve.

Not to mention that rangers wont get any stronger while their exhaust period as a mage gets stronger every level they get.