Not to you I don't. The simple fact is, you are wrong. The level range of mobs that gives XP has changed numerous times on Live over the years. There have been examples of that post IN THIS THREAD if you'd read it. Before any changes were made to XP, the developers as a whole discussed and researched the changes. I am not going to, nor do I have to, go back a month and dig up that research and post it here to prove it to you. The research was done to the satisfaction of the developers as a group.

That being said, we are human, and none of us have time machines to go back to 1999 and log into live and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As such, if you want it to change, the burden of proof is on YOU.

Despite the disagreement over how con colors and exp should work, can someone please post how it currently works?

I.e. where does the green, light blue, blue con separation occur as a function of player level?

And, what special exp penalties occur for light blue/green mobs?

How bout this;

Why dont we just say that some stuff gives xp, and some stuff doesn't. That would put this argument at a close.

light blue penalty used to be 50% on live. Not certain what it is here. But the rest is explained in the above quote.

As far as the calculation goes, I'm not certain but Bumamgar's explanation is very close to my results at level 50 at least.
He mentioned dark blue 14 levels below you at level 50.
Light blue 15-18 levels below you.
This is how it currently is on this server to my understanding.

The (level) x (3/4 level) formula equals 16 levels below you at 50,
which happens to be right in the middle of that 14-18 level range.

So whatever the real formula is it seems to be close to this.

This kind of mentality doesn't sit well with folks. To be honest, it's flat out incensing. All of the other devs require evidence before making a change in either direction and certainly don't talk down to folks like this. It's an immense double standard to state that your personal recollection is law and that evidence is required to undo any of your personal fixes that didn't require any evidence to institute in the first place.

When you have no standard of proof other than your own confidence in your own knowledge, it's a slippery slope. When you made your exp changes, you claimed that the hell levels were a secret and invented an entire conspiracy theory involving verant denying their existence.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...&postcount=139

That took all of 5 minutes with google to debunk.

I find Bum's position quite reasonable. I don't see the point in demanding that he cough up evidence of a group dev decision just to satisfy a player's challenge to him. If they want to prove it, they can, but since it's already in place, it has its own weight (since it is that way based on a group dev decision apparently) until disproven.

I also find attitudes of player = GM quite unreasonable.

With changes that are discussed amongst devs, researched independently amongst devs and ultimately implemented, would it be so hard to toss the community a couple links or documents or something that show where the dev conclusion ultimately came from for some of the "bigger" changes?

I'm not questioning its validity, but if the information is out there (which it must be for the change to have been made), what's the harm in helping people find it?

Edit: A month later I get that that's annoying to dig up, but going forward for bigger changes, as they're made when the research is at hand, I mean.

Just FYI, killed 2 green con Frogloks in Upper Guk today that gave me XP.

It's not the first time by my recollection that this has happened.

Just confirmed that a green "a sand scarab" gave me experience in NRo at level 18.