PDA

View Full Version : Class Experience Penalties


Summit
12-01-2009, 10:55 AM
Obviously many players have gotten by fine with the various penalties in, but I hope you'll hear out my reasons for its removal. As someone who doesn't have an extraordinary amount of time to play on the server, I find this penalty to be absolutely crushing. Even at a relatively low level my hybrid alt moves along much slower than any other class I've played, which makes the whole affair feel like its moving at a snail's pace. EverQuest has always been a slower, more difficult game, and I appreciate that, but the game is hard enough as it is without making it take 40% longer to level up.

The original intent of the penalty is to penalize the more powerful classes. However, most people will agree that classic EverQuest is surprisingly balanced. It's ludicrous to suggest that, for example, the Ranger class is more powerful than say a Cleric and yet one has a penalty while the other does not. Unlike other annoying features (no binds, boats) it doesn't add anything of value to the server. You could argue that having to get a bind forces the community to interact, but this penalty is personal only to your character. It certainly doesn't add fun on a personal level, so I question why it's in at all.

If I'm alone in this then fine, I will suck it up or just not play. That's fine. I respect the developer's desire to create a "truly classic" experience. I came here to enjoy that experience and I realize this penalty is part of it. My point is there were some things in classic that didn't make the game better. I doubt very much that anyone would miss class penalties.

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 11:14 AM
A truly classic experience is one that retained all of the best parts of classic, ie: no POK books, and no expansions yet. So the experience you have, and the environment you're in is immersive, nostalgic, and rewarding.

The experience penalty as you've pointed out was introduced to counter-act what they believed to be classes that could do more than one thing, hybrids, or classes with special bonuses. Back when Everquest was the ONLY game available this was important as it was an entirely new concept: "Hey, if you want to play a warrior/cleric combo, that's fine, but we're penalizing you 40% exp for it. At end levels you'll be able to tank raid bosses, rez, buff, and heal pretty well).

However, with the release of every major game in history, this original experience became less original. Coming back to the game now, almost all of us have experience playing other MMO's, and probably a lot of us have done things like end-game raiding in WoW in which almost EVERY class can serve more than one purpose.

So, looking at it now, experience penalties placed on hybrid classes was a feature of 1999 that isn't a feature anymore as the uniqueness of playing a hybrid died with 10 years of new games. As such, I fully support the removal of experience penalties. I think it would be a welcome change.

All in all, what we need to agree on (hopefully) is that while classic everquest is by far and away the best thing that's happened to the MMO community in a long time, we can't be dictators about it and cold-cut everything that wasn't 1999. The developers need to recognize that the BEST parts of 1999 are already captured on this server, they've succeeded in doing that. At this point we're not gaining more players, we're holding strong where we are. If we begun to look at small changes, creature comforts, it would even further increase the experience.

/2 cents.

President
12-01-2009, 11:15 AM
Stop beating the dead horse.

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 11:16 AM
I've posted a similar thread asking for luclin models to be revisited in the same way, to give us some 'creature comforts' which will only make the game even better.

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 11:17 AM
@ President, do you think any major success in history came by asking once and being told "YES! We'll do that!"

Not a chance. You have to ask a thousand times, dragging yourself back each time, for what you really and truly believe in. If only on the 1000th time do you receive a yes, then you've succeeded.

You won't deter us from continuing to fight for what we believe to be welcome changes, sorry.

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 11:22 AM
Penalties stay. Keep fighting, but they aren't going anywhere.

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 11:30 AM
That's fine. That's 1 "no". I'm prepared to wait for 999 more ;)

Let's keep the thread bolded and active and see if we can't get more chat in here.

President
12-01-2009, 11:36 AM
@ President, do you think any major success in history came by asking once and being told "YES! We'll do that!"

Not a chance. You have to ask a thousand times, dragging yourself back each time, for what you really and truly believe in. If only on the 1000th time do you receive a yes, then you've succeeded.

You won't deter us from continuing to fight for what we believe to be welcome changes, sorry.

Irrelevant and stupid. The decision has been made by the devs and no bitching and moaning is going to change that. All you are going to do is annoy the already hard working and un-paid dev's more by asking 1000 more times.

Trying to equate this to history, to which I assume you mean slavery, women's rights, etc. is straight up retarded.

Widan
12-01-2009, 11:42 AM
Why will penalties stay? They were obviously a poorly thought out part of classic, as seen by their removal. Why port over the bad things as well as the good?

Reiker
12-01-2009, 11:42 AM
Penalties stay. Keep fighting, but they aren't going anywhere.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2e4dd9j.jpg

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 11:44 AM
Pic broken Reik, and we won't post any more no's most likely. We've been fairly clear on this before.

Danth
12-01-2009, 11:47 AM
It still begs the question of why they're implemented in a non-classic manner on a 'classic' server. The existence of the penalties (though unnecessary) doesn't bother me. The fact that it makes staying equal-level with my wife's character an enormous hassle, and a non-classic hassle at that, does.

(edit). Perhaps its a tech issue? eq-emu does have its limitations.

Danth

Summit
12-01-2009, 11:51 AM
It still begs the question of why they're implemented in a non-classic manner on a 'classic' server. The existence of the penalties (though unnecessary) doesn't bother me. The fact that it makes staying equal-level with my wife's character an enormous hassle, and a non-classic hassle at that, does.

Danth


If I remember right the penalties had some way of equalizing themselves so that all grouped members received the same xp regardless of penalties. This is obviously not implemented currently.

If penalties are to stay, I hope this will at least be rectified.

Sloth
12-01-2009, 11:52 AM
being a troll SK I knew what I was getting into to. There are lots of advantages, but a huge disadvantage is the xp penalty. I should be lvl 40+ by now, lol!

Grindin'

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 11:57 AM
It still begs the question of why they're implemented in a non-classic manner on a 'classic' server. The existence of the penalties (though unnecessary) doesn't bother me. The fact that it makes staying equal-level with my wife's character an enormous hassle, and a non-classic hassle at that, does.

(edit). Perhaps its a tech issue? eq-emu does have its limitations.

Danth

If I remember right the penalties had some way of equalizing themselves so that all grouped members received the same xp regardless of penalties. This is obviously not implemented currently.

If penalties are to stay, I hope this will at least be rectified.

Let me double check, should have already been done. There is code laying around here somewhere for it if it isn't.

Xaviyn
12-01-2009, 12:06 PM
If I remember right the penalties had some way of equalizing themselves so that all grouped members received the same xp regardless of penalties. This is obviously not implemented currently.

If penalties are to stay, I hope this will at least be rectified.


Has this xp-equalizing system for groups been confirmed? I think this would be a great arguement for keeping the penalties if so.

EDIT: I found this http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/011401_EQ_Producers_letter.html

Halladar
12-01-2009, 12:18 PM
Aeolwind,

Evidently you and the rest of the devs have some reason for keeping the penalty.

What is it?

Can you explain the reason?

My guess is you won't.

If you tried, you'd produce the written equivalent of a rusty bucket with no bottom.

You really think a level 50 paladin is 140% more capable than a 50 warrior or something? What exactly is going through your head?

Do you think everyone would run off and make a paladin or sk or ranger or something? A server full of hybrids?

Rangers are so much more useful in a group than a druid, and they solo better too right? Ditto for paladins and cleric, and sk's and necros.

Go ahead and say "the penalty stays." Nothing I can do about it. But I'm going to tell you this: the penalty is stupid. You know it. Everyone else knows it.

If you feel "froggy," please explain the reasoning behind it? Oh yeah, I am aware that if I am that upset about it, I don't have to play one (I don't), or I don't have to play this game at all (I don't have to.)

But that doesn't change this fact: the penalty is stupid. If the penalty is changed, very little is different. I'd guess the biggest difference would be warrior desirability in xp groups, though taunt is going to have to be addressed sometime eh? Though right now, you take any tank you can get.

