Duration of Shared Grp XP Penalties

[JxP]

I know that everyone in a group gets less XP when the group is full of hybrids etc, due to their XP penalties. The question is at what point does that go away? Will it ever go away on this server?

I am pretty much parking my characters, becuase as it stands grouping over soloing just isn't worth it with the current rules.

[Toony]

I know that everyone in a group gets less XP when the group is full of hybrids etc, due to their XP penalties. The question is at what point does that go away? Will it ever go away on this server?

I am pretty much parking my characters, becuase as it stands grouping over soloing just isn't worth it with the current rules.

Race penalties are here to stay. Class penalties will probably go away sometime after Velious.

[JxP]

So the groups will always share XP race/class penalties on this server?

[JxP]

Ok, well that is what I wanted to know. Thanks!

[Toony]

So the groups will always share XP race/class penalties on this server?

Class no, race yes. At least thats what I've gathered.

[JxP]

Well either way, if the changes linger until Velious that still ends up being years am I right?

[holkan]

the race and class xp penalties aren't that bad for groups and dont really slow you down that much. What makes your xp awful is having people not around your level in your group.

[Malrubius]

I believe this is still open for discussion. There are two issues here...

1 - The class/race penalties should stay in, and will stay in. That's classic and was by design.

2 - That the class/race penalties affected a GROUP's xp gain was an acknowledged bug back in the Verant days (once they fixed it anyway). There is a thread here somewhere discussing this in more detail. Since it was a BUG, it should get fixed here too.

Can someone (nilbog? aeol?) step in and comment? I'd hate for our beloved ugly Trolls (and others with xp penalties) to start disappearing from our server! :(

[Kyosho]

I had fully planned on playing a hybrid until I read about those group penalties recently. I'm sticking to "normal" classes instead.

[Harmonicdeth]

This seems to be a hot issue...

I for one, have shelved my hybrids and sticking with a warrior for now because of the prejudice towards hybrids.

Not sure if all this discussion will do anything though, it seems that the dev's want to keep it how it was.

[rioisk]

Yes JxP that is likely to be the case. The devs are determined to implement all classic EQ rules both good and bad.

I would argue however that this particular rule is a special case.


(taken from the front page)

In classic EQ people didnt know about the exp penalties and so they felt free to group with whomever they wished.

On project1999 they know about the exp penalties and this affects who gets invited to the group.

Therefore implementing this rule does not best replicate the classic experience.


Correctly: the devs are determined to implement all convenient classic rules both good and bad.

From my eyes the bad seem more convenient to the devs.

[rioisk]

This seems to be a hot issue...

I for one, have shelved my hybrids and sticking with a warrior for now because of the prejudice towards hybrids.

Not sure if all this discussion will do anything though, it seems that the dev's want to keep it how it was.

I've done the same, won't play/group with a hybrid and I'm not alone.....every group I've been in state when I join they won't invite hybrids.

[Toony]

Correctly: the devs are determined to implement all convenient classic rules both good and bad.

From my eyes the bad seem more convenient to the devs.

From your eyes its easier to code one set of arbitrary (albeit historically accurate) rules versus another?

heh, go figure

[Toony]

I've done the same, won't play/group with a hybrid and I'm not alone.....every group I've been in state when I join they won't invite hybrids.

And I've yet to be in one that refused a hybrid. Odd.

[Tenurn]

As an Ogre SK myself i haven't been rejected groups either. The biggest thing is to avoid grouping with reds.

[guineapig]

I would still choose a Paly or SK over a warrior for an exp group and I would never turn down a bard if we don't have an enchanter.

[Arclanz]

I wonder if in beta the hybrids were actually better. I know in the ranger chronicles that Rangers were supposedly unstoppable in beta which explains their xp penalty. But hybrids have since been nerfed at launch so that lingering xp penalty should have gone away. Really it's a throwback to D&D where hybird melee cost more xp to level BUT have the same stats as fighters AND also get special abilities like spells. But in EQ, the paladin is inferior in both defense and offense to warriors; so this xp penalty is just silly.

[Oogmog]

I think there's two factions, and its impossible to say one group is right or one group is wrong. When I'm invited into groups on my warrior, everyone in the group is content on complaining about the new XP changes. More than likely, I was invited because the people in that group hated the new changes and those are they type of people to shun hybrids away. The people that get invited into groups on their hybrids are probably being invited by people who don't mind them, or possibly, are still unaware of the penalty. Either way, there are people who won't invite certain classes now. Before, people in general would have been happy filling the group regardless of class, except for an unbalanced effect or maybe even refusal of taking a warrior due to aggro issues.

[rioisk]

I wonder if in beta the hybrids were actually better. I know in the ranger chronicles that Rangers were supposedly unstoppable in beta which explains their xp penalty. But hybrids have since been nerfed at launch so that lingering xp penalty should have gone away. Really it's a throwback to D&D where hybird melee cost more xp to level BUT have the same stats as fighters AND also get special abilities like spells. But in EQ, the paladin is inferior in both defense and offense to warriors; so this xp penalty is just silly.

This about sums it up. Groups would be more willing to take hybrids if they were worth the xp penalty. They're not.

[liveitup1216]

It's a free, classic server. If you're going to shy away from classes or playing altogether just because you can't mad dash to 50 and then twiddle your thumbs once you're there, you honestly shouldn't even be playing on that notion alone.

The whole premise of this project it seems is to relive something we all lost (because Sony tweaked and prodded it into the ground), so if you or people you encounter dismiss you because of an exp penalty, they're more on the Sony side of things than enjoying the classic experience for what it is.

[Toony]

It's a free, classic server. If you're going to shy away from classes or playing altogether just because you can't mad dash to 50 and then twiddle your thumbs once you're there, you honestly shouldn't even be playing on that notion alone.

PREACH THAT SHIT!!!

Can I Get a Hallelujah?

[Simplistik]

Hallelujah ...

[apollyon arali]

In classic EQ people didnt know about the exp penalties and so they felt free to group with whomever they wished.

Mani, you are incorrect.

Not long after release the player base knew that the leveling of certain race/classes were slower than others. Being and DE/SK at release I experienced this penalty first hand. Brad and company finally admitted to the exp penalties since he couldnt explain away the differences in leveling speeds. Then he tried to justifiy the penalties. For example he said SKs got penalties since they were such a powerful class...funny.

Nobody wanted an SK in a group...couldnt tank and fubared exp.

Now this DEV team is going down the same stupid path claiming its classic..blah blah blah. Lots of things that were classic seem to be changed in project 1999.

Classic is fine...but get rid of the things that are just stupid about classic. This is one of them.

[Lucrio40]

I still want to know why the stance is to put in things that were detrimental to players (i.e. class based xp penalty) but leave out things that were helpful (i.e. running faster than mobs so you can escape, old mob pathing).

I understand not implementing things like item dupes since that would just kill the server even if only 2 or 3 people knew how to do it, but other things I just don't understand. For example, I know for a fact you could outrun mobs in real EQclassic. I have the EQ collectors edition that came with the giant black and white manual that even tells you to jump to gain an extra speed boost when you outrun mobs.

I also understand that because of client issues and time constraints that this server is not going to be able to be 100% classic, but some things just boggle my mind.

[feanan]

it'll be more awesome when kunark comes out. currently, a lot of people are sitting at 50, running their 2nd or 3rd alt through the grind. those are the people that are in favor of or don't care about the hybrid exp penalty.

if i remember correctly, every level 51-60 was like doing 1-50. guess we'll see how many of the current 50's want the hybrids sucking their exp at that time. :)

[liveitup1216]

it'll be more awesome when kunark comes out. currently, a lot of people are sitting at 50, running their 2nd or 3rd alt through the grind. those are the people that are in favor of or don't care about the hybrid exp penalty.

if i remember correctly, every level 51-60 was like doing 1-50. guess we'll see how many of the current 50's want the hybrids sucking their exp at that time. :)

shrug this is my first toon on here, currently 12 barb shaman. the grind is painfully slow as it is, so while i do feel for those with harsher penalties, im still loving every second of it.

[Dantes]

Have all you folks shelving your hybrids actually done any tests and compared those to how exp used to be? Or are we all just blowing smoke here and being over dramatic?

[liveitup1216]

this is how classic was, painfully slow leveling every step of the way, improved gear/mob design over kunark/velious made it not AS bad, but it still wasn't a cakewalk by far.

[Arclanz]

Mani, you are incorrect.

Not long after release the player base knew that the leveling of certain race/classes were slower than others. Being and DE/SK at release I experienced this penalty first hand. Brad and company finally admitted to the exp penalties since he couldnt explain away the differences in leveling speeds. Then he tried to justifiy the penalties. For example he said SKs got penalties since they were such a powerful class...funny.

Nobody wanted an SK in a group...couldnt tank and fubared exp.

Now this DEV team is going down the same stupid path claiming its classic..blah blah blah. Lots of things that were classic seem to be changed in project 1999.

Classic is fine...but get rid of the things that are just stupid about classic. This is one of them.

I think the more uber players knew, but not the player base. I was one of the first paladins on brell to get full valorium. But I don't recall that xp penalty being common knowledge until the company made an announcement and fixed the problem. When was that? I had to be in my 40s or higher. My guild and I certainly did not know of this xp penalty. I found it far easier to level my sep 2000 cleric than I did my July 1999 Paladin.

[purist]

Isn't there some sort of compromise that can be reached here? Like, for example, if a group has only one hybrid then the shared exp penalty is omitted or lessened for non-hybrid group members. And if a group has more than one hybrid, the exp penalty is shared?

Just an idea, but there must be some action taken by the devs to prevent the inevitable consequence of hybrid shared xp penalties.. which I fear will be groups shunning hybrids. I'm behind the dev vision for p99, but like other people have pointed out, the devs haven't recreated a pristine classic experience. In fact, there are a number of deviations from the pristine classic version (i.e. mob speed) so I don't see why making some accommodation for something that was later corrected and widely recognized as a bug is out of the question.

[Tseng]

Have all you folks shelving your hybrids actually done any tests and compared those to how exp used to be? Or are we all just blowing smoke here and being over dramatic?

The problem in their eyes isn't their own XP, it's that they feel shunned by others who know they'll be a dent to their own XP. I'm not sure that's been the case in my experience, I just walked my SK into Unrest typed /shout 19 SK LFG and got a group in 10 seconds, so who knows.

[Arclanz]

^ agree. And thank God my main character was not a Ranger. I'd be uber bummed to find this paradise server only to realize no one wants to group with me. Cut the penalties in half or something if you MUST have penalties.

Kudos to those folks who leveled with the penalty (like I did in 1999). But please, think of the Rangers... :)

And Tseng, I don't suppose that's you from Brell; is it? Tseng the enchanter.

[Toony]

Isn't there some sort of compromise that can be reached here?

Eh I hope not. Seeing a lvl 50+ Troll SK back in the day was impressive, you knew they had persevered a lotta BS to get there.

Please don't make this some WoW'like Kumbaya lets all hold hands and give all the retards a trophy so no one feels left out kinda thing.

[Dersk]

Eh I hope not. Seeing a lvl 50+ Troll SK back in the day was impressive, you knew they had persevered a lotta BS to get there.

Please don't make this some WoW'like Kumbaya lets all hold hands and give all the retards a trophy so no one feels left out kinda thing.

Like Velious did?

[feanan]

Eh I hope not. Seeing a lvl 50+ Troll SK back in the day was impressive, you knew they had persevered a lotta BS to get there.


eh, seeing as its the groups the troll SK plays with paying for the exp penalty, not so impressive on an individual scale.

[Toony]

Like Velious did?

Holla when we get to Velious..

[Toony]

eh, seeing as its the groups the troll SK plays with paying for the exp penalty, not so impressive on an individual scale.

Sure it is, they had to deal with all that goes along with.

[Dantes]

Nobody wanted to group with rangers even before the penalty. :p

[r0gue6]

I believe this is still open for discussion. There are two issues here...

1 - The class/race penalties should stay in, and will stay in. That's classic and was by design.

2 - That the class/race penalties affected a GROUP's xp gain was an acknowledged bug back in the Verant days (once they fixed it anyway). There is a thread here somewhere discussing this in more detail. Since it was a BUG, it should get fixed here too.

Can someone (nilbog? aeol?) step in and comment? I'd hate for our beloved ugly Trolls (and others with xp penalties) to start disappearing from our server! :(

Classic yes....by design hell no.

The Devs stated later that they completely fucked up by having class/race penalties in at all because hybrids weren't really all that much better than any other class. The only reason they had them in the beginning was because they were DnD nerds and DnD had them for hybrid classes.

It's a stupid mechanic, even they admitted it.

It also adds nothing to the server by having them.

[JxP]

I agree with Rogue 100%, it was a bad idea and they later fixed it. I don't see why mistakes have to be replicated.

[YendorLootmonkey]

They prohibited multi-boxing to "promote group health" even though you could multi-box in classic. I don't see why they can't make another exception to remove the group XP penalty sharing to also "promote group health".

I get it... I rolled a hybrid. A ranger. I knew what I was getting into. My groupmates should not have to knowingly suffer for the challenge I took on myself.

The difference from classic is that 'knowingly' part. :P

[Malrubius]

Actually they removed them during Velious... And admitted they should have never been in the game in the first place... Your logic is classic.

I did not know that - my apologies. If they admitted that the penalties themselves were a bug (or broken design), then yeah, I would vote that it be fixed here too. And this is coming from a classic purist. :cool:

[purist]

Eh I hope not. Seeing a lvl 50+ Troll SK back in the day was impressive, you knew they had persevered a lotta BS to get there.

Please don't make this some WoW'like Kumbaya lets all hold hands and give all the retards a trophy so no one feels left out kinda thing.

Actually, if you read my post, I was quite clear that all hybrid xp penalties should remain as they are. That's in terms of the penalty's effect on hybrid PCs themselves.

In fact, I think what I suggested was rather modest. What I said was maybe there could be some sort of relief for the non-hybrid group members who currently share the burden of their fellow hybrid groupie's class penalty if there was only one hybrid in the group. Allow me to spell it out, since you don't seem to understand. So, in a group with 1 Paladin/Ranger/Shadow Knight + and 5 other non-hybrids, the Paladin/Ranger/Shadow Knight still receives the full hybrid class xp penalty, but the rest of the group gets some kind of break since there's only one hybrid in the group. On the other hand, if the party has more than one hybrid, like a Paladin + Ranger + 4 others, then full shared hybrid class xp penalties remains in full effect.

Anyway, I was just brainstorming a random idea in order to forge some sort of compromise on the shared-group hybrid xp penalty issue.

[oldhead]

I always said I never wanted a 100% classic server... things like this is why.

Hybrid class exp should not be shared by group.

[Teeroyoyort]

I love how everyone is like. OMG we gota share that 40% penelty? When before you guys had it easy, and the hybrids really suffered to gain lvls. For example, when it took a non penelty, maybe even bonus character 100 kills to get a lvl, or less. That bard or ranger had to get 140 to get his lvl. Now it's like you need to kill 108 or so for everyone to lvl. It's fair, deal with it. It's not OMG game breaking. That manasong or sk tanking, or life saving LoH, in your group will more than cover those few extra kills. Not sure what rangers will add however ^-^.

