Do pets currently take 50% of your exp?

[LittleJClove]

Since we are in the early stage of classic EQ where pets originally do not take any exp away, does it happening here?

[Obrae]

Since we are in the early stage of classic EQ where pets originally do not take any exp away, does it happening here?

Yes, non classic. proven in the same post that got the research debacle.

[LittleJClove]

Yes, non classic. proven in the same post that got the research debacle.

So no exp penalty for all pets ?

[Obrae]

So no exp penalty for all pets ?

i mean penalty is happening.

[Baler]

You need to do 51% damage to get full exp... Just burn that into your memory.

[Psionide]

So Magician's who should be the god of vanilla EQ are not? Unclassic

[Obrae]

So Magician's who should be the god of vanilla EQ are not? Unclassic

I remember Necromancer pet being god with dual daggers.
It shows that no one really were playing back in 1998.

Keep listening to the pretend to be classic EQ'ers

[Psionide]

Mage fire pet was super OP by itself, then you throw in chain casting them and it was god mode.

[Obrae]

Mage fire pet was super OP by itself, then you throw in chain casting them and it was god mode.

Not saying they arent powerful, saying how it was.
Was barely any mage the first couple month because the class wasnt done.

[loramin]

It just seems sad to me. Mages don't get any better over time (compared to say Rogues or Monks, both of which start weaker in classic but become amazing by Velious).

All Mages have to look forward to is being subpar group DPS and subpar soloers (unless they're a one in a million epic mage). On raids they're CotH and mod rod bots.

Classically they would have at least had a brief window of awesomeness, but now they'll never have any "moment in the sun" at all.

It really felt like they should have had the reverse arc of Rogues/Monks (ie. the Druids and Wizard arc): awesome in classic, but then they fade.

[Jibartik]

They can summon a bag though

[LittleJClove]

mage cant solo without a pet, so in reality mage exp. is like a hybrid need to work 50% more on exp.! Sad.

[Expediency]

I can not understand why anyone would solo when a pet takes half your exp! Why not duo with another pet class, or healer? Even if you duo with someone who just adds small utility compared to you, you're getting the same exp as you would alone with the pet.

[quido]

or slow your roll and do the majority of damage with nukes

[supermonk]

or slow your roll and do the majority of damage with nukes

this. dont burnout your pet. or chain summon fire pets if you're rich.

[seanidor]

It takes far too much mana to kill a mob with nukes, forcing you to med for ages. It's actually a lot faster to just have the pet do almost all the work. When I was playing a mage a couple days ago I'd nuke down one mob and then sit down and meditate because I was at like 20m. By the time I was max mana my pet had already killed about 6 mobs, maybe more... I wasn't counting.

Edit: Oh yeah, those mobs were even con to me.

[strawman]

Yes, non classic. proven in the same post that got the research debacle.

If it's proven why hasn't it been patched yet? Does it just need to be reported to the devs?

[Donkey Hotay]

If it's proven why hasn't it been patched yet? Does it just need to be reported to the devs?

Because "Classic!" is a shibboleth that only the forums junkies slavishly adhere to. Management obviously conforms to some other metric; perhaps in this case, they're looking to slow down the high end of the Bell curve.

[strawman]

Management obviously conforms to some other metric
From what I've seen so far I don't believe that at all. Is the "proof" just some guy's memory?

[Donkey Hotay]

From what I've seen so far I don't believe that at all.

Nerfed quest xp. Not classic.
Variable spawn rates. Not classic.
No Meditate command. Not classic.
etc.

Shibboleth. Someone is managing the server to some other metric.

[Cen]

If something is classic but makes the game easier, assume its not in, and it probably isn't. (exploits, pathing, obvious bugs)
If its classic and makes the game more difficult, assume its working. (Book med, etc)
If its supposed to be classic and the client wont allow it, assume theyve put in an alternative to make it equal or even harder then classic. (The more harsh nightblindness)

[cd288]

Because "Classic!" is a shibboleth that only the forums junkies slavishly adhere to. Management obviously conforms to some other metric; perhaps in this case, they're looking to slow down the high end of the Bell curve.

And those forum junkies who will defend some shitty classic thing to the death are ironically equally selectively classic for something like the pet XP thing because they don’t want it to actually be classic

[strawman]

But where's the proof that no pet XP penalty was classic

No one has posted it in this thread yet

[Renad]

Because "Classic!" is a shibboleth that only the forums junkies slavishly adhere to. Management obviously conforms to some other metric; perhaps in this case, they're looking to slow down the high end of the Bell curve.

