ZEM changes

[Faxi]

omfg thank you so so so very much. Now when i ask friends to check out Permafrost Keep or Runnyeye they wont laugh at me. I actually had a long time EQ player reply with "Runnyeye? never heard of it".

Seriously thank you for taking a fresh look at those ZEMs - was getting very very sick of leveling in the same overcrowded zones. I play a class that doesnt solo well so im compelled to go where other players are grouping. Thanks again. LOVE THIS

[BlackBellamy]

I too love this COMPLETELY NON CLASSIC change.

No one went to those places in Classic and that was classic. It was classic to be alone in Infected Paw.

I'm not complaining about this change because whatever. But the next time someone says "They're keeping it classic" as a response to any questions regarding current mechanics I'm going to poke their eye out.

[Christina.]

I too love this COMPLETELY NON CLASSIC change.

No one went to those places in Classic and that was classic. It was classic to be alone in Infected Paw.

I'm not complaining about this change because whatever. But the next time someone says "They're keeping it classic" as a response to any questions regarding current mechanics I'm going to poke their eye out.

I'm not sure what year you started playing on sonys EQ servers but every zone was being explored in classic. Especially Paw, that zone stayed permanently camped lol. The change would've been even better if they took out ZEM completely ,imagin that :) it literally took players a year to get to 50 in 1999 haha

[BlackBellamy]

I'm not sure what year you started playing on sonys EQ servers but every zone was being explored in classic. Especially Paw, that zone stayed permanently camped lol. The change would've been even better if they took out ZEM completely ,imagin that :) it literally took players a year to get to 50 in 1999 haha

No it wasn't. It was revamped specifically because no one was there. And no one went there after the revamp either. There were specific patch notes from Brad bemoaning how it was a low level dungeon far away from city or binds or merchants and how they were trying to increase the population.

That's not material anyway. My point was that there were frequent pronouncements from the staff that they were going to keep it Classic (tm) by hook and by crook and there was even some quote like I don't care if everyone quits I'm keeping this classic.

With this ZEM change that rationale is now dead and buried. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the changes itself, just that it's time to stop using "but muh classic" as an excuse for anything going forward.

[zaneosak]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zqc0zJtrK_JPHA_4Y_c9W7c5aLr4gciZauH0uBsO2q4/edit?usp=sharing

Permafrost if you wish to travel that far for XP will offer the absolute highest ZEM in the game. It's actually crazy (higher than original Crushbone) but really cool if the zone starts getting used. A ZEM that high could even accommodate full groups without it feeling too punishing.

[Faxi]

I too love this COMPLETELY NON CLASSIC change.

No one went to those places in Classic and that was classic. It was classic to be alone in Infected Paw.

I'm not complaining about this change because whatever. But the next time someone says "They're keeping it classic" as a response to any questions regarding current mechanics I'm going to poke their eye out.

hmm definitely wrong in my opinion. On my server (Bertox), zones like Paw, Runnyeye and Permafrost and Gorge of Xorb (we called it Beholder's) were hot spots for exp grinding. I dont think anyone knew the exact exp modifiers back then but it was definitely Classic to see many groups exp'ing in these zones.

[Faxi]

I'm not sure what year you started playing on sonys EQ servers but every zone was being explored in classic. Especially Paw, that zone stayed permanently camped lol. The change would've been even better if they took out ZEM completely ,imagin that :) it literally took players a year to get to 50 in 1999 haha

ya i dunno what server Bellamy was on but same on Bertox. Splitpaw was THE zone to hit for your 30's. I still wince every time i see those double doors open up; my groups would get trained so often i had a "TRAIN! BACK AGAINST THE WALL" macro lol

edit: i also recall someone on the official forums had made a post stating that with the frequent FS drops that Splitpaw was better plat than HGs in Rathe. but ya, what felt un-classic on Green was the sheer lack of zone diversity being played. in any case, i am supremely happy with this; spreading players out across the world is a far better solution for players begging a Teal reopening

[Man0warr]

ZEMs always existed, even in 1999. People just had no knowledge of them until ShowEQ was developed.

