Numerical Proof of Kunark Experience Discrepencies

[Serendib]

Hello Everyone, Eklorin here. You may have seen me in Highkeep since the Kunark launch.

I have levelled from 51.2 to 57 so far by solo killing only Dyrna Nlith in Highkeep. Dyrna Nlith is listed on the wiki as a level 41 Necromancer in Highkeep who spawns once every 6:00, and takes me about 20-30 seconds to kill. I killed her exclusively to level from 20% into 51 to 10% into level 57, with the only exception was 1 or two random experience hits on a Trakanon raid. Dyrna remained blue con all the way up through and including 55. She started to con green sometimes at level 56, and more often at 57, but still conned blue rarely. This tells me she actually has a 3 level range, which starts to con green at 56 and would be 100% green at 58.

As boring as this sounds, it was actually quite a nice way to level for me, since I could AFK for 6 minutes and do stuff around the house and come back and nuke her 3 times :)

Issue #1: The EXP curve for P99 Green after Level 54 is not the same as P99 Blue

I parsed my logs for the levels which I exclusively killed Dyrna, and got the number of kills for each level:

Dyrna Kills Per Level
Level 52: 125
Level 53: 138
Level 54: 227
Level 55: 247
Level 56: 267
Level 57: 50 kills wasn't quite 10%, estimate 550-600 kills

https://i.imgur.com/z5H8B0S.png

The ratio of kills from one level to the next is then:

53 to 52 kill ratio = 1.104
54 to 53 kill ratio = 1.645
55 to 54 kill ratio = 1.08
56 to 55 kill ratio = 1.08

Relative to level 52, we have:

53 to 52 kill ratio = 1.104
54 to 52 kill ratio = 1.816
55 to 52 kill ratio = 1.976
56 to 52 kill ratio = 2.136

https://www.cs.mun.ca/~dchurchill/html5/p99exp/
If we load my EXP calculator linked above, it calculates the amount of EXP required to get each of 52, 53, 54 for a Halfling Druid as follows:

Level 52 Formula EXP: 24696485
Level 53 Formula EXP: 26712195
Level 54 Formula EXP: 43786165
Level 55 Formula EXP: 31889980
Level 56 Formula EXP: 34241420

These numbers match the values given on the p99 wiki "Experience" page https://wiki.project1999.com/Experience

We can see that the formula (which is correct on P99 Blue) is no longer matching on green. Level 55 requires less overall experience than 54 on Blue, but more experience overall on Green. Also, each level gets progressively harder after 54 by about 8-10% per level.

Issue #2: It appears that the amount of experience required per level is also too high

From above, the ratios seem correct for levels 51 through 54, so let's use them to calculate the ZEM for Highkeep. If we plug the amount of Dyrna kills into the calculator, assuming level 41, we get the following ZEM values:

Level 52 = 125 kills = 118 ZEM
Level 53 = 138 kills = 115 ZEM
Level 54 = 227 kills = 115 ZEM

These values for the ZEM for Highkeep seem incredibly low. When I was leveling my necromancer there from 44 to 50 (also on Dyrna) I calculated a ZEM value of somewhere around 175. The only way that I can explain this is if the experience numbers required so far to get through levels 52, 53, 54 are approximately equal to that ZEM discrepency, which is 175/115, or about 1.5x as much exp as the formula states.

---

I hope this data is useful to you somehow. I suspect once many people get 55+ they're gonna start questioning their sanity as I have.

[avant_tard]

Does this account for the patch they did on ZEMs?

[Dolalin]

ZEMs are different now. Highkeep ZEM is a lot lower than it used to be.

[Ivory]

I suspect they nerfed EXP for the first month to "keep it classic", the same way they removed quest EXP....

Which is bananas, since all the hardest things have already been killed... and now people are just trying to level up ...

[Cen]

You know highkeep ZEM got ubernerfed right?

[Donkey Hotay]

He's also saying the XP per level formulas have been tampered with. Customized, even.

[BlackBellamy]

He's also saying the XP per level formulas have been tampered with. Customized, even.

Nah, he's not saying that. He's saying he didn't know High Keep ZEM was nerfed to around 112.5 because the last time he was there he was getting the old 150 ZEM or higher that used to be there.

[Gustoo]

OP this is a good thread. I totally understand the joys of sticking with a merely adequate solo spot for those long levels between 50 and 60. I do feel bad for the citizens of highkeep though and would probably do a PVP patrol on red to kill your type in there. Defending the keep.

[turbosilk]

Nah, he's not saying that. He's saying he didn't know High Keep ZEM was nerfed to around 112.5 because the last time he was there he was getting the old 150 ZEM or higher that used to be there.

It appears that he is showing that 55 is more exp than 54. 55 is supposed to be less exp than 54.

[Castle2.0]

I'll start with the easy one.

Issue #2:

ZEM changed on March 25, 20202 (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=353369) <--Click for patch notes. From 150 (200%) reduced to 112.5 (150%.) So your tests of 115-118 are about right.

Issue #1

Level 59-60 takes most exp. Level 54-55 is almost as bad as filling up 60 bar. Besides those two, 54-55 takes more experience than any other level. So I have no idea why 55 56 57 would be more exp than 54.

However, once the mob goes green, there might be an explanation: Titanium client exp calculations.

Green mobs that give exp are technically "light blue" by the modern EQ standard. Light blue mobs have an exp nerf. If you tracked which mobs you killed for exp that conned blue vs green, you could tell us what the exp nerf may be.