Nerfed quest xp. Not classic.
Variable spawn rates. Not classic.
No Meditate command. Not classic.
etc.

If something is classic but makes the game easier, assume its not in....

[cd288]

But where's the proof that no pet XP penalty was classic

No one has posted it in this thread yet

Long story short, there are a couple of different sources that prove it. For example, you can find old posts complaining about Necros for example being able to just sit there and AFK EXP by setting their pet to guard a spawn point and taking the full EXP. Other examples include comments from Verant about changing the Necro FD to have a limited duration to prevent AFK EXP pet camping, patch notes later in the eras about pet EXP, etc. etc.

[Skosh]

Nerfed quest xp. Not classic.
Variable spawn rates. Not classic.
No Meditate command. Not classic.
etc.

Shibboleth. Someone is managing the server to some other metric.

Unless you're after a legacy item, there's little reason to suffer through this selective classic experience excepting having really GOOD friends to play with. Also, add bleached white wall graphics to your list.

[skorge]

Mage fire pet was super OP by itself, then you throw in chain casting them and it was god mode.

Not true bud, you must have never played a mage back in March of 1999, did you? Necros crapped all over mages in vanilla..i tried to tell everyone this before green launch...just read all the comments from mages during this era

[cd288]

Not true bud, you must have never played a mage back in March of 1999, did you? Necros crapped all over mages in vanilla..i tried to tell everyone this before green launch...just read all the comments from mages during this era

Dude what’s with your obsession with mages? It’s starting to get weird

[Obrae]

But where's the proof that no pet XP penalty was classic

No one has posted it in this thread yet

Go read the thread linked in Dolalin pet attack vs mages. You'll find evidence in that same discussion.

But people are just cherry picking. Evidence is here, posted on these forums.

[strawman]

Long story short, there are a couple of different sources that prove it. For example, you can find old posts complaining about Necros for example being able to just sit there and AFK EXP by setting their pet to guard a spawn point and taking the full EXP. Other examples include comments from Verant about changing the Necro FD to have a limited duration to prevent AFK EXP pet camping, patch notes later in the eras about pet EXP, etc. etc.

I would like to read these sources, though

Go read the thread linked in Dolalin pet attack vs mages. You'll find evidence in that same discussion.

But people are just cherry picking. Evidence is here, posted on these forums.

I searched the forum for "dolalin mage" and found "Mages were HORRIBLE at launch" and "Mages are up shit's creek I guess", which are 15 and 34 pages respectively. Do I need to go through one of those threads to find the proof?

[Obrae]

I would like to read these sources, though



I searched the forum for "dolalin mage" and found "Mages were HORRIBLE at launch" and "Mages are up shit's creek I guess", which are 15 and 34 pages respectively. Do I need to go through one of those threads to find the proof?

go on the page with tons of shit about classic, you'll find the master piece where he got the staff here to break a class back like it was broken bbefore

[Donkey Hotay]

Do I have to read to read the things I claim to want to read?

[cd288]

Lmao donkey

[strawman]

Why the attitude? A lot of people in this thread sound like they were part of the original discussion. Surely someone can at least point me to the discussion they're referring to?

Maybe the reason the developers haven't removed the XP penalty is because the proof is buried "somewhere" on the forums and just hasn't been brought to their attention.

go on the page with tons of shit about classic, you'll find the master piece where he got the staff here to break a class back like it was broken bbefore

I don't understand this post

[cd288]

Why the attitude? A lot of people in this thread sound like they were part of the original discussion. Surely someone can at least point me to the discussion they're referring to?

Maybe the reason the developers haven't removed the XP penalty is because the proof is buried "somewhere" on the forums and just hasn't been brought to their attention.



I don't understand this post

The developers haven’t removed it because they are selectively classic, which they can be since it’s their server after all. Anything that makes the game arguably easier they won’t implement

[Obrae]

Why the attitude? A lot of people in this thread sound like they were part of the original discussion. Surely someone can at least point me to the discussion they're referring to?

Maybe the reason the developers haven't removed the XP penalty is because the proof is buried "somewhere" on the forums and just hasn't been brought to their attention.



I don't understand this post

I will not research it again, there is a page someone where people link bugs and shit like that. And a post about classic. should be at the top of a section.

In it youll find the post in which Dolalin used evidence out of context to revert mages back to a broken class. he links his source. It's a long long message board chain. read it and you will see we are not suppose to have pet taking exp. at worst 25% but even that was not there at launch.