[Videri]

omfg thank you so so so very much. Now when i ask friends to check out Permafrost Keep or Runnyeye they wont laugh at me. I actually had a long time EQ player reply with "Runnyeye? never heard of it".

Seriously thank you for taking a fresh look at those ZEMs - was getting very very sick of leveling in the same overcrowded zones. I play a class that doesnt solo well so im compelled to go where other players are grouping. Thanks again. LOVE THIS

I totally agree. People started populating unused zones as soon as the server came back up. This could be really awesome.

[Kaedain]

they did away with the xp quest stuff aka belts/pads and such already, so whats the difference with this ??

[zaneosak]

Wiki table has been updated with the new values. I think an interesting thing to note is that it seems that the staff has not only brought all outdoor zones up to a 33% bonus. But also seems to have a few "tiers" of dungeons. The Double XP Tier (150 ZEM) and the 125 ZEM Tier.

I think the fact that they increased so many dungeons at different rates lends to the theory that the old wiki numbers were slightly off before (although impressive how close they were)

For example. Why would Perma get 88% increase from 90 ZEM and give it a new ZEM of 169? Seems odd. Same with Kedge Keep 100 ZEM into 163 ZEM.

I think it's more likely that Perma was really an 80 ZEM all along and got bumped up to the 150 level (80->150 , 88% increase) Along with all of the other zones that seemingly bumped up above 150%.

so many dungeons are 150% (old Upper Guk model) it might be the case. Or maybe Perma is so far away and such a pain in the ass to get to, they want to really reward that travel above the rest.

Either way -- thanks staff - will bring some freshness to some alts I am sure.

[strongNpretty]

So ready to travel this weekend to a new zone!! Woo thanks staff!!!

[larper99]

Wiki table has been updated with the new values. I think an interesting thing to note is that it seems that the staff has not only brought all outdoor zones up to a 33% bonus. But also seems to have a few "tiers" of dungeons. The Double XP Tier (150 ZEM) and the 125 ZEM Tier.

I think the fact that they increased so many dungeons at different rates lends to the theory that the old wiki numbers were slightly off before (although impressive how close they were)

For example. Why would Perma get 88% increase from 90 ZEM and give it a new ZEM of 169? Seems odd. Same with Kedge Keep 100 ZEM into 163 ZEM.

I think it's more likely that Perma was really an 80 ZEM all along and got bumped up to the 150 level (80->150 , 88% increase) Along with all of the other zones that seemingly bumped up above 150%.

so many dungeons are 150% (old Upper Guk model) it might be the case. Or maybe Perma is so far away and such a pain in the ass to get to, they want to really reward that travel above the rest.

Either way -- thanks staff - will bring some freshness to some alts I am sure.

If all of the zones have at least a 33% bonus, using outdoors as a baseline, then there is no such bonus. It is the baseline. Thinking of the "75=100" thing as the base for a bonus just makes all the calculations more difficult. Baseline is baseline, ie, 100%. Thus all outdoor zones define the new baseline, which should simply be thought of as 100%, or "1XP = 1XP". Thus a zone with a ZEM of 150 is getting a 50% bonus, not a 100%, or double, bonus.

[zaneosak]

If all of the zones have at least a 33% bonus, using outdoors as a baseline, then there is no such bonus. It is the baseline. Thinking of the "75=100" thing as the base for a bonus just makes all the calculations more difficult. Baseline is baseline, ie, 100%. Thus all outdoor zones define the new baseline, which should simply be thought of as 100%, or "1XP = 1XP". Thus a zone with a ZEM of 150 is getting a 50% bonus, not a 100%, or double, bonus.

Actually it matters because of how XP is Calculated. 75 is only the baseline because of how XP per mob is calculated (ZEM * Level^2) Also there are still zones with 75 ZEM, Lower guk and Sol B.