What are you guys trying to avoid exactly with this?

Do you even know?

Of course I don't expect an answer.

Jify
12-01-2009, 12:22 PM
You really think a level 50 paladin is 140% more capable than a 50 warrior or something? What exactly is going through your head?

Actually. I'd expect a 50 paladin to be 200% more capable. Warriors have more HP, but require support. Pallies are their own masters. Sure they suck horribly, but solo they aren't as bad as a warrior.

(no offense warriors)

If anything, you're "argument" would inspire me to increase hybrid exp penalties! However, this is a classic server, so classic penalties are in affect. Deal with it! :P

Summit
12-01-2009, 12:27 PM
To be clear, I hope to keep this thread respectful. I appreciate the developers hard work on the server as a whole, and I hope to improve on that with this suggestion. I'd appreciate it if people on both sides of the issue would keep the flames to a minimum.

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 12:36 PM
Some people are unaware of the roots of class based experience penalties. Those roots reside in old P&P RPG's, D&D specifically. Unlike now with the homogonized garbage that WOTC puts out, "hybrid" classes were penalized experience wise. Rangers and Paladins, along with bards required more experience to increase in level which was directly associated with the versatility of the class. You forgo your increased tanking ability to be able to toss heals, root and buff. The issue is that in D&D, paladins and rangers could easily tank as well as a warrior. They just couldn't specialize nor (in some cases) reach the damage potential of a warrior. In EQ, this is not the case. For a long time, Rangers, Paladins and SK's were (in some cases) inferior to warriors for tanking.

The main reason I feel it should be in is that there should be a disparity between hybrids and warriors. In EQ, warriors at the stage we are recreating are designed to be the tank. The penalty pushes more folks that way. I would hazard to guess there would be far fewer, if not too few, warriors if SK's and Paladins had no drawbacks as they do with the experience penalty in play.

In closing, I realize ya'll will rail against XP penalties till the end of time, but seriously. Why? It's a classic server. Classic EQ had experience penalties. Regardless of how dumb you think they are, that opinion is irrelevant.

When I say that this isn't going to change, regardless of how folks feel about it, and you continue to fight against it; You have no one to blame but yourself for the concussion you gave yourself for beating your head against the wall.

guineapig
12-01-2009, 12:39 PM
Since somebody brought up taunt, I have to ask how exactly is it broken currently?

It seems to work as intended on my animation. If I cast a dot and sit, the mob comes after me, if I wait till pet says "taunting attacker, master" then sit down, then the mob keeps its attention on my pet.

Are mobs not doing this with PC taunts?

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 12:42 PM
Aeol has made some valid points, especially re: the motivation to play warriors and not just SK's and Pally's if tanking-ability is equal. It's a point I overlooked but a critical one. That said, I have one final question I'd like a dev to comment on.

Is there an exp balancing mechanic in place such that in groups everyone receives equal exp? If so, can you elaborate? How does it work? Does it apply only to full groups? I level with my wife and am curious what sort of experience difference I'll see as a bard from her.

Thanks,

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 12:44 PM
1) Keep the posts civil folks. Apologies Aeol, disregard the flames.



Seriously, I'm not offended or bothered. There are certain things that were part of Verants "Vision", and XP penalties were one of them. Gotta take the good with the bad.

4) I've forwarded the stuff we have in house to Secrets (new source monkey as soon as we get them SVN access) to make sure it's in and correct.

Halladar
12-01-2009, 12:46 PM
Aeolwind, I'm not angry.

Let's get this out of the way to begin with.

But, I've played od&d, BECMI, Mentzer, RC, AD&D, 2nd edition, 3e, 3.5, I uhhhh read 4e, got labyrinth lord, castles and crusades, a couple hackmaster books on my shelf...

Other than flavor the way this game works is in no way comparable to d&d (even the caster disparity is in no way as bad in eq as in d&d. Though if you are using RC and BECMI weapon specialization makes a warrior a force to be feared at Immortal levels; I mean heck at that point you are trying to become a god anyway.)

Ok, I get it. You are not changing the penalties. But I know I'm right. When I've had enough beating my head against the wall I'll quit.

But not until then.

Tenudil
12-01-2009, 12:51 PM
Since somebody brought up taunt, I have to ask how exactly is it broken currently?

It seems to work as intended on my animation. If I cast a dot and sit, the mob comes after me, if I wait till pet says "taunting attacker, master" then sit down, then the mob keeps its attention on my pet.

Are mobs not doing this with PC taunts?

I can't say anything about high level, but in the low teens the chance that a taunt is successful is too low. I don't believe you are allowed to taunt even or higher cons here at all which I seem to remember you could. It tapered off pretty quickly as the con went up though and by the time a mob was a low red con to you, it was pretty useless.

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 12:51 PM
I never said you were wrong about the penalties. Under different circumstance I might even agree. I *think some source mechanics issues seem to be in the way as well making the experience penalty not operate correctly. If that is the case, then we'll fix it.

*( I have no personal experience with this or the source, I'm basing my comments off the posts and opinions of others and as such may change when more information is available.)

Tollen
12-01-2009, 01:10 PM
Let me double check, should have already been done. There is code laying around here somewhere for it if it isn't.

I don't think it is in, sunday I was in a MM group as a 22 bard, I start group with 1 Gold into 22, a group mate (enc) lvled 2 times (22-24) by the time I got close to 23... Even if he was only 1 gold or 1 blue to his next lvl I should have at least lvled before his next 2nd ding if the group xp is =

Enig
12-01-2009, 01:12 PM
Has this xp-equalizing system for groups been confirmed? I think this would be a great arguement for keeping the penalties if so.

EDIT: I found this http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/011401_EQ_Producers_letter.html

This hits the nail on the head... Roll up a bard/sk/paladin... try to keep the same group of friends together for more than a week. I was grouped with a rogue/druid 3 nights in a row... I started as a paladin at level 11, they were level 10... by the 3rd night i was level 14 (almost 15) and they were levels 17 and 18. Now I get to find another group to do this with... rinse repeat untill your getting tells from people who are level 22 sending you tells of congrats for getting 16. Oh what fun (sarcasm).

You want 1999, that is fine... but right now unless your twinked to hell, getting power leveled, or just like beating your head against a wall, there is no reason to be a hybrid. One of the great things about eq is finding "friends" and being able to play together. Your exp penalty takes away from that community experience. Just do a /who sometime. The reason bards/rangers are the least played classes in the game is not due to bugs/suck factor... its cause of the bugs/suck factor plus penalties that people just say "no way in hell". Take a poll, I bet there have been 100 plus bards leveled to 10-15 that then quit due to the penalty.

President
12-01-2009, 01:18 PM
Equilization is definitely not in the game as of yet.. as a warrior I am leveling quite a bit faster than the other group mates (aside from the whole dying more than them thing).

But.. Does that mean my XP is going to slow down? That would fucking blow.

Halladar
12-01-2009, 01:22 PM
On live, as i understood it, hybrids would get xp from a "phantom" pool.

Basically the xp each group member would get for killing a mob was the same, but the hybrid got 40% more out of thin air.

So basically when grouped they would level at the same rate as everyone else.

That is how I understood it to work.

Edit: just want to add that the probably reason you are levelling faster, is that warriors get a 10% bonus to experience as a class.

Tenudil
12-01-2009, 01:35 PM
In live before the big experience change, hybrids did in fact take xp from the rest of the group. This also affected SK's and PAL's getting into PUG's especially at the time. Do we take the warrior or the hybrid tank thats going to slow our xp down a bit, but get the utility spells that go with them?

Halladar
12-01-2009, 01:38 PM
I remember hearing about that. But wasn't it changed pre-kunark? About when rogues got to be invisible to undead mobs and fade?

Summit
12-01-2009, 01:49 PM
Thanks for getting back to us with some feedback Aeolwind. I'll probably hold off leveling further until the group exp balancing is in but I'm glad it's being looked into.