[Thoughtseize]

I love how everyone is like. OMG we gota share that 40% penelty? When before you guys had it easy, and the hybrids really suffered to gain lvls. For example, when it took a non penelty, maybe even bonus character 100 kills to get a lvl, or less. That bard or ranger had to get 140 to get his lvl. Now it's like you need to kill 108 or so for everyone to lvl. It's fair, deal with it. It's not OMG game breaking. That manasong or sk tanking, or life saving LoH, in your group will more than cover those few extra kills. Not sure what rangers will add however ^-^.

And in Kunark what exactly are Knights going to offer that makes up for those extra kills? What is a Ranger ever going to offer that makes up for their penalty?

[soup]

They prohibited multi-boxing to "promote group health" even though you could multi-box in classic. I don't see why they can't make another exception to remove the group XP penalty sharing to also "promote group health".

I get it... I rolled a hybrid. A ranger. I knew what I was getting into. My groupmates should not have to knowingly suffer for the challenge I took on myself.

The difference from classic is that 'knowingly' part. :P
I gotta agree with this argument 100%

Promoting group health >>>>>>>>> 100% classic purism, and even the developers agree to at least some extent, given that they prohibit multiboxing.

[soup]

I love how everyone is like. OMG we gota share that 40% penelty? When before you guys had it easy, and the hybrids really suffered to gain lvls. For example, when it took a non penelty, maybe even bonus character 100 kills to get a lvl, or less. That bard or ranger had to get 140 to get his lvl. Now it's like you need to kill 108 or so for everyone to lvl. It's fair, deal with it. It's not OMG game breaking. That manasong or sk tanking, or life saving LoH, in your group will more than cover those few extra kills. Not sure what rangers will add however ^-^.

Yes, it's very fair that you knowingly pick a class with a exp penalty and then pass that burden on to other players who avoided those classes. Totally fair amirite?

[Toony]

Did you guys know there are EQ servers without the group experience penalties?

[soup]

Did you guys know there are EQ servers without the group experience penalties?

Did you know statements like this are worthless and offer absolutely nothing to the discussion?

[YendorLootmonkey]

Did you guys know there are EQ servers without the group experience penalties?

Did you know that the group xp penalties were admitted by the Sony devs as a mistake and subsequently removed in order to keep hybrids from being further alienated once people figured out they existed? And that since people already know they exist here and the min-maxers will undeniably make grouping decisions based on that info, it'll be more likely hybrids are going to "get married" or "introduce a brother to EQ" and get an IP exemption so they can play since none of them except bards can solo efficiently?

[Toony]

Did you know statements like this are worthless and offer absolutely nothing to the discussion?

Sorry, next time I'll try to add something worthwhile to the mix, like this gem...

Yes, it's very fair that you knowingly pick a class with a exp penalty and then pass that burden on to other players who avoided those classes. Totally fair amirite?

[Toony]

Did you know that the group xp penalties were admitted by the Sony devs as a mistake and subsequently removed...

I sure did! Played long before and long after em.


Sorry, did you guys not really want to have a discussion? It seems like you're just looking for parrots.

[soup]

Sorry, next time I'll try to add something worthwhile to the mix, like this gem...

Like a direct response to someone claiming it's fair that the penalty he knowingly chose to carry with him is passed on to his group members?

Yes, that's definitely as pointless as saying something like "LOL THERE IS OTHER SERVERS" amirite? Never mind the fact that I was directly replying to someone (not you) as opposed to just throwing out some pointless statement to everyone as if it was some profound point.

[utenan]

I was upset about this at first when I noticed my exp slow down a bit, but what really hurts exp gain seems to be the level of the people in your group. If I get a royals group with a bunch of people 8 levels higher than me, i get pretty bad exp. If I get a windows group with people my level, the exp is much quicker.

I was duoing with a ranger last night and I got half of my level and had a great time. I am even in a hell level (shared that exp penalty with him?) So I don't really care about that anymore. And I have yet to see anyone turn down, or even mention hybrid exp penalties, and every group i have been in since the patch have had hybrids in it. I mean, if you are going to do that, then no one in a hell level should group with you either, right? You'd be subjecting people to your horrible penalty! But once again, ive yet to see this first hand.
I am more upset about sharing hell level exp, since it didn't seem to happen in classic?

On another note,


I believe this is still open for discussion. There are two issues here...

1 - The class/race penalties should stay in, and will stay in. That's classic and was by design.

2 - That the class/race penalties affected a GROUP's xp gain was an acknowledged bug back in the Verant days (once they fixed it anyway). There is a thread here somewhere discussing this in more detail. Since it was a BUG, it should get fixed here too.

Can someone (nilbog? aeol?) step in and comment? I'd hate for our beloved ugly Trolls (and others with xp penalties) to start disappearing from our server! :(

If the community as a whole decided that they did not want the penalties in, is that something that would ever be changed?

[gruumsh]

I have yet to have trouble getting a group since these changes despite my heavy class/race exp penalty. I think a group would rather take me as a tank (and thus start killing and getting exp) if they need one rather than wait for a tank who has no exp penalty.

I also noticed that the exp was slow, but it wasn't as horrible as I expected based on the forum posts about it. However, I did notice that it slowed down EXTREMELY when I was grouped with even one player who conned red to me. IMO I think that this isn't that bad as it encourages people to group with a tighter level range and not just piggy back on higher level groups for exp.

Besides, I joined this server because when I joined EQ live back in 2003, all of this content was way obsolete (as well as alot of the mechanics of classic EQ that make it so challenging such as long travel times). I know some people have done all this before but I for one, and others too, are playing on this server to get the classic EQ experience with all the ups and downs.

[Toony]

Like a direct response to someone claiming it's fair that the penalty he knowingly chose to carry with him is passed on to his group members?

Yes, that's definitely as pointless as saying something like "LOL THERE IS OTHER SERVERS" amirite? Never mind the fact that I was directly replying to someone (not you) as opposed to just throwing out some pointless statement to everyone as if it was some profound point.

Sorry man, best of luck changing things to some version of whatever you think is "fair". I gotta get back to my group with this troll SK in it, too busy racking up XP to worry about this bullshit.

[soup]

Sorry man, best of luck changing things to some version of whatever you think is "fair". I gotta get back to my group with this troll SK in it, too busy racking up XP to worry about this bullshit.

And best of luck to you learning the difference between partaking in a discussion and posting asinine troll statements. (see, I can make them too!)

[YendorLootmonkey]

A cleric who's browsing the boards and posting msgs while in a group kinda scares me. :) haha

[Toony]

A cleric who's browsing the boards and posting msgs while in a group kinda scares me. :) haha

No deaths, 4 orange bubs and TWO SK's in the group :D

[Lucrio40]

Toony, just a question since you seem to be one of the most outspoken in favor of class based xp penalties. During Classic and all the way up until they changed it post luclin, in highkeep there was a bug that let people get into the walls on the second floor, Myself and a necro buddy made loads of cash. He would kill everything on the second floor and I would loot it since he couldn't leave the wall without using gate. Would you be in favor of this returning to the game since it was in classic?

[Toony]

Toony, just a question since you seem to be one of the most outspoken in favor of class based xp penalties. During Classic and all the way up until they changed it post luclin, in highkeep there was a bug that let people get into the walls on the second floor, Myself and a necro buddy made loads of cash. He would kill everything on the second floor and I would loot it since he couldn't leave the wall without using gate. Would you be in favor of this returning to the game since it was in classic?

Exploiters should be perm banned.

And don't mistake my desire to see the class penalty remain for wanting it to continue being applied to groups.

[Pico]

Classic purists are the smuggest of the sperglords.

[rioisk]

I loved exploits in classic....made the game more fun to discover them..

[Lucrio40]

You didn't really answer the question. Exploiters were banned in classic, but the exploits remained for years, it was up to GM's to catch them and players to tip off GM's.

Or how about something that isn't an exploit, like outrunning most mobs without having to do any fancy tricks. That was certainly in classic as well.

[utenan]

You didn't really answer the question. Exploiters were banned in classic, but the exploits remained for years, it was up to GM's to catch them and players to tip off GM's.

Or how about something that isn't an exploit, like outrunning most mobs without having to do any fancy tricks. That was certainly in classic as well.

Mobs run faster on purpose, as explained in previous threads

[soup]

Mobs run faster on purpose, as explained in previous threads

So it's not classic.... on purpose?

[liveitup1216]

i think the point is, race/class penalties is something most people accept, it is just the fact that the penalty is then applied to the entire group, is what people would mostly like to see be changed/removed.

as far as the people saying they refuse to play such-and-such class because of it, or refusing to play period, is where i firmly say, good riddance.

and if you're the type of person who refuses to party with a penalty class/race based on the penalty alone, you're just a plain old baddie. but as a consolation prize, here's something that would probably interest you more than this server.

http://www.hellokittyonline.com/

edit for clarity. (no pun intended)

[utenan]

So it's not classic.... on purpose?

yep http://project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10818&page=2

2 page, post 17

[Overcast]

This game in it's classic rendition, is what taught me *not* to rush to max level.
I've found my overall gaming experience to be superior because of this. In the 'newer' MMO's, I find the instant levels and stat gear that drops off the very first mob you kill very droll and repetitive.

When does a person *typically* get bored of a game? Unless the game sucks, it's when there are many less things to do... for me the first 'milestone' on the road to gaming boredom is max level. Not saying I don't want to get there and not saying it suddenly gets boring then, just that my whole reason for playing this game is for the challenge.

Can't very well have a challenge without bumps and potholes in the road. The other MMO's seek to somehow provide a 'challenge' - the easiest way possible. Simple logic.... would lead one to think...

Not to say there isn't a time for it. By the time I reach it, I WILL feel like I've damn well earned it - all mechanics aside.

That's classic - to me.

<< Human Shadowknight.

And it's perfectly fine if you don't want to group with me because of a shared penalty.

[Toony]

You didn't really answer the question. Exploiters were banned in classic, but the exploits remained for years, it was up to GM's to catch them and players to tip off GM's.

I didn't answer the question because there wasn't one.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee6/amdscooter/Strawman.jpg

[Striiker]

The shared XP penalty in groups should go away. It hurts groups and hurts players who have penalties. I have been in several groups since they quietly applied the patch to adjust the XP system. People noticed quickly that something was wrong / different. Once it was discovered that the XP change was in, people in groups are reluctant to take in hybrids especially when they have significant racial penalties. I tend to be in pick-up groups and have heard repeatedly that players try to avoid those who impact their XP gain unless they have no other option and need a particular class. I don't share this sentiment but I can't deny the facts that the difference is noticeable. This was made very clear one night in unrest. We were all lvl 25 with a 26 monk and a couple 24's. There was a lvl 25 Dwarf Paladin in the group who eventually left and was replaced by another lvl 25 non-hybrid class. XP picked up noticeably and our pull rate did not change. We were in the basement and were waiting for stuff to re-spawn (as was the case when the Paladin was with us).
I remember when this all went down on classic. People were very upset then (as they are now) and SOE had to change the XP system because it was hurting the hybrid / racial players (as now). They admitted that it was a mistake.
I'll continue to play here regardless of the XP system as I truly love the classic experience. I'm not "hardcore" though. I have a modified UI as it enhances my play experience. I like the challenges of leveling and the need to group. The XP penalty system though I think is a detractor from the overall experience and is something I would be happy to see removed.

[Toony]

The shared XP penalty in groups should go away. It hurts groups and hurts players who have penalties.

Define "hurts".

[Oogmog]

Define "hurts".

I'll take a stab at what he thinks "hurts" means. It "hurts" the group because the penalty that they have is inflicted on the group. They are not as efficient in the leveling department. It "hurts" the hybrid because they are not getting groups as often because of the penalty. You have just hit level 30. You have not experienced a Troll SK at level 45 in your group, so you haven't seen any real harsh "penalty" towards your group. (In which I've posted MANY times saying hell levels should not be distributed in the shared xp penalty and only got one response that directed me toward the developers link following the release of Velious and no mention of hell levels being included in shared penalty)

Since I've started playing my warrior again over the past few days, many people have said that they cannot tell a huge aggro difference between me and a SK/Pal which makes them less inclined to invite SK/Pals from there on out.. and every group I have been in has flat out said they will not invite hybrids, and the only one that would get a pass would be a bard if and only if no chanters were available for a group. Say what you will, but you were playing in a different level bracket when all this came down.. no hell levels and the need for a well balanced group composition wasn't exactly required. Hit 40+, when the leveling is slow for everyone to begin with, and see how much these penalties "hurt" both sides. The only players we're hearing from are in the teens-30's brackets.. I'd like to see how many hybrids are getting groups 40+ on a consistent basis, especially seeing 37+ you have Yak capable warriors.

[Toony]

I'll take a stab at what he thinks "hurts" means. It "hurts" the group because the penalty that they have is inflicted on the group. They are not as efficient in the leveling department. It "hurts" the hybrid because they are not getting groups as often because of the penalty. You have just hit level 30. You have not experienced a Troll SK at level 45 in your group, so you haven't seen any real harsh "penalty" towards your group. (In which I've posted MANY times saying hell levels should not be distributed in the shared xp penalty and only got one response that directed me toward the developers link following the release of Velious and no mention of hell levels being included in shared penalty)


Guess I'll get back to you in 20 levels. Although I have a feeling I'll have pretty much the same opinion as the first time I leveled to 50 in classic, pre-kunark, pre-velious.

[eqholmes]

I thought the penalty was going to kill my ranger getting groups, but I was wrong. Since the penalty has come out I have yet to be shunned anymore than normal. I feel out of all the hybrids that the Ranger is the one most likely to get screwed, but if I’m still getting groups how bad can it be for bards/sk/pals? Hell I’m the hired hand for tanking 80% of the time and most people are like dam rangers aren’t that bad after all.

Holmes 50 Nerco DA
Gretzky 44 Ranger DA (NEW MAIN probably)

[Bumamgar]

only got one response that directed me toward the developers link following the release of Velious and no mention of hell levels being included in shared penalty
Hell levels weren't mentioned in the producer's letter because at the time that letter was written, Varent/SOE were still denying the existence of hell levels. Hell levels weren't acknowledged till Sep 4th, 2002 (A few months before PoP went live).

[Striiker]

Define "hurts".

Funny you ask. I had started writing in how things hurt groups and hurts players but deleted it..

It hurts groups by virtue of slowing down their XP increases. Some (such as myself) don't care about this aspect as we are here to have fun hanging out with people, killing stuff and getting items / plat to improve our characters. The XP just happens. It is still a "hurt" to the group as XP gain is a very important aspect of the game. Some people put a lot of focus on their XP gain which we should not begrudge as it is an aspect of the game which makes them happy.

The hurt to players are the ones with the racial / class penalties. Some of this is not applicable to all players.
- Groups refuse to group with high XP penalty players. (hurt to all). Many would say that you are better off but it sucks if you spend over an hour LFG or trying to put together a group with no success.
- Groups, if given the choice, will pick other non/lower XP penalty classes to fill slots. This is the classic Warrior and SK both are LFG. The group will pick the warrior. Same applies to racial penalties and this is even higher when the racial and class penalties are present in one player.
- Some players feel badly about bringing their XP penalty to a group. Some players will prefer to shelf their character and start an alt. or try their hand at soloing instead. I really feel badly for these players and I am sure that they would be great to group with.