Intriguing.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Wasn't there a Velious-era patch that went in on Blue that adjusted the XP curve and smoothed it out? Same patch that removed the hybrid XP penalty.

[Jimjam]

1/4 xp instead of 1/2 for the lowest xp mobs.

[Baler]

Green mobs that give exp are technically "light blue" by the modern EQ standard. Light blue mobs have an exp nerf. If you tracked which mobs you killed for exp that conned blue vs green, you could tell us what the exp nerf may be.

Light Blue con was added at the end of velious (not luclin) And should be re-added to Blue server.

Guild Wars, Light Blue Cons, Project M
We'll never see any of this. the devs hate us.

[cornisthebest]

Light Blue con was added at the end of velious (not luclin) And should be re-added to Blue server.

Guild Wars, Light Blue Cons, Project M
We'll never see any of this. the devs hate us.

Is the con actually light blue? or is it still technically the green color? I havent played on blue in a long time

[Baler]

Is the con actually light blue? or is it still technically the green color? I havent played on blue in a long time

They removed the light blue color so anything that's light blue cons green. However as I stated at the end of velious (where blue is now) is when light blue conning was added to live.

You'll sometimes hear people call light blue mobs, dark green.
also you worded your question awfully.

[OuterChimp]

I didn't read through OP's post, but I can tell by just looking at it that he is pretty darn smart and definitely done his homework.

On a side note, maybe I should hunt Dyrina....

[Castle2.0]

Did some more investigating and testing on various toons race/class/level combos. Also reread the article. OP is 100% right.

Instead of dropping down 27% from 54-55 exp to the 55-56 exp, it just continues to scale up at 8-10% on the previous level.

Assuming Green continues at the same rate as Blue/Wiki you will need 1/3 more exp to go from 52-60.

Another "shadow nerf" to give you a "classic feel" but not give you actual Classic™

[Castle2.0]

Made a bug report here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3227837

Feel free to add info.

[loramin]

Another "shadow nerf" to give you a "classic feel" but not give you actual Classic™

I contest that this in any way makes for a more classic "feel". Now don't misunderstand: there are legitimate examples of that, so I'm not saying "mechanics must be 100% identical". For instance, take the AoE mob limit: no one remembered Bards monopolizing Overthere on live, so the server truly did feel more classic after that "nerf".

But this isn't that. Classic EQ was already extremely "grind-y". Making it even more so just makes it an unnecessarily more miserable game: it makes P99 less classic on every level (mechanics and feels).

[BarnabusCollins]

Every single cleric mob cheals 5x before OOM. Slam = miss miss miss miss hit miss miss hit miss miss miss like 15% land rate. Any gating mob gates 85% of the time, over an over, until OOM. This is not how live was in 2001 i was there. Porquoi?

[bomaroast]

This is dumb. P99 Green is not P99 Blue. Likewise, P99 Green is not EQ from 1999. Just deal with what there is. The devs can do whatever the fuck they want.

[loramin]

This is dumb. P99 Green is not P99 Blue. Likewise, P99 Green is not EQ from 1999. Just deal with what there is. The devs can do whatever the fuck they want.

Sure, but it'd be nice if they were at least honest and up front about it. For ten years here the only thing you could count on from R&N was that they would prioritize classic EQ over everything else.

Now they've thrown that out, and they appear to care more about speed runs and making the game last as long as possible (in unclasic ways).

[bomaroast]

Do you have evidence from 20 years ago siding with the exp curve being more like the one on blue? Or just the stats from blue and green?

[nilbog]

We can see that the formula (which is correct on P99 Blue) is no longer matching on green. Level 55 requires less overall experience than 54 on Blue, but more experience overall on Green. Also, each level gets progressively harder after 54 by about 8-10% per level.

There are no known changes to the exp rate between green and blue. If there is something different with it, we will need to take some time and examples to work through the code and discover what it is. Quickly conferring with Rogean, he is also not aware of any intentional changes made.

Anyways, thanks for the productive post.


Then there's this.
Sure, but it'd be nice if they were at least honest and up front about it. For ten years here the only thing you could count on from R&N was that they would prioritize classic EQ over everything else.

Now they've thrown that out, and they appear to care more about speed runs and making the game last as long as possible (in unclasic ways).

If you want to make rants and flames commentary, I suggest you create a rants and flames thread so I can respond to your diatribe in the proper arena. After reviewing your recent posts, in which you try to speak for Rogean and I both, excessively, you are incorrect over and over again. You do not speak for me.

[feniin]

Nilbog, have you looked into the NPC hit/bash-to-interrupt rate from TAKP where the code was poached from? It's much more reliable to interrupt mobs over there than it is here. Maybe a digit is off on the p99 implementation? Seems almost impossible to interrupt without a full stun or completely emptying a mob's Mana pool which doesn't align with memory/data from the era.

[loramin]

If you want to make rants and flames commentary, I suggest you create a rants and flames thread so I can respond to your diatribe in the proper arena. After reviewing your recent posts, in which you try to speak for Rogean and I both, excessively, you are incorrect over and over again. You do not speak for me.

I never try to speak for anyone, and certainly not anyone I respect as much as you and Rogean. My apologies if I came across as trying to speak for you or anyone else.

However ... your actions have spoken for you, and you have chosen (as you very often do) not to explain those actions. As a result, I'm left not understanding how you (or anyone else) could think the most classic thing to do was disable quest XP for a month. Disabling a fundamental part of classic EQ (on the server you spent ten years preparing for) doesn't seem like something a person who puts classic EQ first would do.

