Whats with the World of Warcraft Crowd?

[fischsemmel]

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

I've grouped with a bard and ranger before and dear god, the pulls were great but the XP penalty was a killer.

Cleric, warrior, rogue, rogue, enchanter, shaman
vs.
Cleric, troll SK, rogue, ranger, enchanter, bard

The latter is going to need like 20-25% more xp for everyone to get 1 level than the former needs. That's not a difference you are going to "feel." You would need to keep an eye on % of level earned per hour with each of those groups in order to tell there was an xp earning difference.

But you state that the pulls were "great" in the group with the hybrids. Personally I wouldn't pulling in a group "great" unless it was at least 20-25% more/faster than "normal pulling."


And just for fun, let's compare a bit more.
Halfling cleric (.95), halfling warrior (.855), halfling rogue (.8645), halfling rogue (.8645), enchanter (1.1) , barbarian shaman (1.05)
vs.
Halfling cleric (.95), Troll SK (1.68), ranger (1.4), barbarian rogue (.9555), enchanter (1.1), bard (1.4)

5.684
vs.
7.486

Pros of former relative to latter group: 31% faster xp. Halfling rogue will outdamage ranger. Sham slow and melee buffs are better than bard/ench slow and melee bufs.

Pros of latter relative to former group: Tank has better aggro, more hp, more damage, SK spells, FD-pull potential, troll regen, slam. Ranger has an interesting mix of dps, tanking, and cc potential, though shouldn't really be relied on for any one of them too heavily. Barbarian rogue has better damage and slam compared to halfling rogue. Bard is tough to nail down... potentially allows ench to do massive dps with charm, significantly increases party mana and hp regen, and fills in a bunch of little gaps in CC, debuffing, buffing, and maybe DPSing.

Which group is better overall? Can you tell? Because I sure can't.

[Radiskull]

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

Pros of latter relative to former group: Tank has better aggro, more hp, more damage, SK spells, FD-pull potential, troll regen, slam. Ranger has an interesting mix of dps, tanking, and cc potential, though shouldn't really be relied on for any one of them too heavily. Barbarian rogue has better damage and slam compared to halfling rogue. Bard is tough to nail down... potentially allows ench to do massive dps with charm, significantly increases party mana and hp regen, and fills in a bunch of little gaps in CC, debuffing, buffing, and maybe DPSing.

Which group is better overall? Can you tell? Because I sure can't.

Warriors have more hp and dps then a shadow knight, and a good warrior doesn't have a problem with aggro with two rogues as the primary dps. I feel that hybrid tanks aren't that big of a deal in groups. I'd rather be killing with a hybrid tank then not killing without one. I, personally, always check for a warrior first, but never hesitate to invite a PAL or SK if they are what is available.

This isn't a race bonus conversation, it's a class one, so why bring up barbarian vs halfling rogue? Each group has an enchanter, tank, rogue and cleric, so we can call them a wash. So it becomes Rogue Shaman vs. Bard Ranger. Can you tell the difference, cause I sure can.

[fischsemmel]

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

Warriors have more hp and dps then a shadow knight, and a good warrior doesn't have a problem with aggro with two rogues as the primary dps.

At what point does a tank warrior with 30+ lower str and sta pass a tank SK in hp and dps? I was under the impression that those stats plus the SK pet and spells would more than make up for the warrior having a better damage table.

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

This isn't a race bonus conversation, it's a class one, so why bring up barbarian vs halfling rogue? Each group has an enchanter, tank, rogue and cleric, so we can call them a wash. So it becomes Rogue Shaman vs. Bard Ranger. Can you tell the difference, cause I sure can.

My bad, I was starting to feel like it was more a discussion of xp penalties than just hybrid xp penalties.

Fine then. Rogue shaman vs. bard ranger. The group with the two hybrids needs only ~13% more xp than the group without. 3 blues on a level. That's not a difference you can notice unless you're leveling under laboratory conditions.

And while the rogue brings more damage than the ranger, that's all he brings. And while the shaman buffs are amazing for melee and slow is awesome for everyone, not every group is stacked with melee and enc/bard slows are nothing to sneeze at, while the bard also brings some unique and powerful tools to the group (mana regen, resists, and a bit of everything else).

With good players behind each keyboard, at best you can't put your finger on which group is going to perform better overall just because one has ranger and bard and the other has any two non-hybrids. Though I'll admit that I'd rather have a bad rogue in my group than a bad bard or a bad ranger.

[Radiskull]

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

At what point does a tank warrior with 30+ lower str and sta pass a tank SK in hp and dps? I was under the impression that those stats plus the SK pet and spells would more than make up for the warrior having a better damage table.



My bad, I was starting to feel like it was more a discussion of xp penalties than just hybrid xp penalties.