[Oogmog]

Hell levels weren't mentioned in the producer's letter because at the time that letter was written, Varent/SOE were still denying the existence of hell levels. Hell levels weren't acknowledged till Sep 4th, 2002 (A few months before PoP went live).

Like I responded in another thread, did you not play classic? A level 45 would level MUCH slower than a level 43 in the same group. 99% of the people playing on this server can verify this as being truth. Here, a level 45 in groups levels at the same rate as that same level 43. That is not how it was on classic.

[Oogmog]

Also, to add more insight on the subject Bum, I would just like some clarification on your interpretation of the Verant's dev letter.

On classic, everyone dreaded the hell levels. Correct?
On classic, nobody knew about shared XP penalties. Correct?

So with that said, why would people dread hell levels since the penalty would then be shared with the group making the level rate the same for everyone in the group, but in fact, nobody knew that this was taking place? I really don't want to come off like a jerk, but everyone and their brother knew 30-35-40-45 sucked to go through... and if their penalty was shared, the only people that would ever truly recognize a hell level would be someone that only solo'ed and could notice the experience difference in those levels.

[utenan]

I thought the penalty was going to kill my ranger getting groups, but I was wrong. Since the penalty has come out I have yet to be shunned anymore than normal. I feel out of all the hybrids that the Ranger is the one most likely to get screwed, but if I’m still getting groups how bad can it be for bards/sk/pals? Hell I’m the hired hand for tanking 80% of the time and most people are like dam rangers aren’t that bad after all.

Holmes 50 Nerco DA
Gretzky 44 Ranger DA (NEW MAIN probably)

I had a blast grouping with you the other day, at this point I almost dread having a warrior in the group : D
Ive yet to see anyone be picky about hybrids in their groups, Im starting to think people are making this up : p Personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with someone that stingy about some exp

+1 for what Oogmog is saying

[Bumamgar]

Like I responded in another thread, did you not play classic? A level 45 would level MUCH slower than a level 43 in the same group. 99% of the people playing on this server can verify this as being truth. Here, a level 45 in groups levels at the same rate as that same level 43. That is not how it was on classic.
I was simply explaining why hell levels weren't mentioned in the producer's letter.

[Bumamgar]

I really don't want to come off like a jerk

Then you might want to avoid making comments like this:

Like I responded in another thread, did you not play classic?

[eqholmes]

I had a blast grouping with you the other day, at this point I almost dread having a warrior in the group : D
Ive yet to see anyone be picky about hybrids in their groups, Im starting to think people are making this up : p Personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with someone that stingy about some exp

+1 for what Oogmog is saying

Thanks man, I love grouping with good shamans. We duo'd the crap out of window! haha

Holmes 50 Nerco DA
Gretzky 44 Ranger DA

[Oogmog]

Then you might want to avoid making comments like this:

I've made the same post probably 5 times and haven't got a response. You were brought on to fix a problem with ogre experience then made an assumption based decision on hell level experience because there was no mention of hell levels in the developers thread in which you based your information from. I'm all for keeping this server classic, as much as I don't like the hybrid penalty, I'm living with it. I can live with shared hell level experience as well. However, it was not classic and the last time I said it was not classic you in fact linked me to the developers thread(in which I had previously posted as well so I knew of the link), and I responded, and was ignored. It was a valid question to ask if you've played classic and there is no "nice" way to ask the question. You're either going to take offense or you can respond "Yes, I did, and that is how I remembered it" or whatever. The fact you took offense to it might be an indication that you don't exactly remember how hell levels worked and coded it improperly because you assumed hell levels were in fact included in the penalty and that is all I'm advocating for the dev's to examine and consider fixing to make it "classic" like this server is attempting to accomplish.

[Maurk]

I thought i wouldnt be able to find groups
but people still love having hybrids in group

im still very sad that me and my friend who plays druid cant duo anymore..
(well we can, but is in no way worth it)
ughh
if only i played nonstop beffforrre this damn "bug" got fixed
ughh im such a nerdd

[Ihealyou]

- Groups, if given the choice, will pick other non/lower XP penalty classes to fill slots. This is the classic Warrior and SK both are LFG. The group will pick the warrior. Same applies to racial penalties and this is even higher when the racial and class penalties are present in one player.


I have a moderately twinked 19 warrior. He has two obsidian shards and still has trouble maintaining aggro. If there is a monk or rogue in the group they're going to be tanking a lot unless they back off the dps. If the mob is yellow or higher, I can't even taunt it. You receive an 11%-18% penalty, depending on race, from adding a hybrid to your group. IMO, its worth it.

[feanan]

i'm just curious, since i never played with a warrior at lower levels on classic. is something messed up here with warriors, or did they just always suck at low levels?

[Oogmog]

I have a moderately twinked 19 warrior. He has two obsidian shards and still has trouble maintaining aggro. If there is a monk or rogue in the group they're going to be tanking a lot unless they back off the dps. If the mob is yellow or higher, I can't even taunt it. You receive an 11%-18% penalty, depending on race, from adding a hybrid to your group. IMO, its worth it.

Actually, its even and above ya cant taunt.. just to make matters worse. Really though, SK's and Pals will still be useful until you can get a 37 War with 2 yaks+fbss. Best advice for a warrior.. dont do camps where things are even or above, you need to be fighting blue stuff to have a chance at hell of holding aggro.

[Oogmog]

i'm just curious, since i never played with a warrior at lower levels on classic. is something messed up here with warriors, or did they just always suck at low levels?

They eventually made it so warriors could taunt +5 levels above them.. but for some reason I'm thinking that may have been a 60+ deal, I'm not sure.. I was max level when they added it so not sure of the specifics other than I knew I could. Read the other post I just made on advice for warriors holding aggro though.

[OngorDrakan]

Why not just remove hybrid shared exp. penalties? If people stop grouping with hybrids, that alienates people in our community and then you have people who leave and the community could shrink. Is it worth the community shrinking to keep something like that in? Really?

Look at the big picture here. A person who loves playing a Ranger/SK/Paladin/Bard/Whatever sees that people won't group with them because of their class. How would it make you feel if nobody wanted a Cleric? Or a Druid? Or a Warrior? I'd be pretty pissed since soloing isn't a huge option for some of them. Is it worth it for the classic re-make to have that in there? I don't think so. It hurts more than it "relives classic EQ".

[guineapig]

I say good riddance to all the shelved hybrids.
Makes it that much easier for my hybrid alts to find groups!

Thanks guys! :D

[Lucrio40]

Alright, just going to make sure I understand this. In the name of being "classic" things are going to be changed to purposely not be classic, and only certain things, that are able to be implemented (i.e. things that can't be implemented like old skeletons, are obviously excluded from that statement) are going to be picked and chosen to be put in.

I'm not not in favor of making things like WoW, hell xp could come at twice the rate it does now and it'd still not be anything like WoW. However, if you're on the kick of picking and choosing what goes into this server from classic then why only pick the stuff that seems to negatively effect players.

[Pico]

I didn't answer the question because there wasn't one.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee6/amdscooter/Strawman.jpg

And yet you make giant leaps in logic by saying players who want the shared penalties removed want P1999 to be some super easy WoW-fest.

[Striiker]

I have a moderately twinked 19 warrior. He has two obsidian shards and still has trouble maintaining aggro. If there is a monk or rogue in the group they're going to be tanking a lot unless they back off the dps. If the mob is yellow or higher, I can't even taunt it. You receive an 11%-18% penalty, depending on race, from adding a hybrid to your group. IMO, its worth it.

I agree with you. I play an enchanter and it was great having two paladins busy keeping aggro off me. The same can be said when I grouped with a couple of shadowknights. I have no problems grouping with hybrids regardless of race etc. In fact, I personally would be inclined to grab an SK / Paladin for the agro reasons. (I get spanked a lot less this way by angry mobs).
I was trying to point out though that the server has more than its share of people who focus solely on XP and will now pass on certain classes if they can. It's sad but true. I am certain though that hybrid and racials will have no issues getting into most groups but the times when one can't get a group sucks a lot.

[Ihealyou]

I agree with you. I play an enchanter and it was great having two paladins busy keeping aggro off me. The same can be said when I grouped with a couple of shadowknights. I have no problems grouping with hybrids regardless of race etc. In fact, I personally would be inclined to grab an SK / Paladin for the agro reasons. (I get spanked a lot less this way by angry mobs).
I was trying to point out though that the server has more than its share of people who focus solely on XP and will now pass on certain classes if they can. It's sad but true. I am certain though that hybrid and racials will have no issues getting into most groups but the times when one can't get a group sucks a lot.

I wasn't trying to say that you are one of those xp uber alles people. I guess I could have made my post a little more clear :p

I completely agree with you. Even people that want to grind out xp as fast as possible need to consider more than just xp per kill. Is the healer having trouble keeping up because the warrior can't keep aggro? Is your group going to wipe because there's no chanter, and you don't want to invite a bard? People need to consider the fact that hybrids can improve the group. If you're killing twice as fast, it doesn't matter that you have an 11% xp penalty.

[Toony]

And yet you make giant leaps in logic by saying players who want the shared penalties removed want P1999 to be some super easy WoW-fest.

Once again, close but not exactly. That particular comment referred to race penalties in general.

[Pico]

Once again, close but not exactly. That particular comment referred to race penalties in general.

Nope.

Eh I hope not. Seeing a lvl 50+ Troll SK back in the day was impressive, you knew they had persevered a lotta BS to get there.

Please don't make this some WoW'like Kumbaya lets all hold hands and give all the retards a trophy so no one feels left out kinda thing.

That was a reply to someone asking if there could be a compromise in the way shared xp penalties affect groups.

[Toony]

Nope.

Yep. I was referring to penalties in general.

[purist]

Toony, no. Just no. Here you go, since evidently you have the reading comprehension ability of a mongoloid with down's syndrome.

Isn't there some sort of compromise that can be reached here? Like, for example, if a group has only one hybrid then the shared exp penalty is omitted or lessened for non-hybrid group members. And if a group has more than one hybrid, the exp penalty is shared?

Isn't there some sort of compromise that can be reached here?
Eh I hope not. Seeing a lvl 50+ Troll SK back in the day was impressive, you knew they had persevered a lotta BS to get there.

Please don't make this some WoW'like Kumbaya lets all hold hands and give all the retards a trophy so no one feels left out kinda thing.


Eh I hope not. Seeing a lvl 50+ Troll SK back in the day was impressive, you knew they had persevered a lotta BS to get there.

Please don't make this some WoW'like Kumbaya lets all hold hands and give all the retards a trophy so no one feels left out kinda thing.
Actually, if you read my post, I was quite clear that all hybrid xp penalties should remain as they are. That's in terms of the penalty's effect on hybrid PCs themselves.

In fact, I think what I suggested was rather modest. What I said was maybe there could be some sort of relief for the non-hybrid group members who currently share the burden of their fellow hybrid groupie's class penalty if there was only one hybrid in the group. Allow me to spell it out, since you don't seem to understand. So, in a group with 1 Paladin/Ranger/Shadow Knight + and 5 other non-hybrids, the Paladin/Ranger/Shadow Knight still receives the full hybrid class xp penalty, but the rest of the group gets some kind of break since there's only one hybrid in the group. On the other hand, if the party has more than one hybrid, like a Paladin + Ranger + 4 others, then full shared hybrid class xp penalties remains in full effect.

Anyway, I was just brainstorming a random idea in order to forge some sort of compromise on the shared-group hybrid xp penalty issue.

You made a dumbass evocation of WoW (the last refuge of a retard with no argument) and chalked in the word "kumbaya" for good measure and then presented it as a rational argument. Then, when you got called on your shit you didn't reply. Don't try to backtrack now and make shit up about how you "were referring to racial penalties" (lol wtf?).

[Toony]

Toony, no. Just no. Here you go, since evidently you have the reading comprehension ability of a mongoloid with down's syndrome.

You made a dumbass evocation of WoW (the last refuge of a retard with no argument) and chalked in the word "kumbaya" for good measure and then presented it as a rational argument. Then, when you got called on your shit you didn't reply. Don't try to backtrack now and make shit up about how you "were referring to racial penalties" (lol wtf?).

That's a lot of rage, are you going to be ok? And I'm pretty sure you meant 'chucked in' not 'chalked in'.

[nilbog]

I'm not not in favor of making things like WoW, hell xp could come at twice the rate it does now and it'd still not be anything like WoW. However, if you're on the kick of picking and choosing what goes into this server from classic then why only pick the stuff that seems to negatively effect players.

It will continue to seem this way. You see, most of what made classic Everquest different from non-classic Everquest wasn't just the content, it was the gameplay.

If you take the eq live patch notes for example, they continuously unnerfed or made things easier throughout the years.

With that in mind, think about a client and source that promote easy. That's what we had to start working with. 2006ish backwards.

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

I cannot think of many things that "positively" effect players that you might expect to see in the future.

If there is something in particular you know of, bug report it.

[Phallax]

It will continue to seem this way. You see, most of what made classic Everquest different from non-classic Everquest wasn't just the content, it was the gameplay.

If you take the eq live patch notes for example, they continuously unnerfed or made things easier throughout the years.

With that in mind, think about a client and source that promote easy. That's what we had to start working with. 2006ish backwards.

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

I cannot think of many things that "positively" effect players that you might expect to see in the future.

If there is something in particular you know of, bug report it.

-not requiring an open spell book pre-35 to meditate(positively effect players)

thats the only one I can think of =P

[Dersk]

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

Those are unfair examples considering the request made here is something that existed during velious and is expected to be implemented eventually anyway. If players asked for racial experience penalties to be removed, which didn't happen until years later, then this would be a more appropriate dismissal.

-not requiring an open spell book pre-35 to meditate(positively effect players)

thats the only one I can think of =P

That is really a moot point considering UI options. A minimized spellbook doesn't quite have the same effect as forcing a character into the original UI with a spellbook that completely blocked out the player's view. They really don't have an alternative with that one.

[purist]

That's a lot of rage, are you going to be ok? And I'm pretty sure you meant 'chucked in' not 'chalked in'.



http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/510/toony.jpg

[Toony]

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/510/toony.jpg

I like pepper, that does make more sense than chalked.

Oh, sorry for correcting grammar, but I did find it ironic from someone questioning anothers reading comprehension.

[Arclanz]

It will continue to seem this way. You see, most of what made classic Everquest different from non-classic Everquest wasn't just the content, it was the gameplay.

If you take the eq live patch notes for example, they continuously unnerfed or made things easier throughout the years.

With that in mind, think about a client and source that promote easy. That's what we had to start working with. 2006ish backwards.

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

I cannot think of many things that "positively" effect players that you might expect to see in the future.

If there is something in particular you know of, bug report it.

ROFL at Purist, I love that chart! Not taking sides since I haven't followed enough but your post earlier and flowchart are interesting :)

Oo that reminds me, Yes it was stare-at-spellbook until level 35 in classic. This, more than anything else I think, fostered the social environment that was EQ. Someone staring at a spellbook is most likely going to want to strike up a conversation. At least so they know their group mates are not afk and can tell them if an SG is pathing by.