Tollen
12-01-2009, 01:52 PM
I remember hearing about that. But wasn't it changed pre-kunark? About when rogues got to be invisible to undead mobs and fade?

Fade is AA...

bigups43
12-01-2009, 01:54 PM
Why will penalties stay? They were obviously a poorly thought out part of classic, as seen by their removal. Why port over the bad things as well as the good?

Agreed. I played a bard to 71 on live, and really wanted to relive my young bard days on this server. No such luck. At level 8 I sold all my equipment, deleted my toon and made a mage. Why? Because I knew it was going to take so much longer to level, and I would rather have fun, instead of spending all of my time not getting the exp I should be.

Widan quote is great. Things that were broken in classic were fixed. Just becaus its "classic" doesnt mean its right. What about mage DS's? those arent classic right now. What about boats? Not classic. Youve obviously felt the need to change things to a non classic setting in some instances, yet still stick to the "classic server" argument when it comes to exp penalties.

I can tell you one thing. Bards are NOT overpowered, rangers are NOT overpowered. If anything you should be penalizing mages and necros. Just because a class combines two others into one doesnt mean its twice as powerful, it means that the class pulls attributes from two others; its not twice as powerful.

But as youve said, youre not going to change it. Just know that its affecting peoples decision to play certain classes, ergo altering class population balance; essentially ruling out playing certain classes because it takes an inordinate amount of time to make any progress.

Hybrid classes and evil/big races do the same amount of work in a group (presumably), so why should they be penalized? Especially in a game that is centered around GROUPING no soloing where these "hybrid" benefits would be most apparent.

but yeah thats just my 2cp

Caelor
12-01-2009, 01:55 PM
Does this mean 2 years after release (Aug 2011 ish; or however this falls into our timeline) we will see the changes outlined in that post?
- No more class exp penalities
- Group bonus exp
- Increased ZEMs

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 02:04 PM
What about boats? Not classic.

Stopped reading here. You seriously can't be comparing boats which don't work cause of a directx flaw between DX8 and DX9 that even sony didn't fix till the SOF expansion to experience penalties. That is silly, silly comparison.

Danth
12-01-2009, 02:06 PM
In other words, SHIPS would be working if there was a means of making them work.

Danth

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 02:08 PM
In other words, SHIPS would be working if there was a means of making them work.

Danth

There is a total work around by using the "skiff" from erudin. However, rigging the NPC's to make all of that work is an absolute nightmare. I seriously get lost in the maze of timers, global variables and spawners. Nilbog posted the perl code to the "boat watchers" that were created. But they are missing from the PEQ svn and I can't find them in my install of the AXC Home game.

bigups43
12-01-2009, 02:10 PM
Stopped reading here. You seriously can't be comparing boats which don't work cause of a directx flaw between DX8 and DX9 that even sony didn't fix till the SOF expansion to experience penalties. That is silly, silly comparison.

Well that means that you read the point before that one, which is selfsame to the one about the boat. I dont know why these things are the way they are, im just observing. If the boats are the way they are because of a dx flaw, ok. But dont disregard my entire opinion because of my being uninformed on one of my points, thats arrogant.

oh and btw, I love what youre doing with the game :D i really do appreciate it, but that doesnt mean I wont speak my mind!

and please do your best do avoid a god complex, dont say no just because you can.

Tenudil
12-01-2009, 02:10 PM
Fade is AA...


Im sure he meant evade. As for it being changed, my memory is hazy about that, but that link alludes to it being the same until the big change.


The problem is, were do you draw the line when you start making changes from "classic"? I don't think you'll find many disagreeing that there were many things that got changed for the better later on. But how do you make the decision on what to change? What happens to all the warriors who can't solo for crap when the hybrid tanks who bring almost everything they have and more to the table don't have an xp penalty?

It seems to me they are trying to keep everything as close as possible to classic as they can. Some things are likely not feasible to be changed, so they weren't. It's about as "fair" as you are going to get.

Elerion
12-01-2009, 02:17 PM
Most of the classic features have some merit. Class xp penalties are just bad design. The classes being penalized are mostly inferior to pure classes anyhow. It's especially bad that the current implementation isn't even classic.

There are a few cases where I believe deviating from 1999 standards are warranted:
- Gamebreaking bugs (Boats not working)
- Purely bad design, where hardly any arguments can be made in favor of a mechanic (like class xp penalties)
- Where dynamics are considerably different from live due to lack of players (Like bind/port availability - I would support a very limited and/or expensive automation of these services)

Danth
12-01-2009, 02:19 PM
Interesting info on the ships. I agree with that judgment call, all that work just to get the ugly erudin shuttle working in place of the correct ships probably isn't worth the opportunity cost.

I haven't really weighed in on my own opinion on the XP penalty, besides its nuisance factor (which, as noted, isn't correct and will likely go bye-bye thanks to this thread). As such, I'll do so now.

Pre-expansion, they don't hurt. I don't consider them necessary, but I don't consider them entirely out of place, either. Frankly, Paladins and SK's are superior to warriors in all situations outside main-tanking raid bosses when you have a Cheal chain running, and the hybrids aren't even much worse for THAT. Warriors were a pretty crummy class pre-expansion (and were even worse, initially, before they had things like berserker at low health). In addition, hybrids have a few bonuses here they lacked on Live, such as spellcasting not refreshing melee delay (which wasn't in until Velious).

With all that in mind, I can tolerate the penalty, and it wouldn't bother me at all if only my wife's Cleric didn't outlevel my Paladin so bad. You'll never see me say I like it, but it's tolerable in its current form, and will be moreso once group experience is properly allocated.

Once Kunark rolls around, and Warriors are relatively better thanks to things like /disc defensive, I'd re-evaluate the presence of those penalties. Verant did--just slowly (they remained in until Early Velious).

Danth

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 02:23 PM
Well, there are several things that are in deviation from canon EQ. Kedge being open (which no one has complained about) I think is the biggest blaring one. Mainly it boils down to this: Keep in mind this is strictly my opinion: Folks are willing to overlook issues they consider minor and focus on things they don't consider minor. Even though some things are CLEARLY not classic, things that are classic will be picked on more greatly cause of a QOL issue. Case in point, XP penalties: Huge target, whereas not a single soul that I've seen has mentioned Kedge being open. To a lesser degree you could say that evade not being mentioned often is another that folks are willing to overlook, but translocators/boats get browbeat.

Where am I going with this? Not sure, but the irony is present to me, that is why this stuff doesn't normally bother me. Folks in general are always willing to overlook faults they can live with and fight against those they deem damning. Nature of the beast. No right or wrong to it, just what it is.

Goobles
12-01-2009, 02:25 PM
Well, there are several things that are in deviation from canon EQ. Kedge being open (which no one has complained about) I think is the biggest blaring one. Mainly it boils down to this: Keep in mind this is strictly my opinion: Folks are willing to overlook issues they consider minor and focus on things they don't consider minor. Even though some things are CLEARLY not classic, things that are classic will be picked on more greatly cause of a QOL issue. Case in point, XP penalties: Huge target, whereas not a single soul that I've seen has mentioned Kedge being open. To a lesser degree you could say that evade not being mentioned often is another that folks are willing to overlook, but translocators/boats get browbeat.

Where am I going with this? Not sure, but the irony is present to me, that is why this stuff doesn't normally bother me. Folks in general are always willing to overlook faults they can live with and fight against those they deem damning. Nature of the beast. No right or wrong to it, just what it is.

Hey -- dude. Are you around?

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Hey -- dude. Are you around?

Newp, at work.

Goobles
12-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Newp, at work.

Hardly working, or working hard?

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Hardly working, or working hard?