It might "feel" over time like the new normal is 100 ZEM which obviously it is, but it doesn't change the fact that if you leveled in a 75 ZEM zone it would take you 14 level 1 mobs to ding level 2 and in a 100 ZEM zone it would take you 10 mobs to ding level 2.

It's still faster mobs per level with the new adjustments. I think I understand your point though..... in 5 years from now. 10 mobs in a newbie zone from level 1 to 2 will be the new normal and 150 ZEM will be only 50% faster than the new zones, it's all true, but those of us who leveled in 75 ZEM outdoor zones should be able to feel the difference.

[Dolalin]

In classic, from level 1-6 you got a newbie ZEM of 100 no matter your zone, according to the ShowEQ dev's posts I found anyways. So these ZEM rises will actually provide a more classic newbie levels experience (if all outdoors are ZEM 100 now which seems to be the case).

I won't bother crunching the other numbers even though I could, I'm cool with leaving it a bit of a mystery.

[Zephire]

hmm definitely wrong in my opinion. On my server (Bertox), zones like Paw, Runnyeye and Permafrost and Gorge of Xorb (we called it Beholder's) were hot spots for exp grinding. I dont think anyone knew the exact exp modifiers back then but it was definitely Classic to see many groups exp'ing in these zones.

I agree.. was this way on Brell also. Paw, Runnyeye and Perma were all heavily camped up until Kunark came out.

[larper99]

Actually it matters because of how XP is Calculated. 75 is only the baseline because of how XP per mob is calculated (ZEM * Level^2) Also there are still zones with 75 ZEM, Lower guk and Sol B.

It might "feel" over time like the new normal is 100 ZEM which obviously it is, but it doesn't change the fact that if you leveled in a 75 ZEM zone it would take you 14 level 1 mobs to ding level 2 and in a 100 ZEM zone it would take you 10 mobs to ding level 2.

It's still faster mobs per level with the new adjustments. I think I understand your point though..... in 5 years from now. 10 mobs in a newbie zone from level 1 to 2 will be the new normal and 150 ZEM will be only 50% faster than the new zones, it's all true, but those of us who leveled in 75 ZEM outdoor zones should be able to feel the difference.

No, it doesn't matter. The new baseline may have changed from 14mobs to 10.5mobs, but so what? 150 is still a 50% increase from 100, so a zone with a 150 ZEM will take 10.5mobs / 1.5 = 7mobs. Yeah, 14 is 200% of 7, but 10.5 is 150% of 7.

Stop thinking of the old baseline as some sort of magic number. It is just a baseline. They changed it. A ZEM of 150 has a 50% bonus over a ZEM of 100. The fact that is has a 200% bonus over a ZEM of 75 is irrelevant, since the new baseline is 100.

Actually, I guess your last paragraph says the same thing, so we are in violent agreement. Also, we don't know that they didn't change other variables. Rogean simply stated that they defined the outdoor zones as the baseline, and adjusted all ZEMs to reflect that. It still might take 14 mobs to go from 1 to 2, even with the new ZEM values. That will take experimentation.

[Christina.]

Told you Bellamy lol.

What server were you on!? Lol cause in 1999 on the seventh hammer, paw was LIT and like another commenter said the thought of going pass those double doors was scary as hell haha.. but anyway, the change is awesome. I can't wait to get immersed.

[zaneosak]

No, it doesn't matter. The new baseline may have changed from 14mobs to 10.5mobs, but so what? 150 is still a 50% increase from 100, so a zone with a 150 ZEM will take 10.5mobs / 1.5 = 7mobs. Yeah, 14 is 200% of 7, but 10.5 is 150% of 7.

Stop thinking of the old baseline as some sort of magic number. It is just a baseline. They changed it. A ZEM of 150 has a 50% bonus over a ZEM of 100. The fact that is has a 200% bonus over a ZEM of 75 is irrelevant, since the new baseline is 100.