And again, not trying to speak for anyone ... but the only reason staff has presented has been that it was "speed running" related (the explanation given was something to the effect that quest XP would let people level too fast, especially given the fact that people could use multiple accounts to store quest items). Clearly the reason wasn't because (after ten years) you suddenly just discovered that quests give XP ... so in the absence of any further explanation, based on your actions, it truly seems to an outside observer like myself that speed running > classic EQ now.

I'd love to be able to discuss that without it being a Rant or Flame, but if need be I'm happy to move there.

[Thulian]

Do all this stuff i want for a 20 year old game yea YEA

[BiG SiP]

https://i.imgur.com/2MJD4zb.gif

[Tuljin]

If you want to make rants and flames commentary, I suggest you create a rants and flames thread so I can respond to your diatribe in the proper arena. After reviewing your recent posts, in which you try to speak for Rogean and I both, excessively, you are incorrect over and over again. You do not speak for me.

I never try to speak for anyone, and certainly not anyone I respect as much as you and Rogean. My apologies if I came across as trying to speak for you or anyone else.

However ... your actions have spoken for you, and you have chosen (as you very often do) not to explain those actions. As a result, I'm left not understanding how you (or anyone else) could think the most classic thing to do was disable quest XP for a month. Disabling a fundamental part of classic EQ (on the server you spent ten years preparing for) doesn't seem like something a person who puts classic EQ first would do.

And again, not trying to speak for anyone ... but the only reason staff has presented has been that it was "speed running" related (the explanation given was something to the effect that quest XP would let people level too fast, especially given the fact that people could use multiple accounts to store quest items). Clearly the reason wasn't because (after ten years) you suddenly just discovered that quests give XP ... so in the absence of any further explanation, based on your actions, it truly seems to an outside observer like myself that speed running > classic EQ now.

I'd love to be able to discuss that without it being a Rant or Flame, but if need be I'm happy to move there.

Idk, I've somehow never run into Loramin in game but man, I really don't know what your hardon is for staff bashing and Mannastone sycophantism with this quest XP nerf is all about. I get being an EQ nerd and wanting to update the wiki blah blah, but man offering a 2k cash incentive for people new to blue to update the wiki? I just don't get it man. EQ nerds love their paper napkin math - your pace on forum posts is over 3 posts ~per day~ since July 1, 2013, and that doesn't count RnF.

Dude, seriously, get a grip.

[Tunabros]

custom quest

poggers

[Dolalin]

As a result, I'm left not understanding how you (or anyone else) could think the most classic thing to do was disable quest XP for a month. Disabling a fundamental part of classic EQ (on the server you spent ten years preparing for) doesn't seem like something a person who puts classic EQ first would do.


The P99 patch process seems pretty involved and Rogean seems to be necessary to do a lot of it, and his availability seems very limited.

From playing with eqemu on my private server I know you can disable quest xp with a quick DB change / hotfix, and this doesn't necessitate pushing new code.

Every other way I can think of to do more targetted nerfing of quest XP (like say, disabling quest xp over level ~20 via a change to the perl quest libs) involves a patch or server reset.

I'm about 99% sure that's the limiting factor. They can't do patches / code changes easily without Rogean's involvement.

I've had a lot of interactions with staff and I can say I don't recognize Nilbog from what you make him out to be in your post. There are some server balance considerations but 99% of the time if you give them classic evidence they make the change when they find the time.

[Fammaden]

Never seen Loramin this pissy over something, well played staff. Maybe he was hoarding scrolls too.

[Rogean]

However ... your actions have spoken for you, and you have chosen (as you very often do) not to explain those actions.

Imagine a world where we need to rush to the forums to clear up every misconception that people post. Jeez, sounds like an exhausting, unproductive life.

[BiG SiP]

Red when daddy

[Lune]

I never try to speak for anyone, and certainly not anyone I respect as much as you and Rogean. My apologies if I came across as trying to speak for you or anyone else.

However ... your actions have spoken for you, and you have chosen (as you very often do) not to explain those actions. As a result, I'm left not understanding how you (or anyone else) could think the most classic thing to do was disable quest XP for a month. Disabling a fundamental part of classic EQ (on the server you spent ten years preparing for) doesn't seem like something a person who puts classic EQ first would do.

And again, not trying to speak for anyone ... but the only reason staff has presented has been that it was "speed running" related (the explanation given was something to the effect that quest XP would let people level too fast, especially given the fact that people could use multiple accounts to store quest items). Clearly the reason wasn't because (after ten years) you suddenly just discovered that quests give XP ... so in the absence of any further explanation, based on your actions, it truly seems to an outside observer like myself that speed running > classic EQ now.

I'd love to be able to discuss that without it being a Rant or Flame, but if need be I'm happy to move there.

Server health is a consideration and has been for quite some time. This is a classic emulation but it isn't classic, we know a lot more now, and if people were allowed to play the game today unfettered with all that knowledge we would still have armies of elves running around instagibbing dragons with ivandyr's hoop spam. Or we'd all still be leveling 51-60 AOEing in Chardok. Then there was the GM managed rotation and class system which was an attempt to address P99's very non-classic raid scene and make it look a little more like servers actually did. It wasn't that they discovered that quests gave XP, the problem was that enough of the community discovered these avenues to the extent that it started to undermine core gameplay, with people collecting scrolls and fangs and chips and scalps and ears or whatever else instead of fighting monsters.