Depends on definitions and perspective. :p

Goobles
12-01-2009, 02:43 PM
Golden. You think we're shitting up this thread? :rolleyes:

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 02:49 PM
Golden. You think we're shitting up this thread? :rolleyes:

I think my last post killed it for the moment. But yeah, we need to stfu.

Elerion
12-01-2009, 02:50 PM
Fuck yo thread (image edited out)
.

Takshaka
12-01-2009, 02:52 PM
threads can never have enough shitting.

Goobles
12-01-2009, 03:16 PM
.

OWNED!

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 03:16 PM
There's far too many valid points around the experience penalty for us to just 'stfu' about it. Some extremely valid points were made by everyone, including you Aeolwind.

So we all agree that some things suck, and some rock. Aeol, why are you folks so opposed to doing away with it? Clearly you're not adhering to a 100% classic feel as you yourself just pointed out Kedge is open...

If we're seriously playing classic everquest, close kedge, get rid of the compass in game, bring back sense heading, get rid of maps entirely, get rid of item linking (wasn't in game at release), etc etc.

Pick a side please Aeol, either you're for 100% classic or you're for modified classic, capturing the essence of it (which you've done perfectly btw) while filtering out the BS mechanics that NO ONE enjoys.

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 03:28 PM
There's far too many valid points around the experience penalty for us to just 'stfu' about it. Some extremely valid points were made by everyone, including you Aeolwind.

So we all agree that some things suck, and some rock. Aeol, why are you folks so opposed to doing away with it? Clearly you're not adhering to a 100% classic feel as you yourself just pointed out Kedge is open...

If we're seriously playing classic everquest, close kedge, get rid of the compass in game, bring back sense heading, get rid of maps entirely, get rid of item linking (wasn't in game at release), etc etc.

Pick a side please Aeol, either you're for 100% classic or you're for modified classic, capturing the essence of it (which you've done perfectly btw) while filtering out the BS mechanics that NO ONE enjoys.

We'll make those modifications to the client that you are asking for and have the server closed next week. Ok? Would that resolve your issues? Seriously, my last post on the subject. You can turn the compass of yourself, the maps are part of the client, and we left item linking as a QOL bonus.

If you don't like the flavor in our sandbox, leave. I'm done.

Goobles
12-01-2009, 03:29 PM
There's far too many valid points around the experience penalty for us to just 'stfu' about it. Some extremely valid points were made by everyone, including you Aeolwind.

So we all agree that some things suck, and some rock. Aeol, why are you folks so opposed to doing away with it? Clearly you're not adhering to a 100% classic feel as you yourself just pointed out Kedge is open...

If we're seriously playing classic everquest, close kedge, get rid of the compass in game, bring back sense heading, get rid of maps entirely, get rid of item linking (wasn't in game at release), etc etc.

Pick a side please Aeol, either you're for 100% classic or you're for modified classic, capturing the essence of it (which you've done perfectly btw) while filtering out the BS mechanics that NO ONE enjoys.

If you're volunteering to re-code all client side shits, get started imo. We'll be here waiting. Probably in Velious by the time you figure it out.

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 03:39 PM
We'll make those modifications to the client that you are asking for and have the server closed next week. Ok?

That's the first post you've made that provides any reason at all as to why you guys aren't in support of this. Prior to this it's been simply your opinion.

So from this, I gather that you're saying code-wise, it's too difficult for you to make these changes? If that's the case, there's quite literally nothing we can do and continuing to discuss it would be futile. I just hope you're not lying to end the post as there's a lot of people here that support you guys, don't take that for granted.

Halladar
12-01-2009, 03:52 PM
Interesting info on the ships. I agree with that judgment call, all that work just to get the ugly erudin shuttle working in place of the correct ships probably isn't worth the opportunity cost.

I haven't really weighed in on my own opinion on the XP penalty, besides its nuisance factor (which, as noted, isn't correct and will likely go bye-bye thanks to this thread). As such, I'll do so now.

Pre-expansion, they don't hurt. I don't consider them necessary, but I don't consider them entirely out of place, either. Frankly, Paladins and SK's are superior to warriors in all situations outside main-tanking raid bosses when you have a Cheal chain running, and the hybrids aren't even much worse for THAT. Warriors were a pretty crummy class pre-expansion (and were even worse, initially, before they had things like berserker at low health). In addition, hybrids have a few bonuses here they lacked on Live, such as spellcasting not refreshing melee delay (which wasn't in until Velious).

With all that in mind, I can tolerate the penalty, and it wouldn't bother me at all if only my wife's Cleric didn't outlevel my Paladin so bad. You'll never see me say I like it, but it's tolerable in its current form, and will be moreso once group experience is properly allocated.

Once Kunark rolls around, and Warriors are relatively better thanks to things like /disc defensive, I'd re-evaluate the presence of those penalties. Verant did--just slowly (they remained in until Early Velious).

Danth

If the exp penalty goes away for grouping, it will be as though there isn't one at all.

I know sk's can fear kite, and bards have been awesome soloers at certain times in game history. Rangers, in later eras of the game have been good soloers as well (though not so much in this era).

But most of your experience is going to come in groups. And if the penalty doesn't apply in groups, it is pretty much not going to be there at all.

But I think you might downrate warrior usefulness a little pre-kunark. And I might add, this particular debate is pretty much a warrior vs. sk/pal thing.

1) Are warriors on a different melee damage table than paladins/sk's right now?

2) How is 2h damage compared to dual wielding? In 1999 before the changes they made to 2h damage, it was pretty weak compared to dual wield. I guess they are using a later version of the game mechanics, so 2h damage should be much better helping the sk/pal, who can hold aggro with spells.

Most warriors are going to dual wield, for ... well let's not talk about aggro and weapons here. That has filled up uncounted threads over the years, let's just say they are going to dual wield except for certain situations and leave it at that.

But in 1999 warriors did about 20-30% more melee damage than a paladin or sk. There's not much to say about paladin damage, since the spells and aa/disciplines a paladin used for damage aren't here yet, and may never be.

The sk's are a little different. Theoretically they do more damage, but the taps are pretty useless till level 49. You get the heat blood line. The pet is a weak dot (that might actually work decently here right now). But the levels you get things, or even the effect is nerfed (vampiric embrace, the self lifetap proc for example) compared to necros.

In 1999 though a lot of sk's didnt' cast in combat because they lost damage (the spell cast/weapon swing thing you referred to), except to produce a specific effect like snaring. Or if it was on the death run, to tap a little health since it was going to die anyway, and you always had lots of mana.

3) Do Warriors get their "the most a mob can hit me for is one increment less than anyone else can be hit for" thing here? Big for raid mobs, not so much in xp groups though.

Maybe warriors (and rogues and monks) should be beefed up, not give an xp penalty to hybrids.

Though that is beyond the scope of this exercise I think.

But if the xp penalty in groups thing is taken away (which I think is a good idea), it's pretty much like not having one as it plays out right now.

But it's not justified either, except to make a niche for one class (warrior). And that only for 2 of the hybrid classes?

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 03:55 PM
To recap then, we've got 2 major issues on the table.

1) Warrior usefulness may go down if we nerf the exp penalty, thus encouraging everyone to simply play something else.

2) It's alleged that while grouped, exp is supposed to be equal.

Both great points and I believe we're still waiting on a dev to confirm item 2.

Halladar
12-01-2009, 03:56 PM
That's the first post you've made that provides any reason at all as to why you guys aren't in support of this. Prior to this it's been simply your opinion.

So from this, I gather that you're saying code-wise, it's too difficult for you to make these changes? If that's the case, there's quite literally nothing we can do and continuing to discuss it would be futile. I just hope you're not lying to end the post as there's a lot of people here that support you guys, don't take that for granted.

He said client wise, ie the part on your computer at home that came with titanium. It is compiled code, and I'm sure that while the devs for this project could give you a good idea of the basic operation, and what does what, no one involved with any of these emu things is making any change to the client on your home computer.

