How exactly does the XP penalty effect the grp?

[VincentVolaju]

Originally Posted by Trevalon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

as someone who just started on P99 I made a bard but it was a tuff decision because of the hybrid penalty. I find it sad that certain classes are not played because of a flaw in game design.

I get the whole "lets make it as classic as possible" but at what point do we knowingly add design flaws just for the sake of calling something classic? That seems pretty shortsighted and backwards thinking.

Classic is great and this server is about the best thing when it comes to getting a classic EQ feel, but even Verant/Sony admitted that Penalties were a design flaw and did away with them - Why repeat mistakes for no better reason than to say you are stupid enough to repeat them? Futhermore seeing things like Item links in game and other things that were not classic and were brought in from later xpacs makes me even further question why adding a penalty that was deemed a flaw was left in where non classic but QOL things were also put in? Doesn't make alot of sense in rational thought.

Why do we study history again?

Considering I am leveling a Ranger now. I would love to lose the XP penalty lol, but I am not too concerned with it atm either.

[Itap]

Penalties were put into the game for hybrids because they were meant to have certain advantages over "pure" classes.

If you think about it, they do. A Shadowknight has a ton of advantages over a warrior. Equal tanking ability in group settings, snap aggro, FD, DoTs, fear, pets, ect. Why would anyone choose a warrior over all the utility a Shadowknight has to offer? So Verant slapped an experience penalty on hybrids.

Penalties were removed because Verant/Sony wanted to make the game easier in order to keep and increase profits. By that time, money was running the game, not passion.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by SCB [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Check that calc above. Grouped with an equal-level ranger and troll shadow knight (for worst penalties) cost me (high elf enchanter) 2.5% more xp than grouping with an equal-level pair of human rogues when I filled out the rest of the group with cleric/warrior/rogue.

Hybrids make a negligible difference on the group xp in real terms.

It's less about a hybrid costing more xp, and more about the group comp. Why would I want a shadowknight or paladin who does almost no dps, when my monk or warrior is mitigating damage just as well, and holding agro adequately, while ALSO putting out good dps.

Again, one of those classes is fine as a tank, but it's hard to justify adding a second one. DPS stacks, so all the classes that actually do dps stack with each other just fine to some extent (not dots)

You think I would want to duo with a paladin or shadow knight on my shaman when I could duo with a monk? It's worse in every single way -except- I can slow slightly sooner.

You may have been getting only 2.5% less xp per kill with the sk and ranger, but you would be killing dramatically faster with two rogues, or a ranger and rogue, or two rangers instead. I hate to sound like a namby pamby min/max weirdo because I love hybrids, but knights are deeply imbalanced imo.

[Itap]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but knights are very broken imo.

This may be, but so are monks. They are entirely way too OP during this era of the timeline, which is why they get nerfd in the near future. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Trevalon]

Originally Posted by Itap [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Penalties were put into the game for hybrids because they were meant to have certain advantages over "pure" classes.

If you think about it, they do. A Shadowknight has a ton of advantages over a warrior. Equal tanking ability in group settings, snap aggro, FD, DoTs, fear, pets, ect. Why would anyone choose a warrior over all the utility a Shadowknight has to offer? So Verant slapped an experience penalty on hybrids.

Penalties were removed because Verant/Sony wanted to make the game easier in order to keep and increase profits. By that time, money was running the game, not passion.

And that may have been the original rationale, but we all know now that this simply isn't really true in most cases. If they were so much better than the other classes then people would still want them over the non hybrids, which as we know, isn't the case so much.

I guess my whole point is that looking back is 20/20 and not to apply the knowledge we learned to the mistakes that were made seems very...shortsighted - and for no other reason than just to say that "well that's how it was" - stupid is stupid no matter how you rationalize it.

[SCB]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You may have been getting only 2.5% less xp per kill with the sk and ranger, but you would be killing dramatically faster with two rogues, or a ranger and rogue, or two rangers instead. I hate to sound like a namby pamby min/max weirdo because I love hybrids, but knights are deeply imbalanced imo.

I can't think of a group that would stack any tanks, knights or no. If anything, it's better to have warrior/sk/whatever than warrior/warrior/whatever, but I don't know any group in high levels that would actively choose that as a group.

[webrunner5]

Originally Posted by SCB [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Check that calc above. Grouped with an equal-level ranger and troll shadow knight (for worst penalties) cost me (high elf enchanter) 2.5% more xp than grouping with an equal-level pair of human rogues when I filled out the rest of the group with cleric/warrior/rogue.

Hybrids make a negligible difference on the group xp in real terms.

Yeah if you are equal level. Try being in a 50 plus group as say a level 50 and have 2 Hybrids that are level 56 or so in it. Good luck with that. Hybrids suck Donkeyballs in a group sorry. But I am not saying I won't group with them. Any group is better than none. But it does suck. There is a reason Sony took it out into Velious.

[VincentVolaju]

Id think if your level 50 and grouping with level 56's, then them being hybrid isnt your biggest problem =X

[Duckforceone]

well did a test last night... and here is how it worked out...

lvl 18 ogre shaman, grouped with a lvl 18 halfling cleric.

so i brougth -15% to the house, and he brought +5% to the house.

the way it's shared in group, meant we were gaining xp % at the excact same rate.

So his bonus, was shared with me. The only way he would level faster, would be to solo.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You think I would want to duo with a paladin or shadow knight on my shaman when I could duo with a monk? It's worse in every single way -except- I can slow slightly sooner.

For leveling I'd agree, but at 60 I'd rate the SK as at least equal to a Monk as a duo partner for a Shaman. The Monk's main advantage is in kill rate and that's vastly less important when experience per hour doesn't matter anymore. The SK can do several things that a Monk can do only with difficulty or not at all.

The Paladin, on the other hand, pretty much falls off a cliff at high levels. It's at the peak of its relative power during the 30's. It's my favorite class, but I tend not to play them past the low 50's.

Danth