Actually, I guess your last paragraph says the same thing, so we are in violent agreement. Also, we don't know that they didn't change other variables. Rogean simply stated that they defined the outdoor zones as the baseline, and adjusted all ZEMs to reflect that. It still might take 14 mobs to go from 1 to 2, even with the new ZEM values. That will take experimentation.

I mean It's not worth arguing that much about but the math is just math as far as it being faster. It's definitely faster, whether it's the new baseline or not is a separate topic. Your XP bar did not adjust with the new "baseline" xp, so killing ten lvl 10 bandits in WK 2 days ago was 7,500 XP no matter how you slice it and Today its 10,000. (before racial and class bonuses of course) Yes you had to kill 4 bandits 2 days ago to get the same XP as 3 bandits will give you today ;) It definitely does not scale with the change unless Rogean changed the XP bar for each level, which seems unlikely.

[rewinder47]

I don't understand. Does this apply to both Green and Blue? It lists zones that aren't in Green yet.

Also, do they not know what the ZEMs were for classic EQ? If not, then this sort of makes sense I guess. But if they do have access to that information, I don't understand why they would be making custom balance changes like this on a server that is supposed to replicate classic EQ.

I don't really have a problem with these changes, because they are good changes, it just seems odd to me where they are drawing the line of what is "classic" and what isn't. Like, if they are going to make changes to encourage the use of certain zones, how about getting rid of the XP penalties to encourage the use of hybrid classes? Especially when Verant themselves admitted it was a design mistake that shouldn't have happened?

[OuterChimp]

Actually it matters because of how XP is Calculated. 75 is only the baseline because of how XP per mob is calculated (ZEM * Level^2) Also there are still zones with 75 ZEM, Lower guk and Sol B.

It might "feel" over time like the new normal is 100 ZEM which obviously it is, but it doesn't change the fact that if you leveled in a 75 ZEM zone it would take you 14 level 1 mobs to ding level 2 and in a 100 ZEM zone it would take you 10 mobs to ding level 2.

It's still faster mobs per level with the new adjustments. I think I understand your point though..... in 5 years from now. 10 mobs in a newbie zone from level 1 to 2 will be the new normal and 150 ZEM will be only 50% faster than the new zones, it's all true, but those of us who leveled in 75 ZEM outdoor zones should be able to feel the difference.

holy smokes you went all #math on us!

[Fammaden]

Where are you all getting the idea that the baseline has changed? Or that the bonus changes a zone's baseline?

This is the explanation we had from Rogean in the patch notes thread:

There's nothing confusing or badly worded about my post at all. The confusion is being caused by people trying to compare this to player-determined values. I don't know where the values on the wiki come from, and we do not reference those.

Every zone has an EXP Modifier which factors into the EXP Formula. Let's say a zone previously had a 0.4 modifier. If we moved it up to 0.6, that is a 50% increase in the modifier. We do not publish the specific values, as it's part of the mystery and should be discovered by the players how each zone stacks up.

Everyone's trying to pass these percentages through whatever the wiki numbers have told us for years, but we have confirmation from Rogean that the wiki's way of describing it is irrelevant and causing confusion.

So let's say we have one zone with a shitty .4 modifier like the example. That zone got a 50% boost to make it a .6 modifier. Now we have another zone that had amazing ZEM of 1.5, but got a 25% nerf, that brings it down to 1.125....which is still WAY better ZEM than the zone that got the 50% boost.

We don't know either the baseline or the individual modifiers of the zones in actuality. So seeing that Perma got an 88% boost to its mod, does not mean that Perma is suddenly the hotness and Highkeep is total trash, if Perma's mod was miniscule compared to Highkeep's in the first place.

Its still worth exploring and experimenting based on the announced numbers, and it will be interesting to see what plays out. But most of the playerbase is just looking at those announced percentages and assuming that it means flat XP gain for the zone increased by that much like its double xp weekend, but its only an increase to the zone's mod.