But the staff ignores that but use that same source to break a class.

[Obrae]

I will not research it again, there is a page someone where people link bugs and shit like that. And a post about classic. should be at the top of a section.

In it youll find the post in which Dolalin used evidence out of context to revert mages back to a broken class. he links his source. It's a long long message board chain. read it and you will see we are not suppose to have pet taking exp. at worst 25% but even that was not there at launch.

But the staff ignores that but use that same source to break a class.

the first 70 or so day, barely anyone got to 20, servers were down most of the time. People didnt even knew EQ existed. Context is different.

EQ released as the end of a beta, Magician was not fixed yet but they did right at release, the problem is people cant put things into perspoective. At the rate that we play with a stable server and experience player base, we are already past 4-5 month of the real classic release experience. Which we will never have since this is not classic, its custom.

The dream the staff had wasnt to recreate the bugged unfinished release product, thats just some freak nerds around here. The goas as always been to recreate a fun game we loved that spanned into the 2 first expac. Not sure why we insist of a 2 month shit show at start

[strawman]

I searched Dolalin's post history and found that he referred to this post from 2002 stating that, prior to the change being discussed, pets took 50% XP if they did 50%+ damage: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=960

In the old scheme, if a pet did more than half of the damage to a monster, it took half the experience reward. In the new scheme, pets take zero experience unless no player does damage.

Unless there is more, earlier information I didn't find, this is rather compelling proof that the 50% XP penalty was classic.

[Obrae]

I searched Dolalin's post history and found that he referred to this post from 2002 stating that, prior to the change being discussed, pets took 50% XP if they did 50%+ damage: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=960



Unless there is more, earlier information I didn't find, this is rather compelling proof that the 50% XP penalty was classic.

yes its earlier was same thread that discussed the added pet to vendor.
And not compelling, cherry picking.
The very same source he used stated that it was 25% at some point earlier and he still went with the 50% for his evidence.

its being dishonnest. I wont bother going back through it, someone will i am sure. It wont matter, staff were decided to fuck mages up. so we will just wait january,.

[Bazia]

mages are so rough, thats why they are 190 of them on right now

[Videri]

mages are so rough, thats why they are 190 of them on right now

:D

[strawman]

The very same source he used stated that it was 25% at some point earlier and he still went with the 50% for his evidence.

I think you misunderstood the source.

If you do less than half, your pet takes as little as 25% of the experience when it used to always take half.

This is plainly saying that a 25% XP penalty is a result of the 2002 change being discussed in the post, and that prior to the change, pets "always" took half XP. Not only does this say that the 50% penalty came before the 25% penalty - the use of "always" may imply that the 50% penalty existed for the entire history of Everquest prior to this post.

[Obrae]

I think you misunderstood the source.



This is plainly saying that a 25% XP penalty is a result of the 2002 change being discussed in the post, and that prior to the change, pets "always" took half XP. Not only does this say that the 50% penalty came before the 25% penalty - the use of "always" may imply that the 50% penalty existed for the entire history of Everquest prior to this post.

wrong source we are talking of 1999 not sure what you guys are looking at

[strawman]

wrong source we are talking of 1999 not sure what you guys are looking at

I linked the source earlier in the thread: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=960

Do you have a different, earlier source?

[Obrae]

I linked the source earlier in the thread: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=960

Do you have a different, earlier source?

yes its in one of dolalin post.
like i said not wasting time reading through it again, it was there, was always there and they decide to go with 50% anyway.

Cant control it

[strawman]

yes its in one of dolalin post.
like i said not wasting time reading through it again, it was there, was always there and they decide to go with 50% anyway.

Cant control it

So let me make sure I'm clear.

You were the first reply to this thread and asserted that the 50% XP penalty wasn't classic and there's proof.

After asking several times for you to provide the proof, you told me to look in some guy's post history for it.

I looked in that guy's post history, found the proof, and plainly demonstrated that you're wrong and the 50% XP penalty is classic.

Now you insist there's different proof, but you won't provide it, so we should just take your word for it, that pets didn't take 50% XP in classic, even though the only source posted so far in this thread explicitly says that they do?

You're the one being dishonest.

[Dolalin]

I've been trying to take this whole pet xp thing apart because I think it's been in since the beginning. I've dug up a few old threads on it that make for interesting reading, namely that people were asking these same questions in 2000.

I don't know for sure that pets taking 50% xp was in at launch but it was definitely a thing in 2000, so it's at least that old.