[Sabin76]

Could it be that we are simply seeing the progression from "dark blue" to "light blue" here for a level 41 mob as someone goes from level 54 to level 55? I haven't been able to confirm whether the blurb on the wiki is correct about 50% XP for light blue and 25% XP for XP greens, but if it is, that could be the culprit, no? Based on what they wrote for level 56, it's seems like a doubling of the XP necessary (which can just be the fact that the mob is giving half the XP it used to).

People with more time on their hands than me can run those numbers :P.

[Lune]

Could it be that we are simply seeing the progression from "dark blue" to "light blue" here for a level 41 mob as someone goes from level 54 to level 55? I haven't been able to confirm whether the blurb on the wiki is correct about 50% XP for light blue and 25% XP for XP greens, but if it is, that could be the culprit, no? Based on what they wrote for level 56, it's seems like a doubling of the XP necessary (which can just be the fact that the mob is giving half the XP it used to).

People with more time on their hands than me can run those numbers :P.

That was my thinking as well at first, but OP said the mob still conned blue at 55, and 55 should have required fewer kills than 54 I think is the point.

I think there are still some things we don't really understand about experience. This thread (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160967&highlight=experience+irregularity&page=4) for one is another unsolved mystery.

[loramin]

Imagine a world where we need to rush to the forums to clear up every misconception that people post. Jeez, sounds like an exhausting, unproductive life.

Not at all! :eek: It would be insane if you had to answer every concern from this forum!

But look, you and Nilbog often say stuff to the effect that "this place (and Green in particular) is all about classic EQ", right? I'm not being unfair and putting words in your mouth by saying that?

You'll also admit that a one month moratorium on quest XP isn't classic: it's an objective fact that there was no quest XP disabling in the first month of Kunark in '00, correct?

All I'm saying is, after ten-plus years of saying "classic is priority #1" ... only on the very rare occasions when you do something that directly contradicts what you've been saying for ten years ... would it really be so terrible to give us a sentence or two explaining why?

[derpcake2]

Not at all! :eek: It would be insane if you had to answer every concern from this forum!

But look, you and Nilbog often say stuff to the effect that "this place (and Green in particular) is all about classic EQ", right? I'm not being unfair and putting words in your mouth by saying that?

You'll also admit that a one month moratorium on quest XP isn't classic: it's an objective fact that there was no quest XP disabling in the first month of Kunark in '00, correct?

All I'm saying is, after ten-plus years of saying "classic is priority #1" ... only on the very rare occasions when you do something that directly contradicts what you've been saying for ten years ... would it really be so terrible to give us a sentence or two explaining why?

How about you stfu, in case you hadn't noticed, people think you are annoying and literally noone is standing up for you.

I've posted similar things in the past, you aren't the p1999 spokesperson, no matter how hard you pretend to be or believe to be. Your thinly veiled bullshit is appreciated by exactly noone.

Hope this helps, enjoy your day!

In case you didn't notice, Nilbog posted neither him or Rogean are aware of intentional changes, yet you continue whining about them not giving an explanation, so here is a reminder:

There are no known changes to the exp rate between green and blue. If there is something different with it, we will need to take some time and examples to work through the code and discover what it is. Quickly conferring with Rogean, he is also not aware of any intentional changes made.

[loramin]

The P99 patch process seems pretty involved and Rogean seems to be necessary to do a lot of it, and his availability seems very limited.

From playing with eqemu on my private server I know you can disable quest xp with a quick DB change / hotfix, and this doesn't necessitate pushing new code.

Every other way I can think of to do more targetted nerfing of quest XP (like say, disabling quest xp over level ~20 via a change to the perl quest libs) involves a patch or server reset.

I'm about 99% sure that's the limiting factor. They can't do patches / code changes easily without Rogean's involvement.

I've had a lot of interactions with staff and I can say I don't recognize Nilbog from what you make him out to be in your post. There are some server balance considerations but 99% of the time if you give them classic evidence they make the change when they find the time.

I didn't intend to "make anyone out to be" anything. I simply started with two objectively true facts: 1) R&N do claim classic EQ is priority #1 (especially on Green), and 2) disabling a core mechanic of the game for a month isn't classic.

Seeing those facts from the outside, all that's clear is that something was higher priority to the staff than keeping classic EQ quest mechanics. Based on the only communication provided, I inferred that server firsts ("speed runs") were the priority.

If my guess was wrong, the staff could just ignore me (I'm just one dumb poster). Or they could ban me for making their life difficult. OR they could give not just me, but our whole community (which "joined the cult of classic" because of them), just a couple sentences of communication:

Yes we know that disabling quest XP for a month is unclassic, and our goal is still to keep things classic. We decided having Kunark be a few days late (so we could code up a better solution like quest XP caps) would be more unclassic than disabling quest XP for a month.

They don't "owe us that " at all. Period. End stop. But as members of the cult of classic that they indoctrinated us into ... it certainly would be nice.

[loramin]

Never seen Loramin this pissy over something, well played staff. Maybe he was hoarding scrolls too.

Heh, for the record my highest Green character is 42, and he has turned in three Tesch Val Scrolls ever (at least that I can remember).

I'm just passionate about classic EQ (which, to me at least, includes quest XP). R&N have no one but themselves to blame for making me that way: when I first got here (however many years ago), I used to want moon cats and PoP like everyone else ;)

[Sabin76]

That was my thinking as well at first, but OP said the mob still conned blue at 55, and 55 should have required fewer kills than 54 I think is the point.

I think there are still some things we don't really understand about experience. This thread (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160967&highlight=experience+irregularity&page=4) for one is another unsolved mystery.