Fine then. Rogue shaman vs. bard ranger. The group with the two hybrids needs only ~13% more xp than the group without. 3 blues on a level. That's not a difference you can notice unless you're leveling under laboratory conditions.

And while the rogue brings more damage than the ranger, that's all he brings. And while the shaman buffs are amazing for melee and slow is awesome for everyone, not every group is stacked with melee and enc/bard slows are nothing to sneeze at, while the bard also brings some unique and powerful tools to the group (mana regen, resists, and a bit of everything else).

You pulled the race card again... this isn't about race! I have NEVER heard anyone complain about race exp penalties. The day I see someone say "Man, this ogre exp penalty is bogus!", I'll eat my words, but until then, lets drop it. A shaman slowing for a halfling warrior vs an enchanter slowing for an ogre... I have no data to back this up, but I'd say at worst it's even, but still irrelevant since we aren't talking race.

3 blues at level 54+ is a lot of experience. And with 60 levels... 3 blues per level multiplied by 60 levels... you see where I'm going? Not to mention that you're killing slower because rogue dps > ranger dps, so kills per hour goes down, furthering the gap in experience gain. The point is, there is a reason for the discrimination. If rogues had the 40% penalties, and rangers the 10% bonus, people would invite more rangers. They bring LESS to the table (as a dps slot) and require more experience for everyone grouped with them, making them less desired.

[fischsemmel]

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

You pulled the race card again... this isn't about race! I have NEVER heard anyone complain about race exp penalties. The day I see someone say "Man, this ogre exp penalty is bogus!", I'll eat my words, but until then, lets drop it. A shaman slowing for a halfling warrior vs an enchanter slowing for an ogre... I have no data to back this up, but I'd say at worst it's even, but still irrelevant since we aren't talking race.

3 blues at level 54+ is a lot of experience. And with 60 levels... 3 blues per level multiplied by 60 levels... you see where I'm going? Not to mention that you're killing slower because rogue dps > ranger dps, so kills per hour goes down, furthering the gap in experience gain. The point is, there is a reason for the discrimination. If rogues had the 40% penalties, and rangers the 10% bonus, people would invite more rangers. They bring LESS to the table (as a dps slot) and require more experience for everyone grouped with them, making them less desired.

Sorry, can't help but play the race card when the last few posts of mine started by quoting someone who played a troll shadowknight and commented that with him and a bard and a ranger in the group, the pulls were great but the xp was slow.

And actually when you consider 13% over the course of 60 levels? It depends on how you look at it. 13% over 60 levels is the difference between being a couple blues into 59 and being a freshly-dinged 60.

And rangers don't bring less to the table than rogues do. They bring less DPS to the table, yes. But so does everyone else, and yet you still don't see any groups of 6 rogues running around being successful now do you?

[Kriven]

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

Sorry, can't help but play the race card when the last few posts of mine started by quoting someone who played a troll shadowknight and commented that with him and a bard and a ranger in the group, the pulls were great but the xp was slow.

Play a troll SK, feel the exp penalty and the hatred and rejection that comes with it sometimes...that's all I was pointing out, and I wasn't directing it at anyone's post, just putting my experiences of doing so across.

The penalty might be shared, but to a slow moving troll SK exp bar, its like walking through mud when you add a couple more hybrids into a group with a "typical" pull rate.

Well, get that... a hybrid hates other hybrids, who'd have thought [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Kriven]

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

Halfling cleric (.95), halfling warrior (.855), halfling rogue (.8645), halfling rogue (.8645), enchanter (1.1) , barbarian shaman (1.05)
vs.
Halfling cleric (.95), Troll SK (1.68), ranger (1.4), barbarian rogue (.9555), enchanter (1.1), bard (1.4)

5.684
vs.
7.486

Pros of former relative to latter group: 31% faster xp. Halfling rogue will outdamage ranger. Sham slow and melee buffs are better than bard/ench slow and melee bufs.

Pros of latter relative to former group: Tank has better aggro, more hp, more damage, SK spells, FD-pull potential, troll regen, slam. Ranger has an interesting mix of dps, tanking, and cc potential, though shouldn't really be relied on for any one of them too heavily. Barbarian rogue has better damage and slam compared to halfling rogue. Bard is tough to nail down... potentially allows ench to do massive dps with charm, significantly increases party mana and hp regen, and fills in a bunch of little gaps in CC, debuffing, buffing, and maybe DPSing.

Which group is better overall? Can you tell? Because I sure can't.

Nice math, I'd never sat down (or thought to) to compare the extremes.

Which group is better? Depends on the camp and the quantity of mobs/do they single pull/etc...but overall more than 2 hybrids (especially when playing a troll SK anyway) seems to break the exp bar.

As always though, six skilled players who want exp and not frequent AFKs will battle hard to overcome the slowdown even if there's a SK, ranger and bard all involved...if camp allows for frequent pulls.