It also seems to have been that it wasn't something that was patched in, rather the ShowEQ guys started parsing xp and discovered the pet thing, and Verant was forced to respond. I'm still looking for these bits.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338377

[Dolalin]

Pretty much sums it up

All that's missing is some shoddy misinterpreted Allah link from 2002

Tell me how I am misinterpreting that Rich Waters post. What have I gotten wrong?

[Quinas]

The standard of proof many would accept for things that make their game easier seems to be different from things that make their game harder. I don't think it has much to do with purity of classic either way.

[DMN]

I don't know how many times I'd join a PUG and they'd tell me not to summon a pet because it would "steal their exp". Where do you suppose this incorrect assumption originated?

[Deathrydar]

I don't know how many times I'd join a PUG and they'd tell me not to summon a pet because it would "steal their exp". Where do you suppose this incorrect assumption originated?

The same place where all of the other incorrect assumptions arise (hybrids will slow you down, rangers are worthless, etc).

[DMN]

The same place where all of the other incorrect assumptions arise (hybrids will slow you down, rangers are worthless, etc).

I'm talking about vanilla EQ. It was quite awhile before the hybrid exp penalty being shared was common knowledge among players. most players back then thought warrior and rogues the worthless ones.

[Dolalin]

The idea that pets would steal xp if they got the kill shot was a common myth from beta days. I see it all over the newsgroups.

Searching some more this morning I found this post from April 2000:


4/3/00

> A while ago Gordo posted some notes stating that in a group a pet took an
> insignificant amount of exp. Now I'm hearing rumours that ShowEQ contradicts
> this. Does anyone have any more info on this?
C&P from Lum the Mad's

***Quote
3. Pets do not take a fixed amount of exp when solo.

Surprise, surprise! Pet exp penalties do not work *at all* like Verant claims. If a
pet class, for example a mage,
is fighting blue mobs with a pet and the pet does less than 50% of the combined
damage done between the
mage and pet, the mage gets 100% of the exp. If the pet outdamages the mage and the
mage gets credit for
the kill, the mage gets 50% of the exp.

This works for blue through red mobs, but when dealing with green mobs of any kind,
if the pet outdamages the
mage, the mage gets no exp. If the mage outdamages the pet, though, he gets the
normal green exp, be it 50%
or 25%.
***end quote


This is a small bit of a larger article about exp. in general.

http://lum.xrgaming.net/eqexp.html

Also an interesting bit about those race/class combos which are supposed to slow
down group members (e.g. Troll SK) which claims that the hybrid just levels slower
(therefore no penalty in grouping with them)

--
Simond AKA
Morrighan. Barbarian Shaman, Vallon Zek
Cealena, Human Necromancer, Vallon Zek
Dea Crystalmist, Freelance Ranger, Europa


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/RMIRKDzbFH0/Sjmq0Zfwb4IJ

The web archive link to that Lum the Mad address is here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000709181207/http://lum.xrgaming.net/eqexp.html



3. Pets do not take a fixed amount of exp when solo.

Surprise, surprise! Pet exp penalties do not work *at all* like Verant claims. If a pet class, for example a mage, is fighting blue mobs with a pet and the pet does less than 50% of the combined damage done between the mage and pet, the mage gets 100% of the exp. If the pet outdamages the mage and the mage gets credit for the kill, the mage gets 50% of the exp.

This works for blue through red mobs, but when dealing with green mobs of any kind, if the pet outdamages the mage, the mage gets no exp. If the mage outdamages the pet, though, he gets the normal green exp, be it 50% or 25%.


Interesting to note here that this is something the ShowEQ and Hackerquest guys discovered on their own. This wasn't a change Verant put in, it was them discovering how things worked for the first time. There's no indication that I can see that this had been touched or changed since launch. Happy to be corrected if someone knows more.

Oh and one last tidbit which is damaging to my hypothesis that pets might take 50% of xp in groups if they did most of the damage:


6. Pets take no exp in groups.

No matter what they do, how many there are, and how much damage they put out, we can not find any cases where pets take *any* exp away from a group. It's possible that there is some way for pets to take exp from groups, but in every sort of normal fighting in Everquest, it simply does not occur.

[Dolalin]

Maybe it's not so damaging after all:


That article is basically junk. There are too many errors in it for
me to believe any of the parts that are supposed to be news. The
xp requirement formula is correct, but I would not trust anything
beyond that.

First of all, the conclusion that a Troll SK does not slow down a
group is bunk. A Troll SK has something like a 70% experience
penalty. So, sharing xp with a Troll SK of your level is like
sharing xp with 1.7 High Elf Clerics. It will slow down the whole
group.