This is true, but unless I'm mistaken, "light blue" still cons as blue, so that could have been the first tier drop. If she turned green once hitting 56, that could be the second. I'll take a look at that other thread, and I agree: there's seems to still be a bit we simply don't seem to know about how exp works in this game.

[Fammaden]

Light blues are the current green con mobs that still give you xp.

[Daldaen]

Heh, for the record my highest Green character is 42, and he has turned in three Tesch Val Scrolls ever (at least that I can remember).

I'm just passionate about classic EQ (which, to me at least, includes quest XP). R&N have no one but themselves to blame for making me that way: when I first got here (however many years ago), I used to want moon cats and PoP like everyone else ;)

You should still want Luclin and PoP. It fleshes out the game so much more and adds far more incentive to actually play your main character once you reach max level via AAs. It also will separate out the raiding guilds so that you don't have the same guild(s) occupying the same zones forever.

Luclin and PoP would provide some real competitive mobs that are actually challenging to defeat for the competitive raiders. The balance also works out to make a lot of the undesirable classes fit more nicely into groups and raids.

Blue really should add Luclin and PoP and green can stay in Velious.

[Sabin76]

Light blues are the current green con mobs that still give you xp.

But that's also delineated out on the Experience page on the wiki. There are essentially 4 classes of XP mobs according to that page:

100% XP (Red to Dark blue)
50% XP (Light Blue)
25% XP (XP Greens)
0% XP (Non-XP Greens)

Obviously, "Light Blue" is not a thing on P99, so we are left to guess when that kicks in.
If both the wiki and what you say is true then there are 2 tiers of greens that give XP. However, I find the level range for XP greens to be very small and probably too small for this to be the case. Is that not your experience?

[cd288]

You should still want Luclin and PoP. It fleshes out the game so much more and adds far more incentive to actually play your main character once you reach max level via AAs. It also will separate out the raiding guilds so that you don't have the same guild(s) occupying the same zones forever.

Luclin and PoP would provide some real competitive mobs that are actually challenging to defeat for the competitive raiders. The balance also works out to make a lot of the undesirable classes fit more nicely into groups and raids.

Blue really should add Luclin and PoP and green can stay in Velious.

Plenty of other servers to play if you want those expansions

[OuterChimp]

I consider green mobs who give exp to be "light blue" mobs.

[Gustoo]

Plenty of other servers to play if you want those expansions

Yeah literally every other server enjoys luclin and pop. the lack of those turds is the defining feature of p99.

Some discuss originally did happen about adding some additional content to project 1999 blue once velious is deeply complete. It would be great if they fleshed out some quests in the existing world and filled in some gaps with custom. But maybe thats just not on the table.

I think the grand creation project EQ or one of the other EQ EMU servers does a great job with more expansions. Also shards of dalaya is an EQ emu that is heavily customized and goes well beyond velious. I'm not being an asshole here its a legit good server at least when i played it last ten years ago. https://shardsofdalaya.com/ it looks like it is still thriving. If I was a PVE guy that had had beaten velious everquest mercilessly I would enjoy some time over there. I started there and P99 around the same time to beg for a pvp server which P99 did and SOD was not interested at all in, so I'm over here. Good luck!

[Sabin76]

I consider green mobs who give exp to be "light blue" mobs.

Right. I get that. My point is that we don't know (or at least I don't know) what the GAME considers "light blue" or if there is even a distinction between "light blue" and an even lower form of "XP green". Here is the relevant quote from the wiki:

The formula for the amount of XP earned for soloing a dark blue or higher mob is as follows:

XP = L^2 * C

Where:

L = Level of mob being soloed. (If the mob is light blue or green, the xp earned will be 50%, 25% or 0% of the stated value.) *Emphasis added

My point is that it's possible that the game considers a few levels above green to be that 50% category, and XP Greens to be the 25% category. And I guess the larger point I'm making is that we probably don't know enough about the XP system in EQ (even after 20 years) to claim that something has changed from Blue.

The only way you could really show that is if you did the exact same thing on both Blue and Green and got different results.

[loramin]

And I guess the larger point I'm making is that we probably don't know enough about the XP system in EQ (even after 20 years) to claim that something has changed from Blue.

I'm pretty sure (but we'd need an expert researcher like Dolalin or Rygor to confirm) that the mechanics of light blue XP never changed. The only thing that ever changed (right at the end of Velious IIRC) was the coloring: mobs who conned green, but gave XP, suddenly started conning light blue (but continued giving the exact same XP).

So again "under the hood", both before and after, I believe things worked identically. And the people that are knowledgeable about this sort of thing (Dolalin, Rygor, Nilbog, etc. ... but not me) are likely very clear on how it all works. That wiki page just needs someone like them to update it.

P.S. One more thing: keep in mind that on live people used a packet sniffing cheat program called ShowEQ, which let them see the exact numbers for things like XP that were sent to the servers. That program (and the records people kept from it) was a huge source for much of the data here (and our understanding of classic EQ in general) ... and so it's really not true to say that we "don't know enough about the XP system".

[Sabin76]

I'm pretty sure (but we'd need an expert researcher like Dolalin or Rygor to confirm) that the mechanics of light blue XP never changed. The only thing that ever changed (right at the end of Velious IIRC) was the coloring: mobs who conned green, but gave XP, suddenly started conning light blue (but continued giving the exact same XP).

Thank you for saying this, because this is not the same statement as "I call XP greens 'light blue'" which is all anyone's done so far.

I'm still surprised that there are two tiers of XP penalty considering the small window of levels in which a green mob will give XP, but it at least clears that part up.

