Dreadlands not as popular on Green vs live

[Castle2.0]

With high levels camping gobbie rings, LOIO is a great place to be for your 20s. High level buffs right there.

[cd288]

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

I know exactly why, DL was good exp in groups for 40th level characters. Tons of people did not have 50th level characters when Kunark dropped on Live. Thats why. You always found 40th level groups in DL, then DL is good exp. But the extra old world ZEM's made it too easy to level to 50 on Green. Those old world ZEM did not exist pre-Kunark on live, they dropped after like Velious. Plus those old world ZEM precent boost seemed way bigger an more abundant on Green than live as well, FYI.
Also, most servers people did not figure out they could kill town guards for great exp either, only guards I ever saw camped on live was in Nek forest, that was it.
After Kunark dropped on Green, I ran out my 40th level alts LFG in DL an all I saw were 47th-50th level groups. DL is terrible exp for those levels,

Nah people camped guards a lot. The difference was that people playing non evil races were much more reluctant to kill guards of other non evil factions because people didn’t know a ton about whether you’d need that faction eventually for something. Now everyone knows what class will need what factions and when, so if you know you don’t need Qeynos or Kaladim for example, you’ll find a good/neutral race killing Qeynos or Kaladim guards etc.

[Knuckle]

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

The staff has already stated that (something like) this is their goal [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Instead of classic ZEMs, we have deliberately unclassic ZEMs here (which feel more classic because of their mystery) ... even though almost everything else here tries to copy live exactly. This is a rare staff exception to their general "classic mechanics over classic feels" policy.

The sad part is, when it comes to "controversially classic" stuff like this, they seem to give up after their first attempt and decide "it's decent enough". But if the goal of this place is to get people to see classic EverQuest, what would really be ideal (instead of one adjustment every ten years) is to rotate the ZEMs every so often to make the least-used zones have better ZEMs, and the most popular ones have worse.

They would still want to keep the ZEMs secret of course, but then they could say "ZEMs will secretly change behind the scenes, and while you can't predict them, the unpopular zones are going to get higher ZEMs over time ... so go explore Norath if you want the best XP".

Thats fine except people will congregate where they can find groups, so if they don't clearly state "Unpopular zone X" is the best XP for the next week/month/quarter then people will continue to go where XP is quick, because no one wants to sit in a zone for 4 hrs and get 1/4 of a yellow bar and no loot, because trash mob loot is atrocious in non dungeons most of the time. The game does not reward exploration except during epic quests and such where you do scavenger hunts/mob camps and those were great ways to get off the beaten track and get a sense of satisfaction and progress when completed.

We should not sugarcoat the fact that people min/max XP in kunark because there really isn't anything fun to do in a slow XP group with poor drops.

[loramin]

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

Thats fine except people will congregate where they can find groups, so if they don't clearly state "Unpopular zone X" is the best XP for the next week/month/quarter then people will continue to go where XP is quick, because no one wants to sit in a zone for 4 hrs and get 1/4 of a yellow bar and no loot, because trash mob loot is atrocious in non dungeons most of the time. The game does not reward exploration except during epic quests and such where you do scavenger hunts/mob camps and those were great ways to get off the beaten track and get a sense of satisfaction and progress when completed.

We should not sugarcoat the fact that people min/max XP in kunark because there really isn't anything fun to do in a slow XP group with poor drops.

Oh I agree, and I'd even go one further: when I'm playing a grouping character, I'll go to a popular zone over a good ZEM zone. It has nothing to do with min maxing ... except in the sense that, it doesn't matter how good the ZEM is: my XP rate is 0/hour if I can't get a group (so a ZEM -100 spot is still better than a ZEM +200 spot that I can't play in).

But, that being said, if ZEMs were more nebulous, and over time migrated away from popular places, eventually the "critical mass" would start to shift away to some new places. It would be just like how The Hole has recently become popular for groups again ... it just might take longer than it did this time (without an explicit XP increase announcement).

[JayDee]

I am alone in Overthere right now.. Yikes

[zaldaben]

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

I discovered EQ back in October 2000 when I joined the Tribunal server. By the time I reached lvl 20. Kunark had been out quite awhile. The hot spot in those days was sarnak fort groups from 20-30, FM or OT groups from 30-40 and Dreadland groups outside KC from 40-50. I remember hill group 1, HG2, HG3, ruins 1, ruins 2, ect.

I spent my entire 40's in pickup groups outside KC back then. I wondered if when Kunark was released on Green if that would be the case here. It clearly is not. Is CoM that much better and we just didn't know it back then? Just curious as to why LoiO and DL are more solo/BYOG zones here when they were very much pickup group friendly back in the day.

on live everyone wasnt fully decked out in planar gear by lvl 46 or had 4-5 lvl 50's with all the best gear you could buy either.