Also, the ShowEQ people have figured out xp penalties on death.
Apparently you lose a percentage of the total experience required
for the previous level. That is why you lose so much when you die
in a level after a hell level. Also, the experience loss is the
same for everyone, so Warriors will seem to lose more than hybrids
because they are losing a larger fraction.

--
Morgan
(crossposting all posts to rec.games.computer.everquest)


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/RMIRKDzbFH0/GzxZm0ioRA8J

He's right, there are some obvious errors in that Lum post.

Anyways I'm now off topic for this thread. Need to find the original posts on the ShowEQ boards. Would rather see those than read hearsay all day long.

[Donkey Hotay]

I'd like to interject here and remind the disgruntled folks that while Skorge and Dolalin are advocating and researching, respectively, aspects of the game that are a detriment to mages, they are not the persons implementing the changes.

The standard of proof many would accept for things that make their game easier seems to be different from things that make their game harder. I don't think it has much to do with purity of classic either way.

[Valion]

Well at least this one should nerf Necros and Chanters too not just mages. It should apply even to charmed pets. Ohh yeah I forgot Sk's and Shammy's. Do druids get the pet on P99?

[Gunnie]

I remember Necromancer pet being god with dual daggers.
It shows that no one really were playing back in 1998.

Keep listening to the pretend to be classic EQ'ers

This is pick and choose Classic, developer edition.

[cd288]

These sources dolalin are using are absolutely fucked and arent part of the classic timeline. This dude is 100% cherry picking. This shit above he is quoting is from out of era content, hes using posts from AFTER THE NERF WENT IN. Time to do some searching.

Lmao, this is great.

At any rate, I've begun to realize it's kind of pointless to have discussions about these topics and/or with people like him altogether. People like him, and also apparently the staff, want the server to be a selectively classic experience with the hard (or stupid parts even if they were changed later because it was awful design) left in and anything that could possibly make the game easier for everyone or specific classes removed. If you try and post evidence supporting your claim, these people will shoot it down if it's not essentially an express statement from EQ devs, but then they'll defend their own argument with 20 year old forum posts from random EQ players and claim that's sufficient evidence lol. If you try and do the same for your argument, you get shot down or otherwise they just ignore your evidence and refuse to respond to it.

[Dolalin]

These sources dolalin are using are absolutely fucked and arent part of the classic timeline. This dude is 100% cherry picking. This shit above he is quoting is from out of era content, hes using posts from AFTER THE NERF WENT IN. Time to do some searching.

When did the 'nerf go in''?

I'm obviously an idiot. Help me out and link me to it.

[cd288]

When did the 'nerf go in''?

I'm obviously an idiot. Help me out and link me to it.

Right, I bet we need an official patch note in order for you to deem it sufficient evidence right? As opposed to the forum posts by random players that are sufficient evidence whenever they allegedly back up what your agenda is lol

[Dolalin]

YOU are linking to an article that talks about how pets eat exp IN THE KUNARK ERA, BRO.

how about for step one we completely eliminate that article of yours from the evidence table? Sit down and link relevant shit from ACTUAL CLASSIC.

Okay, here's a test from a guy showing pets were eating half xp in November 1999.


11/30/99

I performed a test as Alasdair suggested to determine how much
experience pets take. For each test I rolled a new character, and
provided him with "Cavorting Bones" and a few bone chips. The test was
performed by battling only large rats at the North Qeynos gate area in
various configurations of player and pet. The player was armed only
with the standard dagger and no armor or clothing. The test counts the
number of rats it takes to get to level 2. All characters were rolled
with the following stats:
All Male, Human Necromancers.
STR 90
STA 80
AGI 75
DEX 90
WIS 75
INT 90
CHA 75

Test #1
Subject: Fridgemagnet
Conditions: No pet was used.
Number of kills until level 2: 10

Test #2
Subject: Jamrambler
Conditions: Pet was conjured, but instructed to sit and never attacked.
Number of kills until level 2: 10

Test #3
Subject: Soupgnasher
Conditions: Have pet do most damage (>50%). 1 4pt lifetap issued to
make sure rat does not kill pet.
Number of kills until level 2: 20
Notes: Pet issued 18/20 killing blows. (I had to step in on 2 occasions
to prevent pet from getting killed)

Test #4
Subject: Bubblegum
Conditions: Player did more damage than pet (>50%). Pet was told to
continually back off.
Number of kills until level 2: 10
Notes: Although backing off, pet managed to get in 5 killing blows.

