Quote:
Originally Posted by guineapig
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I mentioned something about this group exp penalty issue about a month ago but I was told I was wrong at the time:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...=2590#post2590
Basically I figured reducing or getting rid of the exp penalty when in groups was just one of many ways that Verant decided to encourage grouping.... well maybe. In any case didn't didn't advertise their reasoning very well if that was true. |
This would remove the whole reasoning behind it in the first place since it's very hard to get to 50 solo. You pretty much
have to group. If the experience penalty is in there to keep class balance, don't you think it would need to apply most of the time in order to function as a balancing mechanism??????? I suspect your reasoning is flawed and that this change or set of changes they made was for another reason - perhaps classes were changing on a fundamental level and this penalty was no longer needed to balance them. This wouldn't be surprising. I don't see any reason why class balancing has to use an experience penalty. There're untold ways of achieving this without doing it this way. I suspect that they got overwhelmed while balancing the classes early on so they did a very simple experience tweak (penalty) rather then going back to the chemistry and figuring out how to do it using a less generic method.
I personally feel that utility is too ambiguous to make a good judgment about class balancing. I'd rather focus on the basics as a balancing mechanism, and then allow all classes access to the same utility skills, but with a limited pool of skill-points in which to train them (and allowing for retraining too). Utility is just a dangerous place because it's not easy to predict. I think I lean towards skill-based or knowledge-based rpg rules, as they're not as inflexible as class-based rules. More bases are covered this way.