We aren't talking about spell icons, and spell windows and whatnot, or renaming zone files.

At least that is what I think he means.

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 03:59 PM
Very well could be Halladar, but no one's outlined it sufficiently to walk away from the post yet. I also fear that hatred towards the thread in general could simply encourage a dev to state it's client-side, who knows if it's true or not though.

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 03:59 PM
That's the first post you've made that provides any reason at all as to why you guys aren't in support of this. Prior to this it's been simply your opinion.

So from this, I gather that you're saying code-wise, it's too difficult for you to make these changes? If that's the case, there's quite literally nothing we can do and continuing to discuss it would be futile. I just hope you're not lying to end the post as there's a lot of people here that support you guys, don't take that for granted.

As I thought everyone was already distinctly aware, changes to the client file EXE's is absolutely forbidden by Sony. Just like we can't control when you get meditate or other skills (IE Level 1) we can control if the server will send you any skill up ticks or not. But you can still spend those points cause the client says you can. Like we can remove bash from clerics in the DB, but when you turn 16, it will still be in the trainer, it will still give you a button, and you'll still be able to bash.

We left Kedge open for extra space for upper levels. And the compass can either be turned off, or you could code your UI to not display it by default.

But stuff like Soulbinders being removed were a HUGE debate that we don't regret removing. Other things like item links the debate wasn't so huge as it was rather incidental and inconsequential. It's impact on gameplay was minimal and only manged to save people typing time. Compare the time savings in say a soulbinder to a item link. Or compare that same time savings to the experience penalty or translocator despawns. A typing time sink is irrelevent compared to the real time sinks that were built into the game or the interation requirements that are called forth by the lack of soul binders. In other words:

Item links while not classic have limited/no impact on game play. Other things that do have impact on game play, like compass/sense heading we are limited in our options for resolution due to the client issues. In general, the rule is exert control where possible, don't sweat the small crap, and try to keep it on course. Considering we work for free & the limitations in skill, time & client usage, I'd give us a A, possibly a B+ on execution.

Danth
12-01-2009, 04:01 PM
The penalty shouldn't go away in a group, it's just supposed to be shared. I don't know where some folks get the notion that the additional experience was drawn out of nowhere. Perhaps they can provide links? As described by Sony, penalized classes (not just hybrids--hybrids merely had the highest penalty, not the only one) simply received more experience per kill in a group. Even if you divide that 40% against the entire group, you still level slower than a non-penalized class. You're right, though, in the sense that it penalizes the player most heavily for soloing.

In the end, I don't care about that. I do care about the significant and non-classic nuisance factor in that my wife's character constantly out-levels mine. I have to spend significantly more time than her online, and in some cases she suicides just to help us stay even. The best I can say is that I tolerate it.

Warriors appear to be on a separate damage table here. I cannot confirm, though.

Danth

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 04:04 PM
Very well could be Halladar, but no one's outlined it sufficiently to walk away from the post yet. I also fear that hatred towards the thread in general could simply encourage a dev to state it's client-side, who knows if it's true or not though.


Speak of the devil ;)

Appreciate it Aeol, and no, to be honest I think most people have no clue what is editable and what is not, therein lies a vast majority of the 'ask for something but don't get it - then yell for not getting it' problem.

You guys have read the posts, you know how people feel about the exp penalties. We'll leave it at that. Thanks for the explanation - it helps.

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 04:05 PM
He said client wise, ie the part on your computer at home that came with titanium. It is compiled code, and I'm sure that while the devs for this project could give you a good idea of the basic operation, and what does what, no one involved with any of these emu things is making any change to the client on your home computer.

We aren't talking about spell icons, and spell windows and whatnot, or renaming zone files.

At least that is what I think he means.

Exactly, text files, UI files, Music files (to a degree), etc are not part of the source code itself for the client. Other files, like the sound files, can be renamed to return your old midi music & that is ok within reason.

Halladar
12-01-2009, 04:25 PM
The penalty shouldn't go away in a group, it's just supposed to be shared. I don't know where some folks get the notion that the additional experience was drawn out of nowhere. Perhaps they can provide links? As described by Sony, penalized classes (not just hybrids--hybrids merely had the highest penalty, not the only one) simply received more experience per kill in a group. Even if you divide that 40% against the entire group, you still level slower than a non-penalized class. You're right, though, in the sense that it penalizes the player most heavily for soloing.

In the end, I don't care about that. I do care about the significant and non-classic nuisance factor in that my wife's character constantly out-levels mine. I have to spend significantly more time than her online, and in some cases she suicides just to help us stay even. The best I can say is that I tolerate it.

Warriors appear to be on a separate damage table here. I cannot confirm, though.

Danth

I'm sure you've seen this:http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/011401_EQ_Producers_letter.html

now the relevent part:

"This means that we must address the penalty differently: basically, for every kill, after all grouping bonuses and zone bonuses are applied, the experience will be split up according to level, rather than experience. For those classes that do not have a penalty, they will then be given that share. Those classes that have a penalty will get their share, multiplied by their experience penalty. Essentially we are creating extra experience to give to those with a penalty after everyone else has gotten their share."

Of course this is from 01. I thought it was from 99. (I started in fall of 99 I think. I know the rogue changes happened sometime after I started playing. I thought it was only a couple months, but my memory could be wrong).

JohnPublic
12-01-2009, 04:28 PM
You need to apply the penalty to the group's exp as a whole like it was in the original game OR remove the penalties all together. Right now hybrids are getting the worst of both worlds and it is seriously affecting their numbers.

On a related note, are mage and necro pets taking their fair share of experience as they did in the original live?

Danth
12-01-2009, 04:31 PM
Ah, I see what happened Halladar. The part you quoted was in reference to the functioning of the new XP system as implemented during 2001. This new system replaced the version which P1999 strives to emulate.

Here's an excerpt of the portion which discusses how the original system worked:
"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. "

I am *told* pets do not eat experience on P1999. As I am not a pet class, I can neither confirm or deny this with any certainty.

Danth

Aeolwind
12-01-2009, 04:40 PM
I'm sure you've seen this:http://everquest.allakhazam.com/editorial/011401_EQ_Producers_letter.html

Of course this is from 01. I thought it was from 99. (I started in fall of 99 I think. I know the rogue changes happened sometime after I started playing. I thought it was only a couple months, but my memory could be wrong).

Same, I started in Dec in 99. Was 47 when Kunark came out, and I'm CERTAIN hell levels were in, I spent 71 straight hours in the king room in solb to get through 45. The original inception was that Verant added up the groups XP pools (Hybrids had larger pools to fill), then dumped the XP into that pool then redivided it back into the players. So this made hybrids get "more" and other classes get "less". So a group full of halflings would smoke any other group, by a huge margin ((War, Rog, Clr)x2).

Halladar
12-01-2009, 04:46 PM
Ah, I see what happened Halladar. The part you quoted was in reference to the functioning of the new XP system as implemented during 2001. This new system replaced the version which P1999 strives to emulate.

Here's an excerpt of the portion which discusses how the original system worked:
"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. "

I am *told* pets do not eat experience on P1999. As I am not a pet class, I can neither confirm or deny this with any certainty.

Danth

yeah. I was wrong, I've quit and come back to this game too many times (though not very much the past 5years or so).

But I think a lot of people have the same impression I did, that even in this 1999 type era it comes out of nowhere. The years they run together.

But while this will help you and your wife Danth, I think if they enact things the way it worked in 1999, it will hurt hybrids with groups. WHile it is beneficial to group, groups are going to be less likely to invite one (unless there is no warrior available).

When I have a group I take whoever comes along. But a lot of people on this server have to have dps or this or that or a puller who can flop to the ground like he is dead.

(On live I saw a lot of classes that could pull, necros, enchanters, clerics, druids, monks, etc. Even mages could do the pet pull thing, and the rogues the "sneak" pull. What is the hairy big deal about it here? A warrior can usually do it fine if it isn't something that has to be split and he knows the zone and pathing.)