Miscellaneous notes:
- In every test, an equal amount of experience was gained for each kill.

Conclusions:
- In test #4, as pet got in 5 killing blows and it did not effect how
much experience was gained, we can put the killing blow myth to rest.
- If pet issues more than 50% of the damage required to kill a mob, it
is given 50% of the experience, and the player is given the other 50%.
- If pet issues less than 50% of the damage required to kill a mob, the
player is given what appears to be ALL of the experience (perhaps the
<=1% party experience rule applies here... not way to tell).

Any comments? Anyone care to confirm these results? Any speculation as
to other race/class combos effecting experience distribution?

Roger


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/sImSW-u04uY/bb3GvXeOpl8J

I'll ask again. When did the nerf go in?

(There are lots more of these. Just search Google Groups for them, alt.games.everquest)

[cd288]

Okay, here's a test from a guy showing pets were eating half xp in November 1999.



https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/sImSW-u04uY/bb3GvXeOpl8J

I'll ask again. When did the nerf go in?

(There are lots more of these. Just search Google Groups for them, alt.games.everquest)

Why bother. The people who want a selectively classic experience will use unverifiable evidence like that forum post to back up their claims, but then if someone tries to use contrary forum evidence of a similar nature it's "insufficient" because it's just hearsay.

I'm just accepting that people want selectively classic and will shoot down any evidence that doesn't support their agenda even if the evidence used is essentially of the same hearsay quality as the evidence they were using.

[Dolalin]

I'm bringing stuff to the table and you aren't. That's all I see.

Prove me wrong if I'm wrong. I want to know the truth.

[cd288]

I'm bringing stuff to the table and you aren't. That's all I see.

Prove me wrong if I'm wrong. I want to know the truth.

I'll use an argument the selectively classic clique have used on myself and others when presenting forum posts as evidence. It's hearsay. You have no proof that the poster didn't have an agenda/that they are telling the truth. You have no documented proof that that test actually was conducted and that the poster isn't just lying about it. Etc. etc. etc. These have been the types of arguments used against old forum posts when it doesn't fit the "I want classic, but anything that was classic that made things easier needs to be removed" agenda. So I think I'll just use them here now since they seem to work with respect to changes the selectively classic squad wants.

[strawman]

I'll use an argument the selectively classic clique have used on myself and others when presenting forum posts as evidence. It's hearsay. You have no proof that the poster didn't have an agenda/that they are telling the truth. You have no documented proof that that test actually was conducted and that the poster isn't just lying about it. Etc. etc. etc. These have been the types of arguments used against old forum posts when it doesn't fit the "I want classic, but anything that was classic that made things easier needs to be removed" agenda. So I think I'll just use them here now since they seem to work with respect to changes the selectively classic squad wants.

Are you retarded?

E: I can't actually believe what I'm seeing in this thread. We should dismiss this in-era forum post because the poster might have had an agenda, even though all the other posts we have agree with it? I don't have words to describe how stupid and dishonest that is

[Ligma]

Dolalin just completely owned you and you're still going on about him having an agenda.

Only fighting the process at this point.

[Dolalin]

Half of the mage research recipes were broken on Live from March to May, they are not broken here.

All research drops were 3x rarer than now.

Mage pets hit for less here than they should, but also cast spells, wield weapons, and dual wield, which they did not at launch.

Sword of Runes still has its proc here, even though it didn't get patched in until October 1999.

On the whole, I think mages are doing alright.

[cd288]

Are you retarded?

E: I can't actually believe what I'm seeing in this thread. We should dismiss this in-era forum post because the poster might have had an agenda, even though all the other posts we have agree with it? I don't have words to describe how stupid and dishonest that is

I know right? Which is why I was surprised when that same argument was used against people providing evidence for various things that the selectively classic crew didn't like.

[Obrae]

Half of the mage research recipes were broken on Live from March to May, they are not broken here.

All research drops were 3x rarer than now.

Mage pets hit for less here than they should, but also cast spells, wield weapons, and dual wield, which they did not at launch.

Sword of Runes still has its proc here, even though it didn't get patched in until October 1999.

On the whole, I think mages are doing alright.