[Jimjam]

L = Level of mob being soloed. (If the mob is light blue or green, the xp earned will be 50%, 25% or 0% of the stated value.)

I suspect, in this instance, 'light blue' is being used to mean a blue mob 5+ levels below the player, green is being used to mean mob which is either green but xp, or possibly very low blue.

[Sabin76]

I suspect, in this instance, 'light blue' is being used to mean a blue mob 5+ levels below the player, green is being used to mean mob which is either green but xp, or possibly very low blue.

Well, it wouldn't be 5 levels since the mob in question is level 41, and they said the initial XP (pre 55) was in line with expected (without the 50% hit) given the new ZEM. That and the calculator does not account for it either (you can check this yourself by modifying the level down to something you KNOW gives 0 XP).

That said, I finally did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and the discrepancy is not accounted for by that factor. If the mob went to "light blue" after 54, then it should have taken 330 kills. Seems like "light blue" actually happened at 57.

Also, I retract my statement earlier that no one had mentioned what "light blue" actually meant in game terms. It had been a while since I read the first and second pages of this thread :P.

[Vivitron]

Well, it wouldn't be 5 levels since the mob in question is level 41, and they said the initial XP (pre 55) was in line with expected (without the 50% hit) given the new ZEM. That and the calculator does not account for it either (you can check this yourself by modifying the level down to something you KNOW gives 0 XP).

That said, I finally did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and the discrepancy is not accounted for by that factor. If the mob went to "light blue" after 54, then it should have taken 330 kills. Seems like "light blue" actually happened at 57.

Also, I retract my statement earlier that no one had mentioned what "light blue" actually meant in game terms. It had been a while since I read the first and second pages of this thread :P.
The op estimates a three level range on the mob. If they are right, then the numbers for 55 seem to work out if the two lower level spawns only give half xp, despite still conning blue.

[Castle2.0]

Experience table on Green is wrong. And it's not rocket science to check.

It's common classic knowledge that 54 and 59 were especially hellacious.

55 and 56 should not take more exp than 54, but they do. Also the jump from 53 to 54 here is correct (~64%), but when tested with quest items it's ~90%.

Something is fishy.

[Serendib]

There are no known changes to the exp rate between green and blue. If there is something different with it, we will need to take some time and examples to work through the code and discover what it is. Quickly conferring with Rogean, he is also not aware of any intentional changes made.

Anyways, thanks for the productive post.


It should be fairly trivial to spawn and kill a few hundred Dyrna Nlith to compare numbers on Blue to test this, no?

[Thulian]

55 is a hell level and took 5x the exp of 54 on live, i guess you didnt play live maybe thats why you went pro on project1999

[Castle2.0]

I'll make it more simple for you Thulian: going from 54 to ding 55 and going from 59 to ding 60 were "double hell levels."

Google > your memory of 20 years ago. Try it out.

[BarackObooma]

A dark blue mob gives 100% experience. It will con something like "It appears to be quite formidible."
A light blue mob gives 50% experience. It will con something like "You would probably win this fight..it's not certain though."
A dark green mob gives 25% experience. It will con something like "You could probably win this fight."
A green mob gives no experience. It will con "You could probably win this fight."

[turbosilk]

I'll make it more simple for you Thulian: going from 54 to ding 55 and going from 59 to ding 60 were "double hell levels."

Google > your memory of 20 years ago. Try it out.

59 was triple hell.

https://www.cs.mun.ca/~dchurchill/html5/p99exp/

[Sabin76]

The op estimates a three level range on the mob. If they are right, then the numbers for 55 seem to work out if the two lower level spawns only give half xp, despite still conning blue.

I actually bothered to run some numbers now and you are right. If the level range is 40-42 then I actually get the following:

Level 52: delta of -6 kills if all of them are full XP
Level 53: delta of -3 kills if all of them are full XP
Level 54: delta of -4 kills if all of them are full XP
Level 55: delta of 0 (!!!) kills if 2/3 of the kills were half XP and 1/3 were full XP
Level 56: delta of +2 kills if 2/3 of the kills were half XP and 1/3 were full XP
Level 57: looks like it's on track to be 2/3 of the kills at 1/4 XP and 1/3 at 1/2 XP

It's odd and doesn't fit without some serious streaking in the RNG. Would help to get a definite level range of the mob, though.

[Castle2.0]

Level 54: delta of -4 kills if all of them are full XP
Level 55: delta of 0 (!!!) kills if 2/3 of the kills were half XP and 1/3 were full XP

How could you go from 100% full exp kills to 2/3 half exp and 1/3 full exp?

If there is a 3 level range and all are within range to give full exp, once you go up 1 more level it would make sense if you did get some partial exp kills it would break 2/3 full exp, 1/3 partial exp.

[Sabin76]

How could you go from 100% full exp kills to 2/3 half exp and 1/3 full exp?

If there is a 3 level range and all are within range to give full exp, once you go up 1 more level it would make sense if you did get some partial exp kills it would break 2/3 full exp, 1/3 partial exp.

Exactly. That's why I say at the bottom that it's odd and doesn't fit unless there were some serious streaks in the RNG. For fun, I ran the numbers if the shift started happening at 54 (1/3 getting the 1/2 XP hit) and the delta was -43. That's a pretty serious difference. I'm not a statistician, but I'd wager it's fairly improbable that happened.

When I have more time, I'm going to play with Dyrna's levels a bit and see if I can get the data to fit better (Maybe 41 is the high so it's actually 39-41? Or 41-43?). The thing is, the level ranges on the consider page skip over all the 50's and go straight to 60, so it's not at all clear what actual level she should be just based on this data set.