Basically:

1) If the xp comes out of nowhere, it will be like not having a hybrid penalty.

2) If more xp is just given to hybrids I think groups are going to be leery of taking them.

Danth
12-01-2009, 04:53 PM
It's one of those things where you have to take the bad with the good. As I've said, I dislike the penalties, and if it were up to me, I wouldn't implement them--but it isn't up to me. The powers that be said they're staying in. So be it. Given that reality, the next best thing is to see them implemented in the manner most closely similar to 1999 as possible.

Yes, some groups may refrain from taking a hybrid due to the penalty. This will hurt Rangers the worst, I suspect. However, they can always group with their friends. As it currently stands, most of my friends outleveled me and I can group with my wife on equal terms only because she's willing to suicide her character. As such, I rate the current implementation as even worse than the classic form. Some folks may disagree of course.

Danth

Widan
12-01-2009, 04:54 PM
If it's implemented correctly it won't hurt them as bad as the straight 40% penalty now is hurting them.

guineapig
12-01-2009, 05:02 PM
I mentioned something about this group exp penalty issue about a month ago but I was told I was wrong at the time:

I was under the impression that this is how it's supposed to be in groups. It was just another way to encourage group play.

So the penalty that the big races get as well as the hybrid classes, which makes up almost half of the possible combinations of race/class can be offset by simply not soloing.

I could be wrong though...

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2590#post2590

Basically I figured reducing or getting rid of the exp penalty when in groups was just one of many ways that Verant decided to encourage grouping.... well maybe. In any case didn't didn't advertise their reasoning very well if that was true.

Summit
12-01-2009, 05:50 PM
Basically:

1) If the xp comes out of nowhere, it will be like not having a hybrid penalty.

2) If more xp is just given to hybrids I think groups are going to be leery of taking them.

If the experience penalty stays in because it was in classic it should be implemented like it was on classic. I don't see why it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest we remove the experience penalty but its a-okay to change it so it suits one type of group or another.

Halladar
12-01-2009, 06:05 PM
Well 2) is apparently the way it was until 2001.

Hybrids get more xp. So if you group with a warrior, as opposed to an sk/pal you get more xp.

Something is really screwy about this whole thing though. Rogues and warriors get a 9 and 10% bonus respectively. What does that mean? say they should get 800 xp. Does that mean they get 880 xp? Or simply that the total xp they need to obtain a certain level is reduced by 10%?

I remember Pyrocat put up the troll sk formula 1.4 for being an sk, 1.2 for a troll. total xp penalty = 1.4*1.2=1.68.

We assume we know exactly what that means. Well what does it mean? Let's say a class with no bonus or penalty (cleric say) needs 1000 xp to get level 2. Does that mean a troll sk needs 1680 xp to get level 2? Or that xp received is divided by 1.68?

I'm getting a headache.

Edit: Just wanted to say that depending on how xp works, you have an additional bonus (warrior xp bonus %/# group members) for every warrior or rogue in your group basically, as opposed to any other class. Depending on how this all actually works though. It's not very big though.

Danth
12-01-2009, 06:12 PM
"Or simply that the total xp they need to obtain a certain level is reduced by 10%?"

That would be correct. Experience penalties didn't really exist in the form of a multiplier. Instead, classes simply required more or less experience to level. You're also correct in that a group full of Warriors and Rogues would level quite a bit faster than a group full of Rangers and Shadow Knights.

I do not know how EQ-EMU factors things.

Danth

bigups43
12-01-2009, 09:29 PM
If theres no exp loss in a group, then I think thats a happy medium.

stormlord
12-01-2009, 09:45 PM
This hits the nail on the head... Roll up a bard/sk/paladin... try to keep the same group of friends together for more than a week. I was grouped with a rogue/druid 3 nights in a row... I started as a paladin at level 11, they were level 10... by the 3rd night i was level 14 (almost 15) and they were levels 17 and 18. Now I get to find another group to do this with... rinse repeat untill your getting tells from people who are level 22 sending you tells of congrats for getting 16. Oh what fun (sarcasm).

You want 1999, that is fine... but right now unless your twinked to hell, getting power leveled, or just like beating your head against a wall, there is no reason to be a hybrid. One of the great things about eq is finding "friends" and being able to play together. Your exp penalty takes away from that community experience. Just do a /who sometime. The reason bards/rangers are the least played classes in the game is not due to bugs/suck factor... its cause of the bugs/suck factor plus penalties that people just say "no way in hell". Take a poll, I bet there have been 100 plus bards leveled to 10-15 that then quit due to the penalty.

You don't know that. Rangers have been called gimps since day 1. I played a ranger on day 1 and I enjoyed it. It's all about outloook. If you go into this thinking it'll suck and that it sucks not to keep up with your close friends, then you'll set yourself up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. All you'll see are the negatives, and frustration will fill your life. Better to live within your means. Things go smoother.

If anything, there should be an option in the client:
1) "Share experience with group: [X]"

If you turn it on, you share the penalty with your group and everyone suffers. If you turn it off, the penalty stays with you and you level slower than the others in your group. For those with close friends, suffering the penalty together is preferable because their goal is to stick together. For others, who often get random groups and adventure all over the place with different people, they might not want the whole group to suffer the penalty. I can imagine groups not wanting to invite you because of the penalty, as well. So out of respect for the group, or yourself (you just want a group and you don't want to give them a reason to not invite you), you turn it off.

Having it as an option would be the best possible outcome. I wouldn't want it forced on me (or the group).

Widan
12-01-2009, 09:50 PM
Or since everyone always whines about every suggestion that differs from classic, why not just make it how it was in classic?

Swank
12-01-2009, 09:51 PM
Or since everyone always whines about every suggestion that differs from classic, why not just make it how it was in classic?

^^^
What I was going to say

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Widan
Or since everyone always whines about every suggestion that differs from classic, why not just make it how it was in classic?

^^^
What I was going to say

Lawl... I'm sorry, I have to laugh at jokers like this. It's like they click to this page of the thread, read one post, then cough out a response that's supposed to mean anything at all.

Lol... /sigh, needed a good laugh.

Thanks guys.

stormlord
12-01-2009, 09:57 PM
I mentioned something about this group exp penalty issue about a month ago but I was told I was wrong at the time:



http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2590#post2590

Basically I figured reducing or getting rid of the exp penalty when in groups was just one of many ways that Verant decided to encourage grouping.... well maybe. In any case didn't didn't advertise their reasoning very well if that was true.

This would remove the whole reasoning behind it in the first place since it's very hard to get to 50 solo. You pretty much have to group. If the experience penalty is in there to keep class balance, don't you think it would need to apply most of the time in order to function as a balancing mechanism??????? I suspect your reasoning is flawed and that this change or set of changes they made was for another reason - perhaps classes were changing on a fundamental level and this penalty was no longer needed to balance them. This wouldn't be surprising. I don't see any reason why class balancing has to use an experience penalty. There're untold ways of achieving this without doing it this way. I suspect that they got overwhelmed while balancing the classes early on so they did a very simple experience tweak (penalty) rather then going back to the chemistry and figuring out how to do it using a less generic method.

I personally feel that utility is too ambiguous to make a good judgment about class balancing. I'd rather focus on the basics as a balancing mechanism, and then allow all classes access to the same utility skills, but with a limited pool of skill-points in which to train them (and allowing for retraining too). Utility is just a dangerous place because it's not easy to predict. I think I lean towards skill-based or knowledge-based rpg rules, as they're not as inflexible as class-based rules. More bases are covered this way.

Widan
12-01-2009, 09:59 PM
Lawl... I'm sorry, I have to laugh at jokers like this. It's like they click to this page of the thread, read one post, then cough out a response that's supposed to mean anything at all.