Show me évidence of drop rate? You don’t even Know what it is right now

[Dolalin]

Show me évidence of drop rate? You don’t even Know what it is right now

Are you that guy who couldn't understand how percentages work? :D

The drop rates for research stuff are taken right from Magelo. It's usually ~2% per item:

https://eq.magelo.com/item/11804#dropped

Anyways here's the bug thread with GZ source.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336029

[Bazia]

this is classic but very anti-fun, just put their components in at least jesus

[Obrae]

Its not 2% atm, that would be great if it was

[Dolalin]

Their components are in. Some are complaining about rarity. It's not justified.

[A1551]

Okay, here's a test from a guy showing pets were eating half xp in November 1999.



https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/sImSW-u04uY/bb3GvXeOpl8J

I'll ask again. When did the nerf go in?

(There are lots more of these. Just search Google Groups for them, alt.games.everquest)

awesome job dolalin!

[Valion]

Okay, here's a test from a guy showing pets were eating half xp in November 1999.



https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/sImSW-u04uY/bb3GvXeOpl8J

I'll ask again. When did the nerf go in?

(There are lots more of these. Just search Google Groups for them, alt.games.everquest)

Where are the log files ShowEQ or otherwise backing up this "Evidence" ?

[Dolalin]

Oh, a little history lesson for the curious.

The popular theory from beta onwards, that is everywhere if you search the newsgroup, was that pets took xp if they got the killing blow.

I wondered where this myth came from, since before ShowEQ got going there was little proof of anything either way, and this newsgroup post from August '99 says it was a line in the official players manual:


*Everquest: The Official Players Guide*, Page 113:

"If you're playing solo with a "pet", it takes a lesser share of Experience,
but in a party, the pet only takes experience if it makes the final killing
blow."


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/ZfQlds7wVxQ/mc1K3L-jzY8J

Before about November or so there is just speculation about how pet xp works and nothing definitive. No patch notes or changes by Verant are mentioned. How it was discovered to be seems to have been the way it was all along, near as I can tell. Feel free to search on your own, the more eyes the better.

[Valion]

Oh, a little history lesson for the curious.

The popular theory from beta onwards, that is everywhere if you search the newsgroup, was that pets took xp if they got the killing blow.

I wondered where this myth came from, since before ShowEQ got going there was little proof of anything either way, and this newsgroup post from August '99 says it was a line in the official players manual:



https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/ZfQlds7wVxQ/mc1K3L-jzY8J

Before about November or so there is just speculation about how pet xp works and nothing definitive. No patch notes or changes by Verant are mentioned. How it was discovered to be seems to have been the way it was all along, near as I can tell. Feel free to search on your own, the more eyes the better.
Without logs it's mere conjecture. a Theory as you say nothing more.

[Ligma]

That theory is being reproduced until you come up with a better one

[cd288]

That theory is being reproduced until you come up with a better one

Not really worth the time. The selectively classic crew will accept nothing less than an actual statement from an EQ dev or patch note. Anything of this forum post nature is sufficient evidence when it proves their opinion, but insufficient and hearsay when it goes against what they believe. So why dig through ages of forum history just to be told that forum posts aren't sufficient evidence, even though that person just used a forum post to prove their point. #SelectivelyClassicCrew

[Ligma]

You've had 10 years to argue your point and it's just some conspiracy about some people being biased against your class for some reason.

[cd288]

You've had 10 years to argue your point and it's just some conspiracy about some people being biased against your class for some reason.

Oh I'm not playing a mage. Don't have one on Blue either

[Obrae]

Self proclaimed classic police is full of confirmation bias.

They find a information suddenly confirming with the most simple of test, available since launch, an exp penalty 8 month after the release. 8 month!

What do they do ? Proclaim it evidence that a penalty was at launch...

[Obrae]

Self proclaimed classic police is full of confirmation bias.

They find a information suddenly confirming with the most simple of test, available since launch, an exp penalty 8 month after the release. 8 month!

What do they do ? Proclaim it evidence that a penalty was at launch...

Not that i mind the penalty it will be there anyway and IS part of the real classic experience.

[Dolalin]

Self proclaimed classic police is full of confirmation bias.

They find a information suddenly confirming with the most simple of test, available since launch, an exp penalty 8 month after the release. 8 month!

What do they do ? Proclaim it evidence that a penalty was at launch...

I'm looking and I can't find anyone doing this "simple test" before then. Feel free to help, mate.

Here's a post from a thread in May 1999 about mage pets and xp:


5/19/99

The way I heard it explained many times in beta was:

- Solo Pet shares its master's experience
- If grouped but Pet not getting killing blow it still only shares its
master's experience
- If grouped and it gets the killing blow it gets a share of the group's experience.

