#21
|
||||
|
Quote:
The boat thing in oot was just someone being too stupid to realize what direct east and west were. But the XP thing wasn't a "mistake" in the same sense. It was maybe a poor design decision, it was maybe a design decision that many people didn't like, etc. But it wasn't like a typo in a spell description. "Fixing" stuff like the boat and the typo don't change the classic experience, imo. But removing something as significant as the XP penalties would be. | |||
|
#22
|
|||||
|
Quote:
If so: Quote:
| ||||
|
#23
|
|||
|
To those trying to find logic in what is included/not included in the classic experience on P1999 - just stop. For the most part, the classic portion of P1999 is completely decided by the devs. For example, the magician summoned sword "sword of rune" should proc on non-elemental mobs when given to a pet - this happened all the way to kunark. However, this isn't so on P1999. On live, this was likely an unintended problem. However, there are a lot of "unintended" problems in classic that some would call "the classic experience" and others call "bugs that should have never existed."
In some respects, the line is drawn arbitrarily by the devs. If you don't like it, go cry. Devs have made it clear over and over they don't give a crap about anybody who plays. | ||
|
#24
|
|||||
|
I figured this thread would become haven for complaining. OP, if you want to make a thread telling us why you don't like exp penalties, you should do it in rants and flames. I've heard enough of it. I did play a paladin in classic, and the exp penalty is alive and well exactly where it should be.
Quote:
Verant exp penalties. Yeah I wonder why they removed those. Could be something having to do with showeq revealing the real experience numbers of each class/race, and then the eq live community bitching, similiar to how players bitch about it now. Soon after, they made other great decisions, like Luclin and Planes of Power. :P Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|