Lol... /sigh, needed a good laugh.

Thanks guys.

You do realize after 9 pages of discussing it that the exp penalty has not been implemented correctly on this server, right?

Swank
12-01-2009, 10:04 PM
Lawl... I'm sorry, I have to laugh at jokers like this. It's like they click to this page of the thread, read one post, then cough out a response that's supposed to mean anything at all.

Lol... /sigh, needed a good laugh.

Thanks guys.


Glad I could give it to you :D

I actually read the whole thing on my Blackberry at work, but typing on the damn thing is such a hassle that I put off responding till I came home. I just forgot about it until I saw Widan posted and bumped it up.

I'm agreeing with Widan out of frustration, as I figured he intended his post to be written. I play a Ranger and personally would love to see the exp penalty removed, but since it can't logistically be done, according to Aeol, then why complain about it? So if they can't alter the code to remove the penalty, then I'd assume they can't alter the code to provide a group penalty on/off switch.

Jereziah
12-01-2009, 10:05 PM
You do realize after 9 pages of discussing it that the exp penalty has not been implemented correctly on this server, right?


omg, really?!? It hasn't?! WTF!

Guy, there's literally 9 pages of back and forth, stating both how messed up the exp penalty is, and how it SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be made into what it was in classic.

My point being, the posts previous to yours all brought some sort of intellect into the conversation, providing reasons for or against. Then you 2 come along and very elaborately say 'just make it classic'.

I literally lol'd... It's as if you had no idea what had been said in the thread. Your replies are to this thread as a children's tricycle is to a semi-truck...

At any rate, it was funny. No disrespect - I'm tired, long day, really couldn't care less about the damn exp penalty anymore. (PS: remove it)...

=P

Swank
12-01-2009, 10:10 PM
omg, really?!? It hasn't?! WTF!

Guy, there's literally 9 pages of back and forth, stating both how messed up the exp penalty is, and how it SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be made into what it was in classic.

My point being, the posts previous to yours all brought some sort of intellect into the conversation, providing reasons for or against. Then you 2 come along and very elaborately say 'just make it classic'.

I literally lol'd... It's as if you had no idea what had been said in the thread. Your replies are to this thread as a children's tricycle is to a semi-truck...

At any rate, it was funny. No disrespect - I'm tired, long day, really couldn't care less about the damn exp penalty anymore. (PS: remove it)...

=P

Did you not read the nine pages? Danth has told us like ten times that the group exp penalty sharing isn't working as it's suppose to and Aeol said something along the lines of, "thought that was fixed, the code is lying around here somewhere, will forward it."

So how about before you insult me or Widan you read a little more carefully.

And I don't want to speak for Widan, but I believe his "unintelligent" post was meant to be sarcastic, because after nine pages part of the penalty still doesn't work, and we've basically been told the code won't and can't be changed.

Sloth
12-01-2009, 10:55 PM
I think Masik and I are the only troll SK's in the 30's. Tough as hell, so i don't know what everyone else is whining about, cuz I'm not.

Talonfury9
12-02-2009, 12:21 AM
Yeah im fine with the penalties/bonuses.. then again i play a rogue... in general i like the server though. Asking for binds, siting on docks for translocator...

Torrinn
12-02-2009, 01:36 AM
Leave them in. The XP penalty was part of the 1999 experience and removing it takes away from that. If you don't have the time to put into the game then pick a race/class combo without penalties for your main and use your penalized character as an alt. The point that hybrids should have to pay for having the abilities of two classes or that certain races should pay a penalty to offset their racial advantages is as valid on this server now as it was on live in 99.

Bashez
12-02-2009, 04:42 AM
I think Masik and I are the only troll SK's in the 30's. Tough as hell, so i don't know what everyone else is whining about, cuz I'm not.

I'm just glad we aren't having to share penalties! After playing a warrior into my 20's I really don't have too much sympathy, SKs, and Paladins are just downright better currently. So much better aggro generation.

Goobles
12-02-2009, 06:02 AM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a74/RiddlN/QQ.jpg

President
12-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Yea I challenge anyone upset about their class's XP penalty to TRY PLAYING A WARRIOR.

Ronas
10-07-2010, 11:05 PM
/bump

Does anyone have or able to write up a exact chart on which class / race have what penalty.

In terms of group bonuses
How it should be:

2 person group - 2% total bonus.
3 person group - 6% total bonus.
4 person group - 10% total bonus.
5 person group - 14% total bonus.
6 person group - 20% total bonus.

What is it at the moment i think:
2 person group - 2% total bonus.
3 person group - 4% total bonus.
4 person group - 6% total bonus.
5 person group - 8% total bonus.
6 person group - 10% total bonus.

How it was when P1999 was live:

2 person group - 10% total bonus.
3 person group - 10% total bonus.
4 person group - 10% total bonus.
5 person group - 10% total bonus.
6 person group - 10% total bonus.

YendorLootmonkey
10-07-2010, 11:32 PM
Actually, how it is now is how it should be.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18345

Aro2220x
06-18-2011, 08:43 PM
@ President, do you think any major success in history came by asking once and being told "YES! We'll do that!"

Not a chance. You have to ask a thousand times, dragging yourself back each time, for what you really and truly believe in. If only on the 1000th time do you receive a yes, then you've succeeded.

You won't deter us from continuing to fight for what we believe to be welcome changes, sorry.


That sounds like blatent ignorance to me. If it's a good idea the first time you hear it why do you need someone to waste your time telling you 999 more times before you actually do anything about it?

A good idea is a good idea is a good idea. Only an idiot needs to be bashed over the head with a good idea 1000 times before they think it's acceptable to use it.

That being said, I don't support changing how the experience penalties work because if you rebalance the classes in any way you change how the game works...and thus, you change the game experience.

Maybe it was a dumb idea to give hybrid classes a 40% xp loss increase. Yeah it was but...that's how it was. If you want to make a custom server that's fine...I think there are a hundred on the list. But Project 1999 is very very very close to how the game originally was and by doing what they're doing they are the #1 EQ server out there, well aside from the live servers of course.

The reason I rejoined was for nostalgia. That's probably why I haven't even wanted to log into any other server than Project 1999. I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.

I wouldn't even play this game if this was Project 2005 or something because I wasn't playing EQ in 2005 and I don't know it.

Gustahn
06-18-2011, 08:53 PM
Getting uppity on a necro thread....really?

Aro2220x
06-18-2011, 09:00 PM
Yea I challenge anyone upset about their class's XP penalty to TRY PLAYING A WARRIOR.

Yeah, Warriors are amazing end game with the best equipment in the game but they require sooooooo much help to get there.

It's more like a guild should get together to power level / twink their warrior.

Sethius
06-19-2011, 12:27 AM
Getting uppity on a necro thread....really?

Your name reminded me of Emperor Gestahl, and your filthy empire... the Returners don't take kindly to your... kind.

shdwdrake8
06-19-2011, 03:20 AM
So is everything working correctly? Race/class bonus/penalty shared across board in groups and a iksar shadowknight grouped with a halfling warrior will level at the same time? Group bonus working correctly? I can't seem to find a definitive answer.

Doors
06-19-2011, 03:32 AM
People wouldn't complain so much about exp penalties if they actually made any sense.

bakkily
06-19-2011, 04:16 AM
hey im fine with the ranger having the penalty, i've played a sk once durring the 2007 progression sever, yea getting to lvl 30 before i did indeed quit took awhile

and i doubt many of any of you play adnd, going to correct on the first page what aeowind said, most or actually all the rules for classes (domintanly most) are taken from adnd

i do play dnd in fact, but atm playing 3.5 rules, after 6 months of our campaign i have my ranger at lvl 5

where before when i played adnd with a paladin after a year, was only lvl 6, usally every friday, for the last two years we have a 5-10 hour session, alot of fun, but between the two versions, its the same as mmos, ive talked to a few in game of here that played dnd, but said it took too long, im on a tangeant

so pretty much the penalties are going to stay!

have fun exping on your hybrids, its a hell of a ride

Muleworth
06-19-2011, 04:24 AM
what the flying fuck was that?

