100% agree with this post. Don't oversaturate your groups and don't group in non-dungeon zones unless it's something special like an AOE group.

The numbers are there to guide a decision, not make it for you. If I had the option of adding a friend to the last spot even if spawn capped I would do so. I my group was asking me "the group leader" to pick up a 6th for the group xp bonus and telling me to invite the butt head monk who was training me the previous day, then hell no. I'd refer to the numbers first, and then to the fact that the guy is a butt head and everyone in the group would feel a lot better about staying a group of 5.

I also have to agree with those who mentioned full groups having members slacking off. Seems like having 6 people gaurantees constant afks and poor behavior.

I did some googling and found the following...

http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.asp...opicID=1241228

According to that link, the old exp distribution (someone else mentioned it was installed during Velious) was a max of +20% with 6 people. The new exp distribution (installed either during 2003 or 2005) was a max of +80% with 5 and 6 people.

Here is another link about the older exp distribution (Velious):
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/edit...rs_letter.html
So when we're judging the bonus we will get, we must also carefully consider HOW the classes combine together to perhaps increase the killing power or survivable of the group.

Personally, I can see the logic there, but it isn't as clear as I'd like. A rogue obviously benefits from a group because he/she can backstab. A rogue also doesn't make a great tank. But what about a ranger? Disregarding the exp penalty, the ranger's dps doesn't increase noticeably while in a group. However, a ranger isn't the best tank, so they could get a bonus by grouping with a knight class or a warrior. Neither is a ranger the best healer, so having a better healer might speed things up. It might also be possible that with each level increase in the creature you're attacking, the expereince you receive is roughly exponential. This means that attacking someting with a higher con might be more effective, if you can handle it. Beyond these obvious points, I think that EQ creatures do not parry or dodge or block when you're attacking them from behind. So this is something else to consider. But I still wish all of this was clearer. Grouping benefits shouldn't be so blurry.

Everything is relative, though. Sometimes it comes down to utility or raw numbers or just social benefits. And then there's hte issue that you might not know the zone so you group with someone who does.

I liked the exp formula on Shadowbane. In that, you would get the same experience per kill no matter who or how many you were grouped with. The exp you got was directly related to how fast you killed. This is similar to what they have on the progression server on live right now. I think it's a nice formula. In Shadowbane's case, there was a lot of plvling, since player lvl wasn't factored. If I remember right, they did cap the amount you could get per level (so lvling on high level creatures was very slow). Something like that might not work well on EQ. But I suppose it's not too far off from the mentor feature a lot of games have nowadays.

Once you know how the mechanics work it can also make the game less fun. For example, if you -know- you're getting less experience in a group than alone, it'll take some of the enjoyment away. It depends. I was a ranger for a long time and was well aware that I got exp slower often times in groups. Sometimes it was faster, but that was rare. But soloing can get very boring and grindy. Whne you're in a group, it's more dynamic.

Never forget to challenge yourself, or you'll get bored fast!

Grouping is fun, you can't get it in other games (to the same effect as EQ) and to be honest if you want to be anti-social just go play WoW.

You can level yourself from 1-max level without ever having to talk to a single person. Hell, you can PuG your way through instances too.

Meh, I'm over it.