Also, pets broke mez ALL THE TIME in classic; it caused MANY camps, raids, break-ins to fail. Do pets break mez on this server?

Thank you devs for all your great work; and to the players / posters for showing an interest.

[Toony]

That is really a moot point considering UI options. A minimized spellbook doesn't quite have the same effect as forcing a character into the original UI with a spellbook that completely blocked out the player's view. They really don't have an alternative with that one.

Dersk, at the risk of speaking for someone else, I'm pretty sure Phallax threw that one in there tongue in cheek.

[stormiejs]

Why not just remove hybrid shared exp. penalties? If people stop grouping with hybrids, that alienates people in our community and then you have people who leave and the community could shrink. Is it worth the community shrinking to keep something like that in? Really?

It truly depends on what kind of nostalgic experience or philosophy you believe in. There are going to be people who want the true classic experience and then there are people who believe that some of the changes made to the game were for the better. After all, they didn't patch the game to make it worse! (Not intentionally. ;)).

I believe I am inbetween those philosophies: I want to see changes, some that may not be identical to the classic experience. Let's be honest, it's an emulator server and there are going to be bugs and changes that will prevent this from being a true classic experience. At the same time, EverQuest is a challenging game and it is not intended to be easy, you have to earn the benefits from the bigger challenges.

The reality is that the penalties are harsh and they're harsh for a reason. I do believe that this server has a playerbase (both hardcore gamers and not) that are willing to level through the penalties. If you want to have a troll shaman or sk, you're going to have to put in a little extra effort if you want that uber regen.

But I do agree it is a problem when it starts affecting how you play with your friends and interact with the community. If you and your friends only leveled together, not only do they get a penalty, but you're going to fall behind in levels significantly by the time they start hitting the 30-40 range.

And that's not fun for anyone.

[Phallax]

Dersk, at the risk of speaking for someone else, I'm pretty sure Phallax threw that one in there tongue in cheek.

Yes hence the =P. A smile face or variation always makes everything better!

And as for being a "moot point" even tho the UI settings dont require a full screen spell book to be in effect, its still an inconvenience to have to have it open

[nilbog]

Those are unfair examples considering the request made here is something that existed during velious and is expected to be implemented eventually anyway. If players asked for racial experience penalties to be removed, which didn't happen until years later, then this would be a more appropriate dismissal.

unfair examplesI was responding directly to the claim that we pick and choose what negatively effects players. How are those not valid examples of negatively affecting players? Did I say anything about exp penalties? I was purely stating that the patch notes you guys receive will NOT be full of player perks, but the opposite, nerfs, since that is the majority of difference between classic and non-classic.

edit 2nd paragraph: I re-read your post with context, and understand it now. The feedback on this particular issue isn't what I was commenting on here, but I am keeping up to date with how people feel.

[Pico]

I like pepper, that does make more sense than chalked.

Oh, sorry for correcting grammar, but I did find it ironic from someone questioning anothers reading comprehension.

Grammar =/= reading comprehension so your irony sucks.

Purist's flowchart, on the other hand, owns.

[Soft]

My Favorite things about this thread

- The discussion about possible options and alternatives, it's so adorable. *cute*

- The fact that this problem is being blown way out of proportion

- The fact that players are blaming the hybrid shared exp problem when they should be blaming the red guy sucking up all the exp.

- The pyro in this thread with the Captian America Icon, I LOVE archatypes! Also my favorite ninja turtle was Leonardo and my favorite X-man is Cyclops, they always did what splinter/professor x said!

- The wow card I love it... I'm not insane, EVERYONE else is insane. I am perfectly normal. What? what was that voice in my head no... no... dogs are my friend I should not kill the dogs.

- The only people I know who complain when I invite a hybrid into the group are the type of IDB (see internet douchebag theory, pennyarcade) that I end up not wanting to group with. /tell me I will group with any hybrid as long as you do not suck (lol I made a pun).

- Being a fan of warriors I am bathing in the hybrid tears. Poor 18kpp or no group warriors finally getting some love, albiet backwards love... <3 you Warrior tanks *swoon*

Now that I am finished dumping gasoline I have a philosophical question to pose. It is clear that the Admins of the server have a clear mandate to what there goals with the server should look like. I think it is probably important to establish that this is the most fun I have had gaming in a long time. So why do we have a forum for discussion of anything other than eq housekeeping. Examples such as class stratagies, information requests, the library, guild recruitment and discussion, rants and flames, and happy/painfull/sad/love/sexual stories? Why do we have a discussion forum for game mechanics since anyone with a brain can get themselves a list of patchnotes and follow along?

Regardless of the changes the devs make, I love everquest to much to make some kneejerk decision. After the global OOC change my opinion on the "classic at all cost" versus "classic feel, but lets not put in the really bad garbage" has changed. I would never willingly include myself in the "classic at all cost" group, but my problem is when I daydream about the other servers I have played on that attempted to replicate the classic experience -- Servers that have boxing where one can get a character to cap level in a matter of days where content comes faster than I can shave my legs -- I end up comming to the conclusion. To replicate the classic experience in every way you are forced to play under "classic at all cost".

I am deeply sorry for any english language errors, or canadian language rules I have used, which might offend our Erudite readers. I tried my very bestest to make this pleasant to read... Even though 1/2 of it was me flaming.

[stormiejs]

I was purely stating that the patch notes you guys receive will NOT be full of player perks, but the opposite, nerfs, since that is the majority of difference between classic and non-classic.

It's hilarious to think of it this way, but it makes sense. Patch day has become a scary thing.

[Striiker]

Also, pets broke mez ALL THE TIME in classic; it caused MANY camps, raids, break-ins to fail. Do pets break mez on this server?



Yes, pets break mez on this server.

[apollyon arali]

Yes, pets break mez on this server.

Nope ..they do not break mez. You cannot send your pet to attack a mezzed mob..wont work.

[UrsusMajor]

it'll be more awesome when kunark comes out. currently, a lot of people are sitting at 50, running their 2nd or 3rd alt through the grind. those are the people that are in favor of or don't care about the hybrid exp penalty.

if i remember correctly, every level 51-60 was like doing 1-50. guess we'll see how many of the current 50's want the hybrids sucking their exp at that time. :)


Um, I just started on this server 3 weeks ago and my highest character is my 21 Druid and I don't care about the hybrid xp penalty.

[Aadill]

Um, I just started on this server 3 weeks ago an my highest character is my 21 Druid and I don't care about the hybrid xp penalty.

I believe the majority don't :)

[odizzido]

I just enjoy playing the game. A 6.7% drop in xp isn't something I even think about when inviting people to join groups. Having to kill 20 mobs instead of 19 for the same xp because there is a pally in my group makes no difference at all to me.

[Srslybro]

Aye, i quit as well because of it.

[Oogmog]

Still waiting for an actual response as to why hell levels have shared group xp penalties when it wasn't classic, sigh.

[Nagash]

I was responding directly to the claim that we pick and choose what negatively effects players. How are those not valid examples of negatively affecting players? Did I say anything about exp penalties? I was purely stating that the patch notes you guys receive will NOT be full of player perks, but the opposite, nerfs, since that is the majority of difference between classic and non-classic.

edit 2nd paragraph: I re-read your post with context, and understand it now. The feedback on this particular issue isn't what I was commenting on here, but I am keeping up to date with how people feel.

I've tried to read through this all and now my eyes bleed and I want to drill a shave with a chainsaw.

Anyway, Nilbog, I think the idea that was tried to be said is that you are trying hard to create a replica of Classic (and do a bloody good job at it) but sometime some people have the impression that you are randomly selective in what you decide to implement or not. I'll take a different example which I hope will clarify this. In Classic, Rune of Sword was proccing vs anything, not just it's intended target. This was corrected much later (I might be wrong but I believe it was post PoSky) and acknowledged as a bug. You (as in the Dev team) have decided not to implement it because it was a bug.
Back to the subject, it has been admitted that the class penalties were a bug (I would have called that a cover up for a fuck up but that's just me) and canceled in Velious. This is a game altering "bug" for quite a few people hence the request to have something done about it but nothing is being done. Naturally you will have some people thinking "WTF, they remove the cool stuff and put back in the shitty one", can't escape that ^_^

If you don't want to remove them altogether because they were classic, fair enough, but it doesn't mean you can't tweak them so they're here but don't hurt everyone. Here's my thought. Let's take a group of 6 people (10% xp full group bonus) of the same level (to avoid unnecessary noise) including one hybrid (40% xp penalty). This group kills a mob worth 60xp.

At the moment, the xp received by everyone will be: (60+10%-40%)/6=(60+6-24)/6=7.
What if the race/class penalties were not applied to the group but to the hybrid only? The xp gained would be 60/6+10%=11 for everyone but for the hybrid who would earn 60/6+10%-40%=7

Now to be honest, a few things to be noted about this:
- I don't know if the formulaes (or the ideas behind these formulaes) are accurate, especially the "actual" one. I'm just trying to bring back the debate to what is was and stop the flame war that has started (as in any message that goes beyond 20-30 posts).
- I personnaly don't give a rat's behind to race/class penalties when grouping although I understand the frustration of some
- In a way I kinda like the idea of xp penalty for hybrid as they have it much easier than warriors: (more) easy to solo and/or ease to generate aggro (this last point vanishes with Kunark IIRC and it's at that point that they should logically go, but I know Classic and logic don't necessarily go together)
- As they have an easier way to hold aggro, making their group's life easier, I do believe the class penalty should be shared although I don't believe the race penalty should (why would you get a bonus to xp because you group with a halfling? A compensation of the bugger stealing your pie maybe? Or a malus because you group with a troll?)
- It is very possible that I talk out of my ass, that a lot of the stuff I say is very inaccurate and that some people want to flame me for it. Go ahead my ass is fireproof.

Kind regards,

Nagash
You've been hit by a wall of text for 1000000 damage
LOADING, PLEASE WAIT...

[Arclanz]

TBH, I think the group is suffering; not the hybrids/races. That's the funny part.

I joined with a lvl 10 Troll Shaman and the rest of the grp was lvls 7 and 8. Honestly, the xp seemed a HELL of a lot slower than the 6% quoted. Back in 99 they didn't have that neat blue-bar so you couldn't analyze xp gain as closely. Today we can see every tick of xp or in this case lack thereof.

Yes I'll group with hybrids and yes I get discouraged every time I check the xp bar.

[JxP]

I joined about 3 weeks ago as well. I started with a mage and he got nerfed, then I started playing in groups as an enchanter and then xp gets nerfed. I looked into soloing with the chanter, but apparently charm is broken and only works if you are super twinked.

I would play a necro, but I had a max level one on live and don't feel like "beating" EQ again with that class. A few minutes ago I gave all my gear to that picklefixer guy that was looking for some help on the forum (the one you guys flamed) and deleted all my nerfed/broken characters :P.

In case you were wondeirng I didn't just quit over the nerfs, I already played quite a bit of classic EQ and the nerfs kind of just sealed the deal on me quitting.

Later.

[uraniumrooster]

I posted this in one of the other exp-penalty-hate threads as well, but honestly people are just making too big a deal out of this.

I play a hybrid and didn't even notice the penalty until my first major hell level (40, btw, 30 and 35 flew by). I've had no trouble getting into groups and the groups I've been in have been glad to have me and quite often have had a second hybrid as well. With fast steady pulls we're generally able to manage a quick rate of kills so that exp goes up quickly with or without penalties.

IMO the group penalty situation is sort of a placebo effect; if you're thinking about it constantly it's going to seem a lot worse than if you just relax and let it be. Play the game, have fun and I promise you'll still level up pretty damn fast.

[mmiles8]

Still waiting for an actual response as to why hell levels have shared group xp penalties when it wasn't classic, sigh.

If you'd rephrase your question I'll try. I'm not sure what you're asking. Hell levels and xp penalties were both classic, and the xp penalties didn't only occur in hell levels.

Also, hell levels don't involve any xp penalty of any sort by themselves. They're simply a larger xp requirement to progress through.

[Nedala]

I was in a decent crushbone group 2 days ago with my enchanter in crushbone and it took me over 3 hours from lvl 9 to lvl 10 !!! Come on seriously on my druid before the exp nerf, group exp was like tripple that fast. Something has to be wrong but this is for sure more than just 6% exp nerf....and the worst is im faster soloing now as an enchanter. But i like grouping much more, i think group exp should really be way faster than solo exp or something is wrong.

[Oogmog]

If you'd rephrase your question I'll try. I'm not sure what you're asking. Hell levels and xp penalties were both classic, and the xp penalties didn't only occur in hell levels.

Also, hell levels don't involve any xp penalty of any sort by themselves. They're simply a larger xp requirement to progress through.

Right now if you group with a level 45, their "hell" level penalty is shared with the group and that level 45 gains experience at the same rate as the level 44 and level 46 in the same group. This was put in by Bumagager(Sorry, I know that's not the correct spelling) because it was his belief that is how it was in classic and I think most people can verify that isn't the case.

[Grukmuck]

Not sure if this was posted somewhere, but this explains exp bonus/penalties stated back in 2001 for Velious fixes I believe.

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/011401_EQ_Producers_letter.html

[Oogmog]

Not sure if this was posted somewhere, but this explains exp bonus/penalties stated back in 2001 for Velious fixes I believe.

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/011401_EQ_Producers_letter.html

It's been posted, and hell levels were admitted to be "bugs" and were removed later down the road. They never acknowledged hell levels at this point in the game but we knew they existed due to the tremendous spike in required kills to get through those levels.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Let's take a group of 6 people (10% xp full group bonus) of the same level (to avoid unnecessary noise) including one hybrid (40% xp penalty). This group kills a mob worth 60xp.

At the moment, the xp received by everyone will be: (60+10%-40%)/6=(60+6-24)/6=7.
What if the race/class penalties were not applied to the group but to the hybrid only? The xp gained would be 60/6+10%=11 for everyone but for the hybrid who would earn 60/6+10%-40%=7


Not flaming... but just no... not at all.

I have explained the numbers already in like 3 or 4 threads on this subject. Search for my posts if you want to see the math.

Bottom line: Hybrids cause a group to take on average between 8-15% longer to level. Bad players can slow down a group much more than that.

Right now if you group with a level 45, their "hell" level penalty is shared with the group and that level 45 gains experience at the same rate as the level 44 and level 46 in the same group. This was put in by Bumagager(Sorry, I know that's not the correct spelling) because it was his belief that is how it was in classic and I think most people can verify that isn't the case.
Not true. There is no "hell level penalty" that is distributed to the group. Hell levels take a lot more xp to get through than the levels before them and even take more xp to get through than the level after them. However, Hell levels do not affect the xp per kill received in a group in any way different to the normal split that happens at any other level. That split does not use a players level as a factor anywhere in the equation. It is based on the ratio of each players total xp to the total xp of the whole group.