Ryan <Barbarian Shaman on Xegony>


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/K609UirA0uw/lojNLLKprnkJ

No one else in the thread presents an opposing theory or contradicts him. Main topic of conversation is whether this penalty also applies to the group.

If the source of this info was the official players manual that would help explain why it was so widely believed.

[Dolalin]

Here's one from early April, a few weeks after launch:


4/1/99

On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:04:11 -0800, Mak <ma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I was once a lvl 6 wizard and was very capable of holding my own, with Root.
>Magicains get it at a higher level I belive, but it can be almost effective as a
>pet without
>the exp loss...
I play a lvl 7 wiz. I think the root and nuke strategy is fine with
blues and may be whites but not yellows.

Yellows resist root a lot .. and white do a fairly amount of time.

If you solo and use root, and if it fails, you almost for certain die.
So it is a high rish strategy and i will only use it against blue. For
whites and above I probably would call ona a friend.

And I think root and nuke is not that efficient until level 8 or so.

If i say root and nuke a gnoll (in Qeynos Hills, which con as blue), I
almost have to dump most of my mana to kill him. Not to mention, I am
only doing ~14 pts per shock of fire. He will break free before I kill
him. It is more efficient to bash him with my worn great staff and
slip some shock of fire in once and a while.

I know melee won't work in higher levels, but melee is good at level 7
since it cut down on mana use and reduce down time (meditation).

Also, with a pet, if you see the tide is turning against you, you can
always gate out. So I would say Magician get to solo more, but he got to share exp with his pet.

I still like my wiz better though. I heard root and nuke is really
effective at higher level since you can kill in fewer shots.


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.games.everquest/KXKi-yWCP4I/wM621-7ugEgJ

[Dolalin]

Oh yes, these people were much like your average forum dweller here.

But all we're looking for right now is whether pets ate xp when soloing. So far, people believed they did. It was a very uncontroversial opinion by the looks of it, I never see it challenged anywhere it's mentioned. All that's controversial is whether they stole xp in groups, and how much.

Sometimes what isn't talked about is just as important as what is talked about.

[Obrae]

Hahah those old post have some nice naive tidbits :)

"How do they work in groups? Well, the Wizard, as you say, has the > >
biggest
>and baddest offense spells in Norrath, and in later levels can hit for way over
>100 damage points many times in a battle. "

more than 100damage multiple time guys ! :)

those were the days of discovery and awe!

[DMN]

I have no problems with the pet exp thing. I do think the mage research is bullshit though. It clearly wasn't fleshed out and was immediately fixed on discovery. Some things aren't worth replicating. And broken class mechanics fall under that. I feel bad for mages on green right now that are getting screwed, drop rates don't even seem to be correct.

What was "immediately fixed on discovery?" Having to research most of your important spells was certainly not, and green isn't recreating the bugginess of research in vanilla.

[Tkon]

Why are people saying just mages? Necromancers have to research all pet spells past 20 as well?

[Jibartik]

Why are people saying just mages? Necromancers have to research all pet spells past 20 as well?

Mages get no pets past level 20 is my understanding.

[Tkon]

Mages get no pets past level 20 is my understanding.

Incorrect, they have to research them, this is from two mages one 28 the other 30.

[akagami]

And you have to research the previous spell level to use it in the next combine

[Tkon]

And you have to research the previous spell level to use it in the next combine

That, is correct.

[cd288]

Honestly been reading these posts here and there throughout the day, and a lot of these people seem to have zero clue what they are talking about with a ton of things.

Most of them are purely guessing and assuming how things work.

Agreed. But that’s enough for a non-classic change if it makes the game harder. But god forbid if you want a classic change that doesnt fall into that category, you better be ready to come with official statements from Verant or people will totally disregard your links to old forum comments.

[Jibartik]

Turns out it's classic no pets for mages after level 20

[Bazia]

i mean it was a funny troll to piss off mages but yeah now its getting kinda sad give them some pets brogean

[Riddles]

Agreed. But that’s enough for a non-classic change if it makes the game harder. But god forbid if you want a classic change that doesnt fall into that category, you better be ready to come with official statements from Verant or people will totally disregard your links to old forum comments.

Yet certain quests get nerfed because #selectiveenforcement; so its like, is this classic, or a version of classic.

[Bazia]

pretty sure we can chalk this up to common sense, unbreak it

[Valion]

Can just stop playing mages no COH to raid camps no mod rods ect it's not like the the class will be missed from the attitude expressed throughout several threads.
I wonder if they would start letting top guild box them once they start whining enough.Thats what live did back in the day.