[Fammaden]

PLOT TWIST: what if some zones had negative xp modifiers and the boosts only served to bring them up to the baseline?

[larper99]

Where are you all getting the idea that the baseline has changed? Or that the bonus changes a zone's baseline?

This is the explanation we had from Rogean in the patch notes thread:



Everyone's trying to pass these percentages through whatever the wiki numbers have told us for years, but we have confirmation from Rogean that the wiki's way of describing it is irrelevant and causing confusion.

So let's say we have one zone with a shitty .4 modifier like the example. That zone got a 50% boost to make it a .6 modifier. Now we have another zone that had amazing ZEM of 1.5, but got a 25% nerf, that brings it down to 1.125....which is still WAY better ZEM than the zone that got the 50% boost.

We don't know either the baseline or the individual modifiers of the zones in actuality. So seeing that Perma got an 88% boost to its mod, does not mean that Perma is suddenly the hotness and Highkeep is total trash, if Perma's mod was miniscule compared to Highkeep's in the first place.

Its still worth exploring and experimenting based on the announced numbers, and it will be interesting to see what plays out. But most of the playerbase is just looking at those announced percentages and assuming that it means flat XP gain for the zone increased by that much like its double xp weekend, but its only an increase to the zone's mod.

No one is saying a ZONE'S baseline has changed. We are saying THE baseline has changed.

Percentages are percentages. They work no matter what the units are, or what the order of magnitude is. Let's pretend that there are 3 zones. A, B, and C. During player experimentation, they discover that it takes 5 kills of Amobs to level from 1 to 2, 8 kills of Bmobs, and 10 kills of Cmobs.

Now, given that as the only data, no baseline can be calculated. But, you can chose and arbitrary baseline!

I chose C. So, I will declare C as having a ZEM of 100. B, will thus have a ZEM of 10/8*100 or 125, and A will have a ZEM of 200.

C as baseline:

A = 200
B = 125
C = 100


Or, you could choose A. In this case A will have a ZEM of 100, B will have a ZEM of 62.5, and C will have a ZEM of 50.

A as baseline:

A = 100
B = 62.5
C = 50


Now, the devs come along and say that they have determined what the baseline should be and have altered the ZEMs accordingly. A's ZEM is reduced by 20%, B is left unchanged, and C's ZEM is increased by 20%

ZEM changes as a percent change:

A change by -20%
B unchanged
C change by +20%


Now under the my choice of C as the baseline, A's ZEM is now 200*.8 = 160. B's ZEM is still 125, and C's ZEM is now 100*1.2= 120.

C as baseline new ZEMS:

A = 160
B = 125
C = 120


Under your choise of A as the baseline, A's ZEM is now 100*.8 = 80, B's ZEM is still 62.5, and C's ZEM is 50* 1.2 = 60.

A as baseline new ZEMs:

A = 80
B = 62.5
C = 60


Now, assuming there are no other changes, let's look at the number of kills needed now.

With C as the baseline, we first compare Cznew to Czold. What used to take 10 Cmobs now takes 10 * Czold/Cznew = 10 * (100/120) = 8.333mobs. Doing the same for the others: Akills = 5*Azold/Aznew = 5 * (200/160) = 6.25, Bkills = 8*Bzold/Bznew = 8 (unchanged).

Kills needed, C as baseline, new ZEMs:

A = 6.25
B = 8
C = 8.33


Doing the same using A as baseline, Akills = 5*100/80 = 6.25, Bkills = 8(unchanged), and Ckills = 10*50/60 = 8.33.

Kills needed, A as baseline, new ZEMs:

A = 6.25
B = 8
C = 8.33


Now, the whole "baseline" concept gets muddied when you don't give the baseline the value of 100, as the "old ZEMs" did in the outdoor zones, giving them the ZEM=75(100) nomenclature. But the result is the same. The number of kills changes in all zones, no matter what you chose as the baseline.

