Some core issues with antonica in classic eq(why everyone goes to guk)

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm kind of confused. Apologies if I'm missing something but the current ZEMs are known. Was that just something people have figured out over time thus thwarting the player knowledge point?

I suspect you're being confused by the wiki, which shows the classic/non-P99 ZEMs. For instance, if you are referring to the http://wiki.project1999.com/Per-Level_Hunting_Guide, you may want to read the bottom:

* All experience bonuses are per the Recommended Levels and ZEM List, except that they've been converted in to percentages (with 75 ZEM = 100% of normal XP bonus). These ZEMs are known to be out of date and inaccurate, but no better information exists.

Or maybe you're thinking of the page that note references, the Recommended Levels and ZEM List? Again, if you look you'll see that there's a ZEM section ...

In the old days of live EQ the server sent the actual ZEM values, which were recorded by studious players. These values were used as a basis for the EQEmu numbers, and so are in place on most stock EQEmu servers. These numbers were never known to have changed over the history of classic EQ live.

The developers of p1999 have stated that they will not publicly release the current ZEM list, in the spirit of classic EQ.

The "stock" values given here, which may be representative as a whole, have definitely been changed in some zones.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I suspect you're being confused by the wiki, which shows the classic/non-P99 ZEMs. For instance, if you are referring to the http://wiki.project1999.com/Per-Level_Hunting_Guide, you may want to read the bottom:



Or maybe you're thinking of the page that note references, the Recommended Levels and ZEM List? Again, if you look you'll see that there's a ZEM section ...

Yes definitely have read those disclaimers. But, at least on Blue, if you go to the high ZEM zones and solo a mob and then go to a lower ZEM zone and solo a mob of the same level, you will see a higher EXP gain from the mob in the high ZEM zone. So these must be accurate to a certain extent (at least insofar as the zones in the list that have high ZEMs...maybe there are other high ZEM zones that we aren't aware of for instance).

For example as well, if you're leveling in Kurn's the EXP is absolutely way faster than a zone with like a 75 ZEM on the list. So there must be some accuracy as to those being the high ZEM zones, but maybe the numbers themselves are off somewhat.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes definitely have read those disclaimers. But, at least on Blue, if you go to the high ZEM zones and solo a mob and then go to a lower ZEM zone and solo a mob of the same level, you will see a higher EXP gain from the mob in the high ZEM zone. So these must be accurate to a certain extent (at least insofar as the zones in the list that have high ZEMs...maybe there are other high ZEM zones that we aren't aware of for instance).

For example as well, if you're leveling in Kurn's the EXP is absolutely way faster than a zone with like a 75 ZEM on the list. So there must be some accuracy as to those being the high ZEM zones, but maybe the numbers themselves are off somewhat.

Well so, the P99 numbers did start with the classic number, and that's precisely why the wiki still uses them: many of them are correct.

But some of them aren't, and no one really knows which (aside from extreme examples like Kurn's, and even that no one knows the exact ZEM of: we just know it's "good"). Without ShowEQ (which the staff blocks much more effectively than Verant ever did), it's virtually impossible to determine what they actually are, and in that sense the staff has achieved a victory: there is (some) "mystery".

I just don't see anything else good coming out of the current ZEMs other than that "mystery" though. And I think the vast, vast majority of players would happily trade that mystery for either "more classic-nes" or a better game.