[Bumamgar]

Not true. There is no "hell level penalty" that is distributed to the group. Hell levels take a lot more xp to get through than the levels before them and even take more xp to get through than the level after them. However, Hell levels do not affect the xp per kill received in a group in any way different to the normal split that happens at any other level. That split does not use a players level as a factor anywhere in the equation. It is based on the ratio of each players total xp to the total xp of the whole group.
This is true now, it wasn't before the patch :)

[soup]

Not flaming... but just no... not at all.

I have explained the numbers already in like 3 or 4 threads on this subject. Search for my posts if you want to see the math.

Bottom line: Hybrids cause a group to take on average between 8-15% longer to level. Bad players can slow down a group much more than that.


Not true. There is no "hell level penalty" that is distributed to the group. Hell levels take a lot more xp to get through than the levels before them and even take more xp to get through than the level after them. However, Hell levels do not affect the xp per kill received in a group in any way different to the normal split that happens at any other level. That split does not use a players level as a factor anywhere in the equation. It is based on the ratio of each players total xp to the total xp of the whole group.

I've seen you say this before several times. Honestly, you should link to one of your explanations instead of telling people to go search through all your posts trying to find the explanation.

[Toony]

"Removed the sharing of Hell Level XP penalties with the group"

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11843

[mmiles8]

There was never any penalty involved, and it takes the same amount of xp to level from 40 to 44 with hell levels as it does without. The hell levels simply took more XP to progress through.

Arbitrary example to illustrate point.

With Hell levels
Level..............Xp to level
40.................10000
41.................5500
42.................6000
43.................6500
44.................7000

Sum=35000

Without hell levels
Level..............Xp to level
40.................6000
41.................6500
42.................7000
43.................7500
44.................8000

Sum=35000


Here are the actual XP charts for a wood elf druid from the time that hell levels were in game.

Level..............XP to Current Level.......XP to Next Level............Difference
28..................33,067,440..................36 ,879,360..................3,811,920
29..................36,879,360..................40 ,973,520..................4,094,160
30..................40,973,520..................49 ,896,000..................8,922,480
31..................49,896,000..................55 ,053,768..................5,157,768
32..................55,053,768..................60 ,555,264..................5,501,496
33..................60,555,264..................66 ,411,576..................5,856,312
34..................66,411,576..................72 ,633,792..................6,222,216
35..................72,633,792..................86 ,436,000..................13,802,208
36..................86,436,000..................94 ,058,496..................7,622,496

They were never bugs, and they were also not "fixed". They were redistributed in a fashion similar to my example above.




They also were acknowledged by the developers. Lots of silly theories get cooked up to explain bad research.

Here (http://www.makeitsimple.com/news/gamenews/everquest_g2/page3.html) you have them explicitly referred to before the release of Kunark at a Dev Q&A at the second Fan Faire (Then called "Gatherings")in St Louis.

The hypothetical hell level penalty wasn't mentioned in the Producer's Letter because it didn't exist. Not because it was a conspiracy. Occham's Razor, folks.

[Harmonicdeth]

I do digress my previous statements QQ'in about the XP penalty. I was grouped with a Troll SK last night on my warrior, and I didn't really notice much of a difference in XP, but damn do they do the job better than warriors. At least in the agro range.

[Arclanz]

I was in a decent crushbone group 2 days ago with my enchanter in crushbone and it took me over 3 hours from lvl 9 to lvl 10 !!! Come on seriously on my druid before the exp nerf, group exp was like tripple that fast. Something has to be wrong but this is for sure more than just 6% exp nerf....and the worst is im faster soloing now as an enchanter. But i like grouping much more, i think group exp should really be way faster than solo exp or something is wrong.

QFT.

At lvl 8, I can solo ONE even con mob and get 4 ticks of blue xp. In a group with hybrids, I would have to kill 8 mobs to get that much xp. TBH, even tho the xp sucks I did want to group last night but EC had several power-levelers pulling all the mobs with their DS. Lame IMO.

(wrong) Well now that hybrid xp penalty is not shared, everyone should be leveling faster (except the hybrids / trolls / ogres). Regen and stun immunity and high str / sta, and good aggro control are nice to haves. I wonder how this change will play out.

Oops, I misread the patch notes. yes it's removal of hell lvl xp shared. How do they do that? If xp is distributed to the group based on their individual xp, how can you change that mechanic in one case (hell levels) but not another (hybrid's requiring more xp to level)

[Toony]

Well now that hybrid xp penalty is not shared.

Where did you see that? What I read said

Removed the sharing of Hell Level XP penalties with the group

[Nedala]

QFT.

At lvl 8, I can solo ONE even con mob and get 4 ticks of blue xp. In a group with hybrids, I would have to kill 8 mobs to get that much xp. TBH, even tho the xp sucks I did want to group last night but EC had several power-levelers pulling all the mobs with their DS. Lame IMO.

Well now that hybrid xp penalty is not shared, everyone should be leveling faster (except the hybrids / trolls / ogres). Regen and stun immunity and high str / sta, and good aggro control are nice to haves. I wonder how this change will play out.

Well i get like 1 blue bubble for 1 even con mob. Still WAY faster than group exp which should not be imo :(

[UrsusMajor]

Well i get like 1 blue bubble for 1 even con mob. Still WAY faster than group exp which should not be imo :(

Yeah at level 20 in Unrest on my Necro I was getting really good xp doing like a 5-6 spawn in the back room(s). I was then asked to group up, which I did and the xp, even with constant pulling, was just horrid. None of the people in the group con'd red to me but we had an SK as the main tank.

[Eyry]

Until group exp is working properly, i will not group up. I refuse to. The exp is so bad its not even funny. I was in SolA last night with a group and we were chain pulling. We didn't even have a hybrid in our group. I solo way faster and get way better exp that I ever had in a group (Magician).

[Nedala]

Im not sure if the devs are aware of group exp seems bugged...as it is right now even a warrior levels faster solo.

[nilbog]

Players have ALWAYS received more exp from soloing. What is the difference here?

I soloed with my magician to lvl 54.

I'm not saying that it's encouraged, but neither is grouping. That is up to you.

[mmiles8]

^ This. Getting 1 blue per kill solo at level 8, it should come as no surprise that in a group, you get less xp per kill. As a group, you should be killing more mobs in that span of time. If you got >= 1 blue per kill grouped, THAT is what would be out of whack.

[Eyry]

^ This. True.

[Nedala]

Sure we get less exp per kill but should leveling really be so much slower in grps than solo? ( i mean if you are not a mage or a necro )

On my druid exp in decent dungeons group was WAY faster than kiting red mobs solo.

Back on live exp group was way faster on my pala in than soloing. As it is right now i believe even as a paladin grouping is not worth it.

[Arclanz]

^ This. Getting 1 blue per kill solo at level 8, it should come as no surprise that in a group, you get less xp per kill. As a group, you should be killing more mobs in that span of time. If you got >= 1 blue per kill grouped, THAT is what would be out of whack.

Let's do some math. 1 player kills one mob = one blue bub of xp

6 players killing six mobs = less than one blue bub of xp.

This must be wrong. There is supposed to be a grouping BONUS not a grouping PENALTY.

[nilbog]

! I hope you're joking

You're talking about splitting 1 npc's exp among 6 people. Even with a bonus it will be less than what you get soloing that same npc.

[UrsusMajor]

Players have ALWAYS received more exp from soloing. What is the difference here?

I soloed with my magician to lvl 54.

I'm not saying that it's encouraged, but neither is grouping. That is up to you.


Yes I completely understand this but soloing, even on my necro at 21, I cannot chain pull mobs like a good group can. Even in the 40's a necro still has to med. Shouldn't chain pulling be = or just as good as solo xp?

[Arclanz]

6 players killing 6 mobs.

let's say a mob is worth 1000 xp.

one person killing one mob gets 1000xp.

six persons killing six mobs should produce 6000xp (which equates to 1000xp per player). Even more considering there was a grouping bonus in classic. But on this server it looks to produce only 4800 xp (800xp per player).

[Toony]

This must be wrong. There is supposed to be a grouping BONUS not a grouping PENALTY.

You know, I used to think the same thing, I've been looking for an official acknowledgement to that end, coming up goose eggs.

[Nedala]

Yes but if a group kills six mobs shouldnt this give about the same amount of exp as when a solo player kills one mob? (+ full group bonus)

[nilbog]

Having a group doesn't bestow fat exp. Grouping is.. a safe way to get exp, or camaraderie to achieve a goal (named loots).

Soloers should get more exp, if their intent is to solo, and they have a soloing class and know how to solo?

That's the way it always was... If you guys think there is something wrong w/ it, by all means, keep researching and we'll fix something if its broken.

[Nedala]

But right now even "group classes" get more exp solo than in groups...

i know Mages and necros were always faster solo...and probably druids too im not sure about that. But the rest?

[nilbog]

Those "group" classes won't be able to "solo" past lvl 15? Depends on the class you're referring to I guess.

Is there a great level disparity in what we are discussing here? Low level people always soloed if they were able, due to the amount of exp they would make over grouping. Am I wrong?

[darkblade717]

! I hope you're joking

You're talking about splitting 1 npc's exp among 6 people. Even with a bonus it will be less than what you get soloing that same npc.

The way it SHOULD work is that in the amount of time it takes player A solo to acquire 1 yellow of XP a group should be able to acquire it faster just through sheer killing speed compared to the soloer. Of course, things like Necromancers and Magicians happen and throw everything out of whack, but if someone at level 30 is killing an even con mob and it yields 1 blue of xp (or 4%) then a group of 6 with no racial or class XP penalties or bonuses killing the same mobs at the same level should acquire 1 blue (4%) after 6 kills.

[Nedala]

The way it SHOULD work is that in the amount of time it takes player A solo to acquire 1 yellow of XP a group should be able to acquire it faster just through sheer killing speed compared to the soloer. Of course, things like Necromancers and Magicians happen and throw everything out of whack, but if someone at level 30 is killing an even con mob and it yields 1 blue of xp (or 4%) then a group of 6 with no racial or class XP penalties or bonuses killing the same mobs at the same level should acquire 1 blue (4%) after 6 kills.

This is about how i remember it. But right now its nothing near to that.

[Bumamgar]

6 players killing 6 mobs.

let's say a mob is worth 1000 xp.

one person killing one mob gets 1000xp.

six persons killing six mobs should produce 6000xp (which equates to 1000xp per player). Even more considering there was a grouping bonus in classic. But on this server it looks to produce only 4800 xp (800xp per player).

Not true, I've checked it with debugging repeatedly. In fact what happens is:

Example mob worth 1000 xp.

One person killing one mob gets 1000xp.

Six people killing six mobs get 6600xp (which equates to 1100xp per player before normalization).

If all six players are the same level and are class/race combinations without any XP modifier then all six players will get 1100xp each.

However, if the group is again the same level, but has some penalties etc, it works out like this:


Race Class Per Mob For Six
--------- ------- ------- -------
Human Cleric 162 974
Ogre Warrior 174 1042
Halfling Rogue 142 851
Erudite Wizard 180 1083
Barbarian Shaman 171 1026
Half-elf Ranger 271 1624
--------- ------- ------- -------
Total 1100 6600

So except for the Human Cleric and the Halfing Rogue, all members of the group earn more XP for killing 6 mobs while grouped than they did killing one mob solo.

The benefits of solo'ing vs. grouping depend on a lot of factors, but from a raw XP perspective, if the group can consistently kill 6 mobs in the amount of time the solo'er kills one mob, the group will earn faster XP over time.

[Arclanz]

Thank you so much for taking the time to do that test! In retrospect, I'm sorry to bug you :P

[mmiles8]

There is one thing that may be overlooked in the group division of xp. Several folks have been bringing up the group xp here and on the bug forums. The group XP bonuses tied to having 6 folks, the "full group" bonus was the same for 5 as having 6, but the difference was that the 6th did not result in any additional experience division. Meaning the most the xp would ever be divided by was 5.

I could dig this up and cite it if necessary, but hopefully others remember it as well. From the math, it's looking like that's not how it's currently set up here.

[Oogmog]

There is one thing that may be overlooked in the group division of xp. Several folks have been bringing up the group xp here and on the bug forums. The group XP bonuses tied to having 6 folks, the "full group" bonus was the same for 5 as having 6, but the difference was that the 6th did not result in any additional experience division. Meaning the most the xp would ever be divided by was 5.

I could dig this up and cite it if necessary, but hopefully others remember it as well. From the math, it's looking like that's not how it's currently set up here.

Whoa bro, you're def onto something... I really do remember this, but I cannot verify if it was myth/rumor or fact... I'll help dig as well because that is interesting and would promote group XP once again.

[Aeolwind]

There is one thing that may be overlooked in the group division of xp. Several folks have been bringing up the group xp here and on the bug forums. The group XP bonuses tied to having 6 folks, the "full group" bonus was the same for 5 as having 6, but the difference was that the 6th did not result in any additional experience division. Meaning the most the xp would ever be divided by was 5.

I could dig this up and cite it if necessary, but hopefully others remember it as well. From the math, it's looking like that's not how it's currently set up here.

Yep, I remember this too now that you mention it, but gonna need a citation. The 6th man was free.

I like you more everyday Miles. Don't douche out please!

[Arclanz]

I remember that too; not sure why I didn't mention it.

[Bumamgar]

Actually, no, that only happened during the XP revamp of June 11th, 2003:

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/history/patches-2003-1.html

------------------------------
June 11, 2003
------------------------------

** Experience System Change - Grouping **

We've made some improvements to the way experience is rewarded in EverQuest.
These improvements are aimed at positively reinforcing the
act of grouping. After all, this is a Massively Multiplayer game.

Prior to this update groups gained a 2% to 20% experience bonus for
having two to six members.

As of today this bonus has increased to range from 20% to 80% for
having two to five members. When a group adds a sixth member, the 80%
bonus remains, but the experience gained is only divided by 5 before
being distributed. The sixth group member no longer causes the
experience gain to be divided by 6.

Planes of Power zones had an increased experience award above and
beyond those of most other zones. Because of these new dramatic
improvements to group experience gains, we will be reducing the zone-
specific experience bonus for Planes of Power zones a bit. As long as
character is grouped with at least one other in these zones, they will
see an improvement in experience gain over the old system. The one down
side to the new system is that there will be a small decrease in
experience for those who do not group, and only for those who do so in
Planes of Power zones.

** Experience System Change - Level 60+ **

In addition to the above changes, we have increased the range of NPC
levels that give a character experience after they reach level 60. This
will open up many of the "old world" zones to players previously
restricted to Planes of Power zones for experience gain. The range of
NPCs that will be "blue" to a level 65 character has been increased as
far as level 50, with the "light blue" range extending to level 45. The
best experience gains, however, are still for fighting things around
and above your level. This should open up areas for high level
characters in groups and solo.

[Nagash]

Race Class Per Mob For Six
--------- ------- ------- -------
Human Cleric 162 974
Ogre Warrior 174 1042
Halfling Rogue 142 851
Erudite Wizard 180 1083
Barbarian Shaman 171 1026
Half-elf Ranger 271 1624
--------- ------- ------- -------
Total 1100 6600


Without entering into the details of the math, as far as I know human and erudite have no xp penalty, same goes for cleric and wizards. If they are all the same level, how come the human cleric earns less xp than the erudite wizard? Something tells me there's something wrong with the formula.