Now, we have one additional piece of information that the exercise above did not use: rogean explicitly said:

Starting with outdoor zones, we aimed for a baseline that all of these zones should be at. We then addressed dungeons and special zones, taking into consideration their risk vs reward and typical population numbers. This has resulted in the following changes.


He is TELLING us what zone to use as the base line. It turns out we should have used B. But it doesn't matter. All that does is make the ZEMs we list in the wiki have a relatable base: "HighKeep compared to Karana", etc.

So, we know to set B as the baseline.

B as baseline, old ZEMs

A = 160
B = 100
C = 80


B as baseline, new ZEMs

A = 160 * 0.8 = 128
B = 100 * 1.0 = 100
C = 80 * 1.2 = 96


Kills needed:

A = 5*160/128 = 6.25
B = 8* 100/100 = 8
C = 10*80/96 = 8.33


Or, if you prefer using only the new ZEMs, you have to use the numkills from the baseline only:

Kills needed:

A = 8*100/128 = 6.25
B = 8* 100/100 = 8
C = 8*100/96 = 8.33


Amazing how math works.

[Rogean]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

[Naxy]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

Well said. Thanks.

[Christina.]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

It's funny right lol. In future notes dont give any numbers ...just say these zones have been giving a boost. People are crazy lol. They forget we play here free.

[zaneosak]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.

But.... I like numbers and speculation!

[YendorLootmonkey]

Should have just said "ZEMs changed, or maybe not, figure it out for yourselves like we did back in '99, you filthy ingrates" and inject some of that exploration/mystery back in :)

[kaev]

Should have just said "ZEMs changed, or maybe not, figure it out for yourselves like we did back in '99, you filthy ingrates" and inject some of that exploration/mystery back in :)

:swoon: my hero!!

[Wallicker]

I killed 10 white con goblins in highkeep solo and 10 white con goblins solo in perma the results were astonishing - I, However, will not share my findings with you lazy losers.

[Khaleesi]

You guys are analyzing this way too much. The reason for posting the percentage differences in the news post was not so that people could know exactly what the new ZEMs are, and people need to stop acting like they are entitled to know that. The reason we posted the percentage is so people know that some zones that were not worth exp'ing in before may now be worth it.

What some people have said is true, if a zone had a very low modifier before and it was increased by 50%, it's possible the new ZEM value is still lower than other zones. Whether that's the case or not, I'm not divulging. The point of all of this was, if you previously avoided a zone because it gave bad XP, well now it gives 50%, or 66%, or 88% more than it was before. So, go give it another shot.



You spent over a decade trying to (though let's not argue about the clearly non classic things there) deflect all the requests by players, in order to keep things classic on Blue for over a decade.


And this is a prime example of one.

Who gives a shit if no one went to those zones?
WHY must they go there?

One of the best things about them is that they ARE out of the way and therefore less populated.

If people are lazy and goto Guk, Mistmoore, City of Mist and Karnors, then let them - let the herd be the herd.


Quit trying to shoe horn the success of Green by making non classic changes.
Either it's good on it's own or it's not

[Hazek]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zqc0zJtrK_JPHA_4Y_c9W7c5aLr4gciZauH0uBsO2q4/edit?usp=sharing

Permafrost if you wish to travel that far for XP will offer the absolute highest ZEM in the game. It's actually crazy (higher than original Crushbone) but really cool if the zone starts getting used. A ZEM that high could even accommodate full groups without it feeling too punishing.

Wow that spreadsheet. Big thumbs up. I'm glad I can finally go somewhere besides Unrest now too.

[Natewest1987]

As someone who really doesn't care about being the first to get to x lvl or loot x or kill x or whatever (i feel that there was a time for that like 20 years ago). Just chiming in to say that this is all really awesome.

Haven't logged in after a while cause all my mates disappeared after the merge, this might just be the incentive to get back in there.

[Natewest1987]

Also, kind of ironic that most people complain about the bottleneck of zones and over population ( except the people who it doesn't effect negatively ), then the same people are barking that a change was implemented to address it.