Edit: it's not letting me edit my previous post, but I was just going to add that "delta" = (# of kills measured) - (# of kills estimated)

[Vivitron]

How could you go from 100% full exp kills to 2/3 half exp and 1/3 full exp?

It would mean the range of full xp mobs narrows when leveling from 54 to 55. Not what we expect as far as I know, but the alternate hypothesis that the xp total to get through 55 was changed is also unexpected given Nilbog's comment in this thread.

[Sabin76]

Ran a few more scenarios and they all return the same result: assuming the level totals have not changed from Blue there are large discrepancies between level 54 and 55. All models fit to going from full XP for all mobs to the lower 2/3 giving half XP at level 55.

I used the same 3 level range the OP estimates, I just shifted the levels up and down 1 (so Dyrna being a level 41-43 mob and then again for Durna being a level 39-41 mob).

Dyrna being a level 41-43 mob is a slightly closer fit, except that all of the deltas become positive and the self reported error (getting a few random XP hits in a Seb group) should shift the delta negative (as seen in the original 40-42 range). Unless there were deaths that were unreported?!

The level 39-41 Dyrna was dead on arrival with consistent deltas in the negative double digits as a best case.

As Vivitron points out above, there is more than one explanation for this still, but none of them are easy to test. You would need to start with a truly static level spawn to take that variable out of the picture.

[Castle2.0]

Could try quest exp. Quest rewards are static and do not (or rather should not) change based on level. Testing from a ranger on the gnoll scroll quest for 53-56 tells me 53+ exp tables are off.

Or, there is a secret modifier that nerfs quest exp as you go 53+, which is totally unclassic.

[ewjax]

I also have numerical proof of Kunark experience discrepancies.

We all know every level 51-60 is a hell level, and that 54 and 59 are supposed to be "double hell" levels. The theoretical exp per level is shown below.

To test this, I used my enchanter to collect some data soloing the entry mobs in Howling Stones, in levels 54 and 55. There is a bit of fuzziness to the data since those mobs aren't always the same level, but they are close enough and if you get enough of them to average out the differences, you should clearly be able to see the trends.

The results are shown in the two fitting curves. Things aren't perfect, but what it basically shows:
Level 54 enchanter: Gains 1% exp per every ~2.9 kills.
Level 55 enchanter: Gains 1% exp per every ~3.4 kills.

The level 54 data was recorded across 16 mobs / 5% exp, and although I didn't record all the data, that 2.9 kills/percent rate stayed consistent for the entirety of level 54.

The level 55 data was recorded across 32 mobs / 9% exp.

If the theoretical data were true, what it SHOULD show is fewer mobs per percent in level 55 compared to 54. In fact, if you do the math, in level 55 it should be taking just a bit over 2 kills to gain 1 percent, not 3.4.

Conclusion: In current P99, if the desire is for 54 to be a double-hell level, and 55 to be just a single-hell level, that is not what is happening in game. Either level 54 is too easy, or 55 too hard. I'm not sure which of those two it is.

[Sabin76]

Now that I've hit 55 myself (almost entirely on Nyzil, who is a static level 45 mob as far as I can tell) I, too, am seeing more kills needed for the same percentage.

So, either there is a bug, or what we think we know about how much experience it should take is wrong.

[chowdah555]

Along the way on live, they eventually evened out the XP per level in the 50s and eliminated the hell levels. It was the same total XP but a more linear in progression. Is it possible we're somehow on that formula now?

[Sabin76]

Along the way on live, they eventually evened out the XP per level in the 50s and eliminated the hell levels. It was the same total XP but a more linear in progression. Is it possible we're somehow on that formula now?

I have seen this said several times, but I can't seem to find the patch notes that address it. I seem to recall someone mentioning that it happened at the same time class penalties got removed (which would be the January 17, 2001 patch), but nothing in that lengthy letter about experience has to do with smoothing out the 50-60 progression. But even if true, we are a long ways off from that.

Even if it happened earlier in the timeline, it would be hard to imagine the XP progression being changed a little over a month after they even introduced those levels.

[Gorster]

I have seen this said several times, but I can't seem to find the patch notes that address it. I seem to recall someone mentioning that it happened at the same time class penalties got removed (which would be the January 17, 2001 patch), but nothing in that lengthy letter about experience has to do with smoothing out the 50-60 progression. But even if true, we are a long ways off from that.

Even if it happened earlier in the timeline, it would be hard to imagine the XP progression being changed a little over a month after they even introduced those levels.

- We have smoothed out level progression from 50-60. This should
mitigate the "penalty effect" that occurs in levels 51, 54 and 59. Note
that it will cost the same experience to level from 50 to 60 as it did
before. Also, death experience loss will appear different in some
levels. This is an unfortunate side effect that must remain to prevent
some experience exploits.


September 4th 2002 patch.

[Sabin76]

- We have smoothed out level progression from 50-60. This should
mitigate the "penalty effect" that occurs in levels 51, 54 and 59. Note
that it will cost the same experience to level from 50 to 60 as it did
before. Also, death experience loss will appear different in some
levels. This is an unfortunate side effect that must remain to prevent
some experience exploits.


September 4th 2002 patch.

....so almost a full year after our timeline ends. Once again, that leaves us with two options:

1. There is a bug in the amount of XP needed for levels 55+ on Green.

2. Everything that we thought we knew about XP progression from 55-60 was wrong (note that the information seems to line up well before then). It was implemented incorrectly on Blue, reinforcing that we thought we knew it, and now we have the "correct" progression on Green without being told there was a change or why.