DevGrousis
06-19-2011, 04:57 AM
A truly classic experience is one that retained all of the best parts of classic, ie: no POK books, and no expansions yet. So the experience you have, and the environment you're in is immersive, nostalgic, and rewarding.

The experience penalty as you've pointed out was introduced to counter-act what they believed to be classes that could do more than one thing, hybrids, or classes with special bonuses. Back when Everquest was the ONLY game available this was important as it was an entirely new concept: "Hey, if you want to play a warrior/cleric combo, that's fine, but we're penalizing you 40% exp for it. At end levels you'll be able to tank raid bosses, rez, buff, and heal pretty well).

However, with the release of every major game in history, this original experience became less original. Coming back to the game now, almost all of us have experience playing other MMO's, and probably a lot of us have done things like end-game raiding in WoW in which almost EVERY class can serve more than one purpose.

So, looking at it now, experience penalties placed on hybrid classes was a feature of 1999 that isn't a feature anymore as the uniqueness of playing a hybrid died with 10 years of new games. As such, I fully support the removal of experience penalties. I think it would be a welcome change.

All in all, what we need to agree on (hopefully) is that while classic everquest is by far and away the best thing that's happened to the MMO community in a long time, we can't be dictators about it and cold-cut everything that wasn't 1999. The developers need to recognize that the BEST parts of 1999 are already captured on this server, they've succeeded in doing that. At this point we're not gaining more players, we're holding strong where we are. If we begun to look at small changes, creature comforts, it would even further increase the experience.

/2 cents.

I myself have been somewhat un willing to sit by and play with penalties without speaking my mind, and i've voiced my opinion only to be flamed to hell lol but i never really changed my mind, just havent talked so much about it because i've accepted the loss lol

but THIS gentleman has actually convinced me that XP Penalties arent such a bad thing!

Either which way, if timeline follows correctly, we are about a year at most from them being gone for good :P

Messianic
06-19-2011, 11:48 AM
This is now a twice-necro'd thread.

Mirakk82
06-19-2011, 11:56 AM
The problem isn't that warriors will be second class citizens to Paladins and Shadowknights suddenly. The problem is that TAUNT MECHANICS are making Warriors second class citizens already! I'd considered playing a warrior, until someone told me that I'd be a shitty tank anyway, and that I shouldn't bother. That's the sentiment that's out there right now.

If taunt worked on mobs post 50, or on mobs above your level, warriors wouldn't have any trouble keeping aggro. You should really address this IMO.

And the only increase in Paladin/Shadowknight etc enrollment that you would see is from the amount of people who are discouraged by having to work twice as hard to be inferior at everything they do anyway just because they like the class.

Last night I was grouped on the orc hill at level 4. I was my group's tank. By the end of the night, my group was level 8-9, and I was level 6. In no way was I a capable tank for my group, as they outpaced me so badly in ONE PLAYING SESSION. That's a little extreme, don't you think? I don't even bother friending non-hybrids because of what I experienced last night. In a week they'll have surnames and be in Unrest just as I'm leaving crushbone.

I played a Dwarf Paladin before, and I want to do it again for flavor's sake. I love to roleplay the character, and I'll take my lumps if I have to, but Jesus this is brutal.

Mirakk82
06-19-2011, 11:56 AM
This is now a twice-necro'd thread.

Guess it must be relevant then?

Duie
06-19-2011, 02:08 PM
even if Xp for these classes was working as intended, The misconception that most people have about hybrids on this server will insure you're still not gonna get a group unless it is a bunch of friends. What Id like to find out;Is deaths based on percentage of the xp you obtain or need to advance? Currently it sure feels like my Ranger looses double the xp on a death than my warrior.


Id much rather see mobs take off at 1/4 health as they did on live than have xp changed. A major reason you never went into kunark or old world places w/o some kind of snare in this era was you'd train yourself if you did. This change alone would give reason to group rangers/druids/wizards//bards for snare and SK/Necro for engulfing darkness....... Which change benefits more classes?

Swish
06-19-2011, 02:47 PM
What can be annoying as a troll SK, is being told that a group needs a tank but it would rather wait for one rather than take you in (leaving the likes of a monk to tank while waiting), all because of the experience penalty.

Lunacy in my eyes, perhaps some wisdom in it in others. Troll racial penalty (20%) with hybrid penalty (40%) can slow a group down - but the group will run smoothly with disease cloud taunts and the healer only having to heal the tank, no aggro spraying around and unnecessary heals across the group.

So the penalty can have an effect on hybrids getting groups (although people will happily take in a bard), but with so few tanks on the server comparitively... you begin to wonder if people really can afford to be picky.

Shaper
06-19-2011, 06:22 PM
What if the pen was just lowered, say from 40% to around 25%? that way if you still want to play a hybrid you will still have to work harder but it wont be a near mind numbing exp grind. just my 2 cents =).

Envious
06-19-2011, 08:34 PM
Lol, a year and a half of you guys being dumb enough to keep asking?

Sethius
06-19-2011, 08:57 PM
What can be annoying as a troll SK, is being told that a group needs a tank but it would rather wait for one rather than take you in (leaving the likes of a monk to tank while waiting), all because of the experience penalty.

Lunacy in my eyes, perhaps some wisdom in it in others. Troll racial penalty (20%) with hybrid penalty (40%) can slow a group down - but the group will run smoothly with disease cloud taunts and the healer only having to heal the tank, no aggro spraying around and unnecessary heals across the group.

I'd say in general when xping I'd rather have a SK tank then a Warrior tank, just for the utility and aggro generation they bring. The same generally applies to a paladin.

Also, I don't play EQ to level fast so I welcome XP penalties into my group. I know some people do want to level fast and that is their choice, but I personally really can't understand that mentality with EQ, as the journey is as fun or funner in EQ than the destination. For example, I like to have lots of alts just so they can be at different levels and be able to experience different dungeons in the game whenever I want to.

Sethius
06-19-2011, 09:00 PM
hey im fine with the ranger having the penalty

I think all other hybrids deserve the 40% exp penalty because of the utility and solo/group advantages they have... except Ranger. They should have like a %500 bonus so they would have something to bring to the group ;)

Danth
06-20-2011, 11:31 AM
So is everything working correctly? Race/class bonus/penalty shared across board in groups and a iksar shadowknight grouped with a halfling warrior will level at the same time? Group bonus working correctly? I can't seem to find a definitive answer.

This is a very old thread, and hence the initial posts cannot be taken as accurate anymore. Take a look at the dates on the first few posts!

Penalty averaging in groups appears to work; I don't know if it's exact in terms of mechanic, but the end result is good enough. My character (a Paladin, 40% penalty) levels at the same rate as my wife's character (Cleric, normal leveling rate) when we're grouped. This was fixed quite some time ago, sometime last year.

I occasionally see groups prefer to invite, say, an enchanter over a bard, so there is some discrimination based on class penalties. However, I don't think it's too bad because the heavily penalized classes tend to do jobs which are generally in demand. The exception here might be Rangers, and that class is so heavily stigmatized that it'd have the same trouble even if it had a bonus.

Danth

Kobias
06-20-2011, 01:06 PM
I have no problem with XP Penalties if it only effected you,

...but what bothers me is that is effects your group members, and thus your ability to land groups with others =/

Atmas
06-20-2011, 02:38 PM
I have no problem with XP Penalties if it only effected you,

...but what bothers me is that is effects your group members, and thus your ability to land groups with others =/

Shouldn't really bother you. Look at the Wiki to see how group xp is calculated. Besides groups with Hybrids (with the exception of Rangers) get some benefit that usually balances out the penalty.