[f2pelerin1182]

Why do people behave like it's impossible to group in lower ZEM zones? If high ZEM zones are full, put together a group for a lower ZEM zone that actually has camps available.

I've done that plenty of times while leveling and very, very rarely will people turn down the opportunity to Exp somewhere just because it has low ZEM or takes a little effort to get to.

[BloodMilkSky]

I just want to add my 2cents. I'm only salty about this for purely selfish reasons. Every one stay outta kedge, let me keep farming it please! Appreciate the understanding

[Picked]

I didn't find all that much difference in the changes. I was in highkeep a lot killing guards, I would go to Cazic and kill in the sewers when all the guards were taken. Before the patch and after the patch I didn't notice a ton of difference. Cazic gave a little bit more exp I noticed, but High keep's exp was still really good. I'm not saying they compared to each other because some of the guards in HHK were green while the Cazic mobs were still pretty blue. So I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying the difference that they posted didn't change the outcome as much as it looked like it would.

When they took some of the exp out of HHK and what they gave to Cazic Thule I thought there's no doubt CT would be better. It's marginally better solo killing. The main difference is CT mobs have a lot more hp's than HHK guards.

Amount of mobs available, population of zone, resists, hitpoint pools, drops, cash loots, all of it goes into consideration when comparing hunting areas. Can have the highest ZEM and best drops but if it's so packed you can't get a group or find a mob roaming it doesn't matter.

[douglas1999]

You spent over a decade trying to (though let's not argue about the clearly non classic things there) deflect all the requests by players, in order to keep things classic on Blue for over a decade.


And this is a prime example of one.

Who gives a shit if no one went to those zones?
WHY must they go there?

One of the best things about them is that they ARE out of the way and therefore less populated.

If people are lazy and goto Guk, Mistmoore, City of Mist and Karnors, then let them - let the herd be the herd.


Quit trying to shoe horn the success of Green by making non classic changes.
Either it's good on it's own or it's not

See, people really need to stop assuming there is one fully agreed-upon definition of the term "classic" in a project like this. To my memory, zones like CT were always packed in classic, you could just waltz in and get a pickup group as basically any class, just like MM is currently. To me, that by definition makes this a very classic change, if it sees those zones populated again.

[Fammaden]

I didn't find all that much difference in the changes. I was in highkeep a lot killing guards, I would go to Cazic and kill in the sewers when all the guards were taken. Before the patch and after the patch I didn't notice a ton of difference. Cazic gave a little bit more exp I noticed, but High keep's exp was still really good. I'm not saying they compared to each other because some of the guards in HHK were green while the Cazic mobs were still pretty blue. So I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying the difference that they posted didn't change the outcome as much as it looked like it would.

When they took some of the exp out of HHK and what they gave to Cazic Thule I thought there's no doubt CT would be better. It's marginally better solo killing. The main difference is CT mobs have a lot more hp's than HHK guards.

Amount of mobs available, population of zone, resists, hitpoint pools, drops, cash loots, all of it goes into consideration when comparing hunting areas. Can have the highest ZEM and best drops but if it's so packed you can't get a group or find a mob roaming it doesn't matter.

This is all the legit truth, especially the bolded paragraph but also the general impact of the changes. However the majority playerbase only sees the % increase change and forever declares Paw/Perma to be "the best XP in the game" nearly without being willing to even test and compare. On the plus side it does spread things out a bit for those of us not locking tunnel vision into the new update who are still willing to do stuff like Highkeep and SolA which remain very nice ZEM zones despite the "nerf".

[Arvan]

Take away pet windows cause its classic and people cry and say game is too hard they want not classic

Change zems to non classic and people cry saying they want it to be classic

Classic

[magnetaress]

The ZEM changes they made are too more classic, just saying. People who say they aren't classic didn't play classic and only powerlvld and RMT'd live on HHK mobs.