Also, you haven't mentionned how the race penalty is dealt with (is it shared with the group too?). It'd be interesting to see the same test made on a group of humans (or any race with no penalty) of various classes and with a group of ogres (or any race with race penalty).

[mmiles8]

like you more everyday Miles. Don't douche out please!

Lol... Thanks.

Actually, no, that only happened during the XP revamp of June 11th, 2003:

Ah ha. Then I have one final theory why we may be seeing the issue recur. Is it possible that the math is causing hybrids'/racial xp penalties to compound each other while grouped? Some groups see it, some groups dont, and when I look over the anecdotes folks are sharing, it seems that the folks who are not experiencing the problem have fewer xp-penalty characters in the group.

[Arclanz]

Actually, no, that only happened during the XP revamp of June 11th, 2003:

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/history/patches-2003-1.html

Hm I was long gone from the game by 2003 (making cameo appearences on occasion). I remember that free sixth group member occurring before that. I also don't remember the group xp bonus being from 20 to 80 % so I guess that occurred after I left.

[Dersk]

Without entering into the details of the math, as far as I know human and erudite have no xp penalty, same goes for cleric and wizards. If they are all the same level, how come the human cleric earns less xp than the erudite wizard? Something tells me there's something wrong with the formula.

You're not interpreting that example properly. Since in a group all characters progress at the same %, but those with penalties require more experience to level, those with experience penalties take a larger share of the experience. That's the whole problem. The cleric gets less experience because the cleric does not require as much experience to increase in level.

Wizards have a 10% experience penalty, which is why in that case the wizard takes more experience than the cleric.

[Arclanz]

bumping this because group xp was simply THAT bad last night. At Derv 2, full group. tons of mobs dying and the xp literally not moving. what is up !!??

/edit

9 chanter (me)
12 gnome necro
11 gnome mage
11 barbarian shaman
11 halfling rogue
11 barbarian rogue

It sure felt like we had to kill 10 to 15 yellow to red mobs to get the same xp as me soloing 1 con even mob.

[mmiles8]

Ah ha. Then I have one final theory why we may be seeing the issue recur. Is it possible that the math is causing hybrids'/racial xp penalties to compound each other while grouped? Some groups see it, some groups dont, and when I look over the anecdotes folks are sharing, it seems that the folks who are not experiencing the problem have fewer xp-penalty characters in the group.

If you have bad xp experiences (that was an awkward sentence), humor me, and include how many folks in your group had an individual xp penalty. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but worth a peek into I suppose.

[liveitup1216]

i've been in groups with myself being a barb, a bard, an sk tank, and a monk, and the exp was anything but slow.

level spread has more to do with it than combo's it seems, as they were all blue/even to me.

[frefaln]

Without entering into the details of the math, as far as I know human and erudite have no xp penalty, same goes for cleric and wizards. If they are all the same level, how come the human cleric earns less xp than the erudite wizard? Something tells me there's something wrong with the formula.

Someone already answered you, but for what it's worth I do agree that the chart is counterintuitive. Basically I would've expected the numbers to be flip-flopped such that the Rogue (with presumably a 9% bonus) got the most XP per kill. Makes sense, right?

Well, without looking at the code, apparently whenever your character establishes a new level, that's when EQ applies the penalty and figures out how much XP is needed to the next ding, i.e. when a Rogue dings 10 he needs 1000 XP to get 11 whereas a Troll SK would need something like 1600.

However, this is a strange approach in my opinion, at least at first glance. I don't know why the code wouldn't just apply the penalties/bonuses at the time of the kill when XP is distributed. Two different paths to the same result, except the latter seems to make more sense when you're trying to debug and determine who got how much XP and why.

[Nagash]

Wizards have a 10% experience penalty, which is why in that case the wizard takes more experience than the cleric.

Do they? As far as I knew it's only SK, pal, rangers and bard class wise. Which other do have an xp penalty?

Kind regards,
Nagash

[mmiles8]

What are the experience penalties/bonuses?
By Race:
Troll -20%
Iksar -20%
Ogre -15%
Barbarian -5%
Halfling +5%

By Class:
Paladin / Shadowknight / Ranger / Bard -40%
Monk -20%
Wizard / Magician / Enchanter / Necromancer -10%
Rogue +9%
Warrior +10% (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1002)

[Nagash]

Fair enough, I stand corrected :) Thank you.

Kind regards,
Nagash

[Maurk]

So if a class with no xp penalty (or bonus) groups up with a paladin for example, they share that xp drain.
Does this this mean if you group with a halfling warrior, you share the xp bonus?

[Arclanz]

Yes you would.

[Arclanz]

I think original EQ did this xp division so that you couldn't group with some super low level character and PL them by being in the group. The original publisher apparently prefers PL"n by druid or mage DS... /rolleyes

Moving right along, I would love to see, instead, xp divided based on character levels. And then those characters that have an xp bonus / detriment have that applied individually without affecting their group mates.

I'm sorry guys but I am fairly quickly tiring of old eq. I do not like to solo but unfortunately I see that xp in groups is horrendous. So I am stuck between grouping and making no progress or soloing and feeling like it's a single-player game.

Back in original eq, ignorance was bliss; now that we all know the xp situation it is anything but bliss.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

bumping this because group xp was simply THAT bad last night. At Derv 2, full group. tons of mobs dying and the xp literally not moving. what is up !!??

/edit

9 chanter (me)
12 gnome necro
11 gnome mage
11 barbarian shaman
11 halfling rogue
11 barbarian rogue

It sure felt like we had to kill 10 to 15 yellow to red mobs to get the same xp as me soloing 1 con even mob.

With that setup, you would only get 1/10th of the xp for each kill because you only have about 1/10th of the total xp in the group. Since your group is full, there is a 10% bonus to each kill's xp. Even so, you are only getting 1/9th of the xp you would get if you killed the mob solo. Therefore, you would have to kill 9 mobs of a given level to gain the same xp you could get for soloing them.

In contrast, if all your group mates had been level 9, then you would be getting almost 1/5th of the xp per kill relative to what you could get by soloing the mob.

The effects of a couple levels difference are MASSIVE at low levels because of the way the xp curve scales. For grouping to be worth it at low levels you need to be as close as possible in level and killing things that are too hard for you to solo or killing things many times faster than you could solo.

[Yoite]

something i just gotta get out. everyone that is "parking" their hybrids till kunark or till velious or till whenever...if you would just keep playing, you will be max lvl and nicely geared by the time your whenever date occurs. On the other hand, if you park your hybrid and wait, once the penalty is gone, hes is still gonna be a lvl 23 noob in crap gear.

just stick it out. the cap is only 50 right now, and kunark isnt coming out tomorrow. just play, dont even think about lvling, just play for fun, and next thing you know....DING!

[Arclanz]

you try to beat a dead horse but miss...

Was group xp like this on live? Just pathetic experience compared to uber xp (and loot) solo? I played a tank and then cleric from 1999 to 2001 so I don't know.

I've solod the vast majority of time and would rather group. Last night in guk soloing dark blues and a group asks me to join them. Prior to doing so, I was getting nearly one blue or a little less per kill. Also, no deaths in two days. I'd easily gain one level each day I played if not more. Nice loots too.

After joining the group, and killing blues, white, and yellows; the xp was 1/8th what I got solo on dark blues. But the sk in the group is raving about how great the xp is. Not that it's relevant, but we also wiped twice so I actually lost one yellow bubble of xp even considering all the frogs the group killed.

No offense to the group! They were nice and skilled players.

Also, the drop rate on mesh is just rediculous. In 30 minutes we saw two full sets of mesh drop. I killed a lot of frogs in 1999 and very rarely saw mesh drop.

[Bumamgar]

Personally I think solo XP is way too fast right now. It's being looked at :)

[guineapig]

Personally I think solo XP is way too fast right now. It's being looked at :)

How can you possibly get this accurate to the way it was in 1999? There is nothing currently available to properly base it on. Too many variables (class/race/level/mob/zone/possible pet/etc.), too much assumption and nothing solid. Too many changes have been made in the past 11 years and far too often.

Any changes that would be made would be a guess at best which is basically what we already have. There are probably much more important things to be working on.

[Arclanz]

Thanks Buma !!! I honestly would not mind if solo xp was nerfed. Anything to make grouping seem worthwhile is ok by me.

Also, the nice SK in the group was soloing near me prior to forming the group; and she said the xp was much better for her in the group. All six of us were lvl 17 to 19.
halfling druid,
dwarf cleric,
dark elf sk,
human warrior,
halfling rogue
human chanter (me) - btw we wiped simply based on too many repops when myself and the cleric were low on mana..
FYI

[guineapig]

Or at the very least no making changes that can't be proven to be the way they were in 1999.

The burden of proof is on those that want the nerf not on everyone else.

[Bumamgar]

Charms, one post is enough, you've made your position clear. You probably should tone down the personal attacks as well.

Everything is "being looked at" folks. Everything. From XP, to Spells, to skeleton models, to mob walk speed, etc.

Some stuff will get changed, some won't.

Like I said, I think that solo XP is still out of wack compared to how it was on classic. Frankly, I don't think it is a problem with the XP formula, however. I think that the problem lies in a variety of factors, all of which add up to a risk/reward situation for certain classes that enable them to solo content with minimal risk that should be extremely risky and involve significant downtime. It's a complex problem and involves lots of systems, including AC, mob damage, resist rates, etc. All of which are being looked at and tweaked, by all developers, and not just me.

[ChairmanMauzer]

Nerfing solo exp certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of all things classic. Solo classes were able to match or out-level group exp in classic, hence they should be able to here. As long as I played EQ soloing has always been a very viable option for leveingl for the the solo-capable classes listed.

[Virtuosos]

dont think he is saying they are going to completely destroy soloing...just double checking factors that play into it and "fixing what seems outta synch"


but, if they do decide to nerf soloing.....then yeah, fuck them provide proof and blahblahblah

[Virtuosos]

well that too :$ we need more paladins....or hell id love to see more rangers..




yeah lets kill all solo xp and mega nerf all class's but rangers.....sounds good lets go!

[Malrubius]

I just want things to be as classic as possible.

Please don't make any changes just because something doesn't appear to be fair. Classic EQ was definitely not fair. Having everything fair is one thing that makes so many other MMOs boring - they have been "balanced to death".


Playing solo a lot currently, it feels about right to me. In other words, its incredibly slow, with a lot of downtime, and dangerous (probably more dangerous than classic due to the increased mob speed here).

My worry is that any tweaking (in either direction) may move us further away from classic, unless it is done VERY carefully and for a very specific, proven, classic-ifying reason.

[toyodafenninro]

I just want things to be as classic as possible.

Please don't make any changes just because something doesn't appear to be fair. Classic EQ was definitely not fair. Having everything fair is one thing that makes so many other MMOs boring - they have been "balanced to death".


Playing solo a lot currently, it feels about right to me. In other words, its incredibly slow, with a lot of downtime, and dangerous (probably more dangerous than classic due to the increased mob speed here).

My worry is that any tweaking (in either direction) may move us further away from classic, unless it is done VERY carefully and for a very specific, proven, classic-ifying reason.

I SO agree with this. I played almost exclusively solo chasses on live, Necro and Wizard mainly until level 70. I also began playing on release and I can assure you this downtime seems right on par with what I remember. I actually applaud the authenticity for soloing. It would seem to me wrong to change it, but that is again just my two cp.

[Fryhole]

Charms, one post is enough, you've made your position clear. You probably should tone down the personal attacks as well.

Everything is "being looked at" folks. Everything. From XP, to Spells, to skeleton models, to mob walk speed, etc.

Some stuff will get changed, some won't.

Like I said, I think that solo XP is still out of wack compared to how it was on classic. Frankly, I don't think it is a problem with the XP formula, however. I think that the problem lies in a variety of factors, all of which add up to a risk/reward situation for certain classes that enable them to solo content with minimal risk that should be extremely risky and involve significant downtime. It's a complex problem and involves lots of systems, including AC, mob damage, resist rates, etc. All of which are being looked at and tweaked, by all developers, and not just me.

Yet some classes can solo better than others because of how the classic game mechanics were designed. It's easy to research a good XP camp, solo camp, farm camp, etc. because it's all been done before. Not all spots are equal in regards to these factors though. (obviously) Not every person who's playing a class that can solo will end up with a camp that provides 100% max efficiency regarding xp, loot, low risk factor, and all the other variables - not to even mention that the vast majority of the few 'sweet spots' that do offer decent loot/xp/risk are already camped.

A solid group would offer any one of the solo classes steady xp, lower risk, a social element, and better loot camps. (assuming you're not solo camping lguk @ 50 for ex.) :D

I agree with you though that the behind-the-scenes systems need to be as close to classic as possible; I just don't feel that tweaking them will really hurt soloing unless it was intentionally made to do so.

Please don't intentionally do so. ;)

[Bumamgar]

Either way, your one liner hidden in this thread should've been a new topic. I don't, and I'm sure others don't, appreciate you trying to slip the info in passed everyone so that way no one has the chance to discuss it, pretty low if you ask me.

Seriously dude, get over yourself. I was responding to the comment directly above it. I didn't try to slip anything in anywhere. Clearly folks have a chance to discuss it, since you've made like 10+ posts about it in the last half hour.

Oh, by the way: We make changes every week without giving the players a chance to discuss it. I'm a relatively new dev here, so I keep making the mistake of transparency, and people like you always do your best to twist my words and make me regret it. Good job!

[HippoNipple]

Charms your thoughts jump all over and your ideas/comments suck.

[Bumamgar]

Actually someone else told me you were planning on nerfing solo exp, and due to the lack of clarity from your one liner post, it seemed to add up!
Nice conspiracy theory, too bad you are just making shit up.

Oh and I'm sorry, is there a rule against posting in certain amounts of time? Are we allowed 3 posts every 10 minutes? Or are you just trying to poke a quip at me for voicing my opinion about something as stupid as nerfing solo exp to solve the problem, while also trying to turn it into a personal attack against yourself? Never once have I said anything derogatory about yourself, just the changes.

Oh really? These are just the ones you left in after editing most of your posts around 1:15pm to remove the worse comments, but these are all personal attacks:

Oh he's in WI, totally unbiased nerf I'm sure. - It's a uber guild conspiracy to fuck over soloers! oh noz! Cause yeah, no one in WI ever solos, and WI's competition is still leveling up, so this will give WI an advantage, or something? Seriously, what relevance does this have to anything, and how could my guild affiliation influence my opinions on solo XP in any way?

Did you ever play Everquest man? I'm really honestly beginning to wonder. - Credibility attack

Also, Bum, while you're at it, get some actual information and documented sources to validate this change, otherwise, don't ever bother posting stupid shit like that again. - Saying my post was stupid...

Have you ever tried soloing a yellow con as a soloer? Or even tried tanking a blue con without uber gear? - Another credibility attack

So if you're taking changes to the game personally, I can't help you there. That's more along the lines of your own state of mind.
I'm not taking anything personally. You attacked me, and then you edited your posts to try and cover it up. Those are facts that anyone who's read your posts (especially before the edits) can plainly see.