[Gustoo]

The main thing is to kill monsters until you hit level 60 and then kill monsters again and again to get your favorite items.

I mean back on live I cared a lot more about "Hell" levels but now I don't even notice them.

[Sabin76]

Sure, but being a caster means that levels (and the spells that come with them) are the most important "piece of equipment" you can get. That and if there's a bug, it should be fixed.

[bivouac]

Check out the eq.stratics reference (http://web.archive.org/web/20010305114113/http://eq.stratics.com/crmaps/eqexp.html) on the P99 wiki Experience page. Despite a note on our wiki saying it's out of era, the earliest snapshot is during Velious. It shows 51-53 as regular hell, 54-58 as double hell, 59 as triple hell, and 60 as regular hell. The ratios match up pretty nicely to the OPs data, too.

[Gustoo]

Sure, but being a caster means that levels (and the spells that come with them) are the most important "piece of equipment" you can get. That and if there's a bug, it should be fixed.

All characters are 100% level dependent. No doubt there.

[Sabin76]

Check out the eq.stratics reference (http://web.archive.org/web/20010305114113/http://eq.stratics.com/crmaps/eqexp.html) on the P99 wiki Experience page. Despite a note on our wiki saying it's out of era, the earliest snapshot is during Velious. It shows 51-53 as regular hell, 54-58 as double hell, 59 as triple hell, and 60 as regular hell. The ratios match up pretty nicely to the OPs data, too.

Now that IS interesting. Looks like Option 2 is gaining traction here.

[wwoneo]

I contest that this in any way makes for a more classic "feel". Now don't misunderstand: there are legitimate examples of that, so I'm not saying "mechanics must be 100% identical". For instance, take the AoE mob limit: no one remembered Bards monopolizing Overthere on live, so the server truly did feel more classic after that "nerf".

But this isn't that. Classic EQ was already extremely "grind-y". Making it even more so just makes it an unnecessarily more miserable game: it makes P99 less classic on every level (mechanics and feels).

Your example is terrible. Everyone remembers chardok AE and Sebilis AE groups. Yet that classic experience is gone forever.

[wwoneo]

Do all this stuff i want for a 20 year old game yea YEA

Comments like this just demonstrate that you don't care about the server or the game.

[wwoneo]

Idk, I've somehow never run into Loramin in game but man, I really don't know what your hardon is for staff bashing and Mannastone sycophantism with this quest XP nerf is all about. I get being an EQ nerd and wanting to update the wiki blah blah, but man offering a 2k cash incentive for people new to blue to update the wiki? I just don't get it man. EQ nerds love their paper napkin math - your pace on forum posts is over 3 posts ~per day~ since July 1, 2013, and that doesn't count RnF.

Dude, seriously, get a grip.

This coming from a guy who spends half his posts calling people "KC Nubz" and discussing politics and other off topic discussion posts on the forums a 20 year old elf sim.

You don't have a leg to stand on. Get off your high horse.

[Absolus]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but if they dramatically lowered the xp required for 59 then the penalty for deaths in 60 is much lower than it used to be. Now let's discuss the impact of this so early.

[ewjax]

Check out the eq.stratics reference (http://web.archive.org/web/20010305114113/http://eq.stratics.com/crmaps/eqexp.html) on the P99 wiki Experience page. Despite a note on our wiki saying it's out of era, the earliest snapshot is during Velious. It shows 51-53 as regular hell, 54-58 as double hell, 59 as triple hell, and 60 as regular hell. The ratios match up pretty nicely to the OPs data, too.

Wow. Well those values at least match the observed data I'm seeing for levels 52-54 much closer.

My observed data: Human Enchanter, soloing Howling Stones entry area mobs:

Level / Kills Per 1% Exp Gain / Comment
52 / 1.14
53 / 1.33 / A bit harder than 52, no surprise
54 / 2.86 / Significantly harder than 53. Definitely a hell level compared to 52.
55 / 3.41 / Should have been easier than 54??? Clearly not. Something is up.

The patch message mentioned in the P99 wiki:

September 4, 2002 3:00 am
** Experience Changes **
- We have smoothed out level progression from 50-60. This should mitigate the "penalty effect" that occurs in levels 51, 54 and 59. Note that it will cost the same experience to level from 50 to 60 as it did before. Also, death experience loss will appear different in some levels. This is an unfortunate side effect that must remain to prevent some experience exploits.
Note: The above "XP smoothing" is not in effect on P99, and is not planned on the P99 Development Timeline.

Comments:
1. This patch is supposedly not in effect for P99
2. Even if it somehow is, it claims that "the total amount of exp required from 50-60 hasn't changed" but if the wayback eq.stratics hell level multipliers are accurate, that is certainly not true with those numbers. Using wiki mutipliers, human enchanter required 618M exp to reach 60. Using the eq.stratics multipliers, the new total is 737M exp.

My memory from that time recalls that 54 and 59 were really rough, and the intervening levels much less so. The patch message says they attempted to smooth that out. Well, if the math from the old eq.stratics website is accurate, they smoothed it out by making the easier 55-58 harder, not by making 54 and 59 easier.

[Sabin76]

My only explanation is that the multipliers currently on the wiki are simply not classic (and it is VERY likely that this is the conclusion that RogBog came to). Assuming these new ones are classically correct, I imagine the 2002 "smoothing patch" probably upped the 51-54 levels and brought the 54-59 levels down somewhat. This would also explain death experience losses going up for 52-54 that were implicitly mentioned.