Btw; if you're regretting it, why are you continuing the discussion? You made it clear, finally, that the changes would be everything but experience based, and would be mob based
Uhm, no dude. I didn't say I regretted the post, or that I regretted the discussion. I said that you, by trying to twist my words, are trying to make me regret being transparent. You haven't succeeded in making me regret anything yet, but you are welcome to keep trying :)

I also didn't say anything concrete about what the changes (if any) will or will not entail. I said I don't think there is anything wrong the with XP formula. I also said (in the beginning) that we are looking at it. This implies that we're mid-investigation. We may decide that solo XP is right where it should be. We may not. We may decide that it's off due to some XP formula issue. We may not. All I said is that I personally think solo XP is too fast, and that it was being looked at. When we're done looking at it, we'll take whatever action our investigation determines is appropriate. Which may be no action at all.

So are you the one personally attacking me now?
Not really.

[Bumamgar]

Well, considering that it was an hour from my post to your first response, I can only assume that the person in EC who said that to you was simply referring to my post. You tried to make it sound like there were rumors floating around that my post corroborated...

[Extunarian]

I think we are actually watching Charms descend into lunacy before our very eyes.

[Arclanz]

wow look at everyone cry about the possibility that they can't level so quickly (or be powerleveled quickly as the case may be). I play a chanter; not even a primary solo class...and I find leveling rediculously easy solo...but when in a group the xp is utterly terrible. If that's classic then I guess classic sounds broken.

[holkan]

lol gotta love people like charms too afraid to say what they really think so they back pedal constantly and try to hide what they mean. If solo'ing isnt classic xp rates it will be nerfed if it is it will be left alone. Theres no reason to say all the stupid shit you said.

[renegadeofunk]

So if we know shared group XP penalties were a bug in classic, and we know it makes people stay away from playing or grouping with hybrids... whats holding up the fix?

Keeping it in because its JUST SO CLASSIC X-TREME is bullheaded and silly.

[utenan]

where does it say that shared exp penalties were a bug?

[renegadeofunk]

I read it somewhere, I'll have to dig it up again.

Edit: Well now I can't find it, but I swear I read from a decently respectable source that it wasn't really intended by Verant. I guess the war rages on... but I still think a group penalty is retarded. Harder doesn't always equal better, especially when it influences social dynamics.

Edit2: A more eloquent follow up to my argument that the shared XP penalty should be eliminated beyond "its retarded": I understand that the goal of Project 1999 is to emulate the state and feeling of Everquest from 1999, for better or for worse. My contention is that even though you can make the code 100% identical to that time, it still won't truly be like 1999 EQ because WE have changed. Nobody was blocked from grouping for being a hybrid in those days because only a handful knew about how harsh the XP penalty was.

Now that a large majority of players do know, I contend that this EQ is actually less like 1999 with the shared XP penalty than without.

[utenan]

Well, once you start deciding "we should leave this in, or take this out" the server becomes more and more custom, or fits the opinion of the people running it, its easier imo to call it classic and try your best to make the server as classic as can be. You cant do anything to change the fact that we, have changed either. On a side not, ive been playing since the server opened and I have never been in a group, or even heard of a group, rejecting someone because their class is a hybrid, specifically after the patch.

[Sarkov]

I agree that making it as true to classic as possible is the only way to avoid some pretty nasty QQ.

But, remember there are already examples of our P99 overlords changing the dynamics to suit their vision. For example the no-boxing rule.

And, a piece of anecdotal evidence from the recently-started, level 14 peanut gallery... take it as you will... I won't invite hybrids to groups.

[oldhead]

I believe this is still open for discussion. There are two issues here...

1 - The class/race penalties should stay in, and will stay in. That's classic and was by design.

2 - That the class/race penalties affected a GROUP's xp gain was an acknowledged bug back in the Verant days (once they fixed it anyway). There is a thread here somewhere discussing this in more detail. Since it was a BUG, it should get fixed here too.

Can someone (nilbog? aeol?) step in and comment? I'd hate for our beloved ugly Trolls (and others with xp penalties) to start disappearing from our server! :(


.

I lean towards bug and should not be in the game.
We want classic...not buggy. Not retarded. It should be classic in the sense of the game not exactly.

[Overcast]

In classic a dev response to specifics about XP would be....


" "

Ya, that's right - nothing. lol

[utenan]

.
I lean towards bug and should not be in the game.
We want classic...not buggy. Not retarded. It should be classic in the sense of the game not exactly.

Everything about classic was tedious, time consuming, and difficult, the shared penalties fit right in!

[RKromwell]

I already level slow when running solo. I work nights and getting groups during my 'peak' play times is far from easy. I average one blue tick per kill, if that is too much I am in trouble.

[apollyon arali]

Brad nerfed exp in classic for one reason....the all mighty dollar! Thats it..nothing more. It was not to make the game harder because "oh we want a uber hard game". They were the only game in town and knew it. The longer people played....the more money they made..period. So they put in as many road blocks to 50 as possible.
Hell levels, nerfed solo exp, nerfed powerleveling, kite nerfing, pet nerfing, spell nerfing..im sure there are more examples of exp nerfs.

Whats the sense in trying to slow exp on this server? It seems pretty reasonable right now with the exception of the hybrid/group exp issues.

Trying to emulate that part of the game here is just rediculous. Nobodys making money on this game here right? Emulate the good parts of classic..not the dumb shit.

[Morlaeth]

Classic yes....by design hell no.

The Devs stated later that they completely fucked up by having class/race penalties in at all because hybrids weren't really all that much better than any other class. The only reason they had them in the beginning was because they were DnD nerds and DnD had them for hybrid classes.

It's a stupid mechanic, even they admitted it.

It also adds nothing to the server by having them.


They said they fucked up with CLASS penalties...but they explained why they thought the race penalties should be in place...For example...Ogre vs Halfling warriors...Ogres are better tanks..no frontal stun..slam etc. There's a post on it in the archives of allakhazam or something.

[yaeger]

Personally I think solo XP is way too fast right now. It's being looked at :)

Did you find anything when you looked at this? I'm still surprised at the large gulf between group and solo exp.

I know that the mechanics support groups by giving a small small bonus depending on the amount of members (10% for a full group). But is it enough to overcome the shared class exp penalties in group to become equivalent to the rewards for a soloer?

I queried a bunch of different mages yesterday, and the common answer was they can generally knock out TWICE the amount of exp solo that they'd receive if they joined a group.

Is a typical group able to kill 6 mobs in the time it takes for a soloer to kill 1 mob and be ready for another?

[Braveguard]

I played a paladin on Mith Marr at release. It was only a couple of months before we realized I was leveling slower (regular group). It was maybe a few months after that when some of the more anal players parsed it out by playing comparisons and found that the exp penalties were fact. The GMs remained silent and the official response was "working as intended". It was sometime around the release of Kunark when they finally admitted to everything officially with the exp penalties for class and the reason that came through the grapevine was really irritating for those of us who played through it... they considered it to be too hard to adjust.

Originally, class penalties were instated as the downside to playing a hybrid. In the case of a paladin, you were a warrior with spellcasting abilities. They based a lot of this on traditional pen and paper methods. Unfortunately, they forgot to account for the fact that, given a choice, people would much rather take the time to level a stronger character than get a gimper character faster. The exp coding was all in place though when they realized this fact and they didn't want to be bothered with fixing it. So... they nerf the hybrid abilities to "fix" the disparity in power but didn't bother taking the penalty away.

Of course, this was never an official statement but the fact that they removed it with the reworked Kunark code seems to lend a lot of weight to it. Why take the penalty away if it wasn't a mistake.

Yes, the class penalties are "classic" but they were not good game design... simply the easiest path for the developers.

[Braveguard]

Something else is gimped in exp too. I play a woodelf druid. I have a regular partner (haven't grouped with anyone else yet) high elf mage and we play almost exclusively together. I am 18 and she is 22. I thought maybe she was just killing really fast in her short solo time but, after thinking on it, I've played a little more solo than her. We had occasion to play for a few hours last night. I started just a blue bubble into 17 and she started about halfway into 20. She dinged twice (21 and 22) before I dinged into 18. It takes more exp to go through a level as your level increases too so each of her levels should have "cost" more than mine did. Not only that but (and I could be mistaken as I havent verified this specifically) mages have a 10% penalty while druids have none, right.

Something isn't right there.

[Uthgaard]

I think you've missed what occurs and the nature of the 'penalty'.

Basically, pretend you have two cups: one is an 8 oz, one is a 32 oz, and you have a big jug of xp to pour into both cups. The little cup takes less xp to fill up, but the xp will be distributed so that both cups fill at exactly the same rate. Meaning, most of the xp is going into the bigger cup. This has been the entire premise of the thread, and is the simplest analogy of the 'penalty' that I can think of.

To break it down further for clarification, the "bigger cup" can be substituted in for hell levels, higher levels, hybrids, etc.

[Clef]

This is not classic EQ, gosh, I still remember how great the feeling was when I dinged 35 and sat down to med and had no book in my face. That was so great, I can't believe they took that out. So how can it be such a drama if they would take out the class exp penalties. I don't get that. 1999 we didn't know about the penalty for sure but today it is just a pita.

[Striiker]

This is not classic EQ, gosh, I still remember how great the feeling was when I dinged 35 and sat down to med and had no book in my face. That was so great, I can't believe they took that out. So how can it be such a drama if they would take out the class exp penalties. I don't get that. 1999 we didn't know about the penalty for sure but today it is just a pita.

The lack of a requirement to have the book in your face while meditating is a client side issue and can't be fixed by the dev team (yet). If they could implement the book while meditating, I know that they would. (as it was stated previously by Nilbog I think).

[MeldrathRN]

The lack of a requirement to have the book in your face while meditating is a client side issue and can't be fixed by the dev team (yet). If they could implement the book while meditating, I know that they would. (as it was stated previously by Nilbog I think).

pretty sure this would push me over the edge. :p

[Braveguard]

I think you've missed what occurs and the nature of the 'penalty'.

Basically, pretend you have two cups: one is an 8 oz, one is a 32 oz, and you have a big jug of xp to pour into both cups. The little cup takes less xp to fill up, but the xp will be distributed so that both cups fill at exactly the same rate. Meaning, most of the xp is going into the bigger cup. This has been the entire premise of the thread, and is the simplest analogy of the 'penalty' that I can think of.

To break it down further for clarification, the "bigger cup" can be substituted in for hell levels, higher levels, hybrids, etc.

If this is replying to my post... I understand that. My point was that the cups are NOT filling up at the same time. The mage cup filled up twice in the time it took the druid cup to fill once. The difference in level was thrown in for additional info.

If this was not referring to mine... nevermind.

[Messianic]

If this is replying to my post... I understand that. My point was that the cups are NOT filling up at the same time. The mage cup filled up twice in the time it took the druid cup to fill once. The difference in level was thrown in for additional info.

If this was not referring to mine... nevermind.

Your example isn't a good one because higher-level people in the same group take a larger percentage of the exp - significantly larger. Try it with you both at the same level, and it'll have a lot more validity.

[Braveguard]

I thought there were limits on that. When we started, we were only three levels apart. She got over a level and a half in the time it took me to get one level. That's a pretty steep penalty for being only three levels apart. From my admittedly foggy memory, I didn't think there was a disparity when you were that close in level.

[Messianic]

I thought there were limits on that. When we started, we were only three levels apart. She got over a level and a half in the time it took me to get one level. That's a pretty steep penalty for being only three levels apart. From my admittedly foggy memory, I didn't think there was a disparity when you were that close in level.

I don't think that's a huge disparity... again, if you had results from same-level people, I'd be more inclined to think there was a problem.

[Braveguard]

In any case, that isn't consistent with what Uthgaard said. He said that the cups would fill up at the same time and specifically mentioned higher levels.

If she needed 20,000 to level and I needed 10,000 to level. I understand that she would get 2 points of xp to my 1... thus filling the cups at the same rate proportionally. This is NOT what was happening. She got well over 1.5 levels to my 1 level.

I remember fairly early in classic there was some kind of pet bug regarding a disparity in exp but it's too vague in memory. I wonder if her being a pet class has something to do with it.

[Messianic]

In any case, that isn't consistent with what Uthgaard said. He said that the cups would fill up at the same time and specifically mentioned higher levels.

If she needed 20,000 to level and I needed 10,000 to level. I understand that she would get 2 points of xp to my 1... thus filling the cups at the same rate proportionally. This is NOT what was happening. She got well over 1.5 levels to my 1 level.

I remember fairly early in classic there was some kind of pet bug regarding a disparity in exp but it's too vague in memory. I wonder if her being a pet class has something to do with it.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to shared hybrid xp penalties. In his analogy, more of the XP goes to the bigger cups (the hybrids), so less goes to other members of the group. But this is assuming everyone is the same level. He didn't add level as a dimension in his response.

In your situation, if you needed 10,000 to level and she needed 20,000, she would get somewhere higher than 2 if you got 1 per kill. It wouldn't take much of a modifier at all (if you do the math) to cause her to gain 1.5 levels while you gained just 1...

[Uthgaard]

This is my understanding of it, and what (limited) testing I've done with it has supported, it may not be all-encompassing of every nuance, and there may be details that I'm unaware of, and there may be some bugs. It's an analogy to help illustrate the mechanic of xp distribution, not a detailed and rigorous breakdown. For that, you'd need Bumamgar, and if you search the thread, you'll find his examples and numbers.

[Braveguard]

He did, Mess'. Read the last line.

Moot point anyway based on what Uth' just said.

I couldn't find any info in this thread that made sense of this situation. I know the behavior in live wasn't like this. My playing partner commented on it before I did so I know she saw the same thing. I'm really tempted to ask her to make a new mage so we can test it from zero at low levels (neither of us really have so much play time though).

[Bumamgar]

It's been tested fairly extensively. However, I will test the specific scenario you describe. Can you provide more details such as what zone you were grouped in, and what mobs you were killing?

[Braveguard]

Sure thing. East Karana (near the Gorge zin if it matters). Started at barely level 17 (maybe one blue bubble) as a druid. She was under halfway through 20 as a mage. She was using a fire pet the whole time. We were killing mostly gorge hounds with a few griffawns tossed in. She hit 21 and then 22 and I dinged 18 about two kills after she got 22.

[Messianic]

He did, Mess'. Read the last line.

To break it down further for clarification, the "bigger cup" can be substituted in for hell levels, higher levels, hybrids, etc.

This statement doesn't mean "Both cups will fill equally regardless of the level, hell levels, or if someone is a hybrid." He said it could be used individually for each of those scenarios, not all at once, so all modifiers he mentioned were not included in his original analogy. At least if I follow his words to the letter of what they meant, that's what comes out. If not, I have to believe that a level 30 Troll SK will gain xp at the same % rate as a 25 Halfling warrior in the same group. That's plain silly.

I know the behavior in live wasn't like this.

I think it was. I grouped with an RL friend quite a bit (Troll Shaman), and I seem to remember him leveling faster because he was higher level, even despite his troll penalty...

[Braveguard]

On the one hand, I hope it's working as intended but, on the other, it means that I can never catch up... unless she is hospitalized and can't play. Hmmm... she IS my ex-wife. No... I guess I don't want to level that badly.

[Bumamgar]

On the one hand, I hope it's working as intended but, on the other, it means that I can never catch up...
You'll catch up a bit temporarily during hell levels, and of course, at 50th :)

[Braveguard]

Oh yeah!

See... the dev's always have a ray of sunshine to share!

[Fanon_EMarr]

I have mixed feelings on this whole thing. Honestly though, I feel there's strong merit to the argument that while the class penalties are in the spirit of classic, the open knowledge of them isn't.

The problem is, you can't start changing things that "should" have been fixed, because as soon as you do, you open the floodgates to QQ from all sides about what was and wasn't tuned or balanced properly. Granted though, the devs can always play the "tough shit" card. It's their project, after all.

Do hybrids get shafted? Yes. Does it suck? Absolutely. I love the Paladin class, but I just can't bear the though of going through the classic 1-50 experience again.

I'm using it as a "make lemonade" sort of excuse to play a class I never had the time to play on Live.

[Messianic]

I have mixed feelings on this whole thing. Honestly though, I feel there's strong merit to the argument that while the class penalties are in the spirit of classic, the open knowledge of them isn't.

The problem is, you can't start changing things that "should" have been fixed, because as soon as you do, you open the floodgates to QQ from all sides about what was and wasn't tuned or balanced properly. Granted though, the devs can always play the "tough shit" card. It's their project, after all.

Do hybrids get shafted? Yes. Does it suck? Absolutely. I love the Paladin class, but I just can't bear the though of going through the classic 1-50 experience again.

I'm using it as a "make lemonade" sort of excuse to play a class I never had the time to play on Live.

I am specifically not playing a ranger right now because of their classic deficiencies. I plan on leveling one to 22 and stopping there until animal fear is introduced...although I might cave and play in Kunark after exp penalties are removed for all the cool stuff they get post 50...

I never played a Paladin or SK much and was never tempted to do so in classic. I liked Paladins in Kunark and Velious because all hybrids became powerhouses during that period, but I can't stand them in classic.

[mimixownzall]

It will continue to seem this way. You see, most of what made classic Everquest different from non-classic Everquest wasn't just the content, it was the gameplay.

If you take the eq live patch notes for example, they continuously unnerfed or made things easier throughout the years.

With that in mind, think about a client and source that promote easy. That's what we had to start working with. 2006ish backwards.

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

I cannot think of many things that "positively" effect players that you might expect to see in the future.

If there is something in particular you know of, bug report it.


I keep hearing the classic arguement and I agree that it is a valid arguement.

I have yet to read anyone argue this point:

I will try to explain what is going on in my head, but sometimes I have a hard time relaying what I'm thinking into words.

One way of being 'classic' is to stick to a timeline no matter what: this was changed at this time... period. Another way of looking at 'classic' is to consider the reason for changes.

When EQ started, people were clueless about the shared group exp penalty for hybrids/races. This went on well into Kunark. The cat came out of the bag eventually and people started complaining and refusing to group with hybrids so they could level faster - much of what we are seeing on P1999. Someone said it was a bug that they fixed, but I'm not sure about that.

They removed it, thus creating a place in the timeline for the removal. Well, since we know about it now, how about we just move the timeline up to when we know about it? In a sense it is still being 'classic' - feature/bug goes un noticed; gets revealed; get corrected/removed. The only thing different is the timeline stamp, but it still happens in a classic way.

I guess I'm just trying to help the developers come up with a good rationale to change it and still feel they are doing right by being classic. =p

[Wizerud]

IMO all bugs should be squished from day 1. Stupid design I can deal with.

[jimmygarr]

This exp penalty is largely the cause of the lack of tanks in the game. Warriors are great in raids but boring as hell to play and have a hard time keeping aggro over an SK or Pally tank, but with the penalty these hybrid tanks are in short supply. I say if the penalty was MEANT to be in classic EQ it should stay, so keep the penalty on classes and races for now but drop the group sharing of the penalty. (If it was truly a bug and not intended, it should be removed here too right?) Maybe someone has the actual link to the Verant devs saying it was an accident? Either way, i know i prefer SK tanks regardless of penalty, and I know its not our call or our server and these devs do not answer to us. However the classes i personally enjoy are all hybrids and if there is going to be any change in the penalty it will only come from polite intelligent discussion on the part of the player base.

[YendorLootmonkey]

This exp penalty is largely the cause of the lack of tanks in the game. Warriors are great in raids but boring as hell to play and have a hard time keeping aggro over an SK or Pally tank, but with the penalty these hybrid tanks are in short supply. I say if the penalty was MEANT to be in classic EQ it should stay, so keep the penalty on classes and races for now but drop the group sharing of the penalty. (If it was truly a bug and not intended, it should be removed here too right?) Maybe someone has the actual link to the Verant devs saying it was an accident? Either way, i know i prefer SK tanks regardless of penalty, and I know its not our call or our server and these devs do not answer to us. However the classes i personally enjoy are all hybrids and if there is going to be any change in the penalty it will only come from polite intelligent discussion on the part of the player base.

The link has been posted before in these discussions. The argument has been "This is how it was in classic." Except we didn't know all the mechanics of the XP/group XP sharing in classic, so hybrids weren't shunned from groups because of it back then. The difference is now all the min-maxers know what's up. The argument to that has been "I don't see anyone refusing certain classes in groups based on the hybrid XP penalty being shared, so whatever." Since we can't come up with empirical proof otherwise, this is what we get. :P

[Uthgaard]

IMO all bugs should be squished from day 1. Stupid design I can deal with.

Get squishing them. Let me know how far you get. Clock's ticking.

[Glorfinrod]

I have a question about how this group penalty works, hopefully someone can answer.

Does the penalty stack if there are multiple hybrids in a group? Will a group of 2 rangers get 60% of their gained xp, or .6 * .6 = 36% of their gained xp? Does a group have to suffer each time they invite a hybrid or just the first one? :P

[Curmudgen]

For some in this thread I imagine this will be considered a useless post but I shall post nonetheless.

I have read over and over in this thread references to slowing of experience. In one form or another it's present. Am I missing hearing about a deadline of some sort?

Is it so prevalent now that the idea of playing has gone from chatting and messing around to watch the experience bar move as the sole purpose?

I dunno, but reading this thread seems to make the game seem stressful and almost joblike. I really think now the worst thing I can do is read the board chatter, and the best thing I can do is just log in and immerse in the game.

[Tappin]

I dunno, but reading this thread seems to make the game seem stressful and almost joblike. I really think now the worst thing I can do is read the board chatter, and the best thing I can do is just log in and immerse in the game.

QFT.

Play the game... Enjoy it. If you can't enjoy it than you can start your own new server where you can create your own environment. When you register on the forums here, you have to answer that bot-prevention question... it said something like, "What game is Project 1999 emulating?"

Project 1999 is EMULATING an experience we lived in 1999.

[ShadowWulf]

Get squishing them. Let me know how far you get. Clock's ticking.

Removing the XP penalty bug is a start...
Just saying...

Tick Tock Tick Tock

[nilbog]

Removing the XP penalty bug is a start...
Just saying...

Tick Tock Tick Tock

What bug?

[YendorLootmonkey]

This bug:

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/011401_EQ_Producers_letter.html

_________

"When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors. Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level. We could not let any one race or class be immensely more powerful than another at that final point, as it would essentially put parts of the game off limits to those who chose the less powerful classes. While we did a good job of making races vary in power, but not so much as to be unbalancing, the same could not be said for classes. Still, though classes would be roughly equivalent in regard to the compelling reason to play them through versatility, the experience penalties were kept.

In regards to the sharing of the experience penalty, it was apparent in beta, before the penalty was shared, that those playing characters without an experience penalty leveled faster than those that did. It was obvious that this would occur, but it was to the extreme that a group of friends, all playing together, would become separated to the point that they could no longer group efficiently in the mid to upper-mid levels. So we chose to distribute experience in the group on the basis of the total experience of each member rather than the level, in order to keep groups together.

As such, a level 20 Troll SK, having more experience total than a Human Wizard of the same level, would get more experience from each kill, while the total experience for the kill was unchanged. Essentially, the SK would take part of the Wizard's share were everything distributed equally to begin with.

Experience Penalties - Resolutions

Over the past week the EverQuest team has been considering experience penalties in all their forms. We had many meetings where the issue was hotly debated from both sides. We had to consider not only the effect on the individualplayer, but also the effect of any changes on the game as a whole. Eventually, we nearly unanimously decided the following:


1. Race-based penalties are appropriate. An ogre, for instance, does indeed make a better warrior than a halfling. It is not so little that the faction and size problems make up for it, and not so much that it is really unbalancing at upper levels, but enough that the penalty should apply. Secondly, the penalty is not so severe (compared with class-based penalties) that it would cause groups to break up on the journey from one to sixty due to level differences.

2. Class-based penalties are not appropriate. Classes are roughly equivalent in power throughout the level ranges, and the versatility does not make up for that penalty. In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other.

3. Penalties, in any form, should not be shared with the group. Players know that no one class is immensely more powerful/valuable than another, and as such it is not fair to ask them to share a burden. If classes with penalties were really more powerful or valuable than the other classes, then it might be right, but that isn't the case here. Furthermore, sharing of penalties causes people to reject potential group members on the basis of them "sucking" too much experience.

4. We're going to fix it.

5. Class-based experience bonuses (which warriors and rogues get) are also not appropriate, as they cannot be so if penalties are not. However, we've decided to leave this as-is, since the bonus is not so severe as to be unbalancing. Bottom line: we don't feel the bonus is enough to warrant a fix that could be interpreted as a 'nerf'."

________________


I bolded the parts that indicate Verant/Sony recognized the class-based XP penalties and the group-sharing of the XP penalties were WRONG and a design flaw made during the original design of the game. Therefore... a bug. They fixed it. We have the opportunity to fix it in advance, just as other bugs found well after their time were fixed here in advance.

[Virtuosos]

that does NOT prove it is a bug....it doesnt prove ANYTHING other than they meant for EQ to have class/race/group xp penelties and bonuses, and then later, after a year and a half, decided to change it. just because a dev wants to change their mind over a game design, a design they have had for a year and a half, does not mean it is a bug...it means that their opinions of why it was implemented changed.



"A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways." --- group xp and class penelties did not produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or cause it to behave in unintended ways....infact they did just the opposite, the dev's designed them to behave the way they are now.


the end

[nilbog]

That's not a bug, that's just an excuse to post that link again.

I've read it many times. I read it in 2001 when it was written.

You'd be amazed what people cave to, given enough pressure. You think the developers changed that because they considered it a bug? I really don't think so. Most likely the customer service department spoke with management which led to them changing it because people complained that the game was too hard. Since day 1.

I played a paladin at the time. I had a level 50 paladin when Kunark came out. I have a level 60+ paladin rotting for eternity on whatever my live server is now.

We'll remove the penalties in VELIOUS.

Argue for gameplay to change on a timeline, and I will most likely agree with you.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Nilbog,

If you played a hybrid, then you know how important the revision is and you remember wishing someone had pointed it out sooner for Verant/Sony to fix.

It's not about just making it easier for hybrids to XP. I think this is the key thing about the letter:

"Classes no longer have a true class-based experience penalty, making it easier for people to play the class that they want to play, rather than the class that they feel compelled to play due to faster advancement."

Wouldn't it be better for the long-term health for the server and overall gameplay if more people played the hybrid tanks (allowing for more grouping opportunities) instead of feeling compelled to go play some other class because they know in advance how the XP mechanics work and that it is not in favor of playing a hybrid, in terms of both general XP gain and getting a group? How many assling druids do we need? How many casters do we need? All the min-maxers here know where the "greater class-based power" is. Certainly not with the hybrid classes.

Yes, I know Verant/SOE made the decision based on customer-retention and we do not pay to play here. But my definition of a bug is "something that's not working as intended." i.e. broken. Verant clearly stated here that the original vision for hybrids would be that their "greater power" would warrant the hybrid XP penalty. As people gained levels, it was apparent that that "greater power" was never there. Same thing is happening here.

What's your definition of a bug, then?

[YendorLootmonkey]

that does NOT prove it is a bug....it doesnt prove ANYTHING other than they meant for EQ to have class/race/group xp penelties and bonuses, and then later, after a year and a half, decided to change it. just because a dev wants to change their mind over a game design, a design they have had for a year and a half, does not mean it is a bug...it means that their opinions of why it was implemented changed.

Sigh.

They meant for EQ to have class-based XP penalties based on their original design of the hybrid classes and their original perception that they would be "more powerful":

"When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors."

They then admitted that this concept of "being more powerful" never materialized:

"Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level."

"A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways." --- group xp and class penelties did not produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or cause it to behave in unintended ways....infact they did just the opposite, the dev's designed them to behave the way they are now.

Yes, they did. The unexpected result was that the XP penalty in no way compensated for the perceived "greater power" that the class would have:

"Class-based penalties are not appropriate. Classes are roughly equivalent in power throughout the level ranges, and the versatility does not make up for that penalty."

"Penalties, in any form, should not be shared with the group. Players know that no one class is immensely more powerful/valuable than another, and as such it is not fair to ask them to share a burden."

The class-based XP penalties were put in as designed, because Verant thought the hybrid classes would have a greater benefit/more power to the group. This was the expected result. That they would have greater benefit/more power to the group. The unexpected result was that they did NOT have a greater benefit/more power to the group. The Verant dev letter states this. You and I and the rest of us know this playing this 11 years ago. Therefore, by your own definition of a bug that you posted here, these penalties are bugs.

You can twist it and manipulate the words all you want. The dev letter clearly states the class-based penalties that were designed into the game from the start with the original vision of what hybrid classes were meant to offer in terms of power created unexpected results because that "greater power" or "extra group benefit from the class" never materialized in reality. I really can't spell it out any better than what I just did... I'm sorry. I'm going to drop it before I enrage a dev... but I don't see how this cannot be called a bug.

Just because it existed in the game for so long (2 years) doesn't make it any less of a bug, you know.

[Tappin]

This bug:
I bolded the parts that indicate Verant/Sony recognized the class-based XP penalties and the group-sharing of the XP penalties were WRONG and a design flaw made during the original design of the game. Therefore... a bug. They fixed it. We have the opportunity to fix it in advance, just as other bugs found well after their time were fixed here in advance.

A design flaw does not make it a bug.
A mistake does not make something a bug.
A bug is when something was acting in a way that was not intended.

If you play another MMO.. WoW for example, and your class gets nerfed and the devs tell you that they decided that class was doing to much damage with a certain skill... that does mean that skill was bugged.

[YendorLootmonkey]

A bug is when something was acting in a way that was not intended.

Exactly.

The way it was intended was that there would be "greater power" or "extra benefit to a group" for a particular class to create the need for an class-based XP penalty. The dev letter states this in no uncertain terms:


"When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors."

However, there was no "greater power" or "extra benefit to a group" for particular classes, therefore it was not working as intended. This is also clearly stated in the dev letter:

"Class-based penalties are not appropriate. Classes are roughly equivalent in power throughout the level ranges, and the versatility does not make up for that penalty."

Thank you for helping me make the case that a bug = something not working as intended.