Remove Hybrid Penalty

[Potus]

If we want a classic game then please return the caster book, give people lag/ping so bad it seems they are playing on 56k dial-up, make the loading screens for zones really fucking long to account for computer RAM being way more expensive back then, give human/erud/barb terrible vision at night, go back and buff Necromancer pet/dagger dly, let lifetaps land on monsters 30+ levels above the casters, let necromancers pets be way higher level, let necromancers feign death and farm exp while asleep (their pets could solo mobs even in Guk), let Monks be able to feign death and disarm npcs, let duping of coins work until it was fixed, egg-shaped pumice stones, item-loot on pvp death (was in until I think mid Kunark on one of the team zeks and Rallos?), etc.

The thing is it's a silly argument. There were things that were obviously broken and even Verant admitted it, and hybrid penalties were obviously one of them.

[nilbog]

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

If we want a classic game then please return the caster book

Will when I can. Client limitation for UI. Intended feature.

, give people lag/ping so bad it seems they are playing on 56k dial-up, make the loading screens for zones really fucking long to account for computer RAM being way more expensive back then

Not intended, but side effect of the times.

, give human/erud/barb terrible vision at night,

Will when I can. Client limitation of directX lighting. Intended feature.

go back and buff Necromancer pet/dagger dly,

You know this probably was not intended, but if I could make it work 100% from release then be nerfed, I probably would.

let lifetaps land on monsters 30+ levels above the casters

Lifetap history lesson as per the times. I think this is working properly for Kunark. Should be a thread about a resist mod. Intended by Verant? Probably not.

, let necromancers pets be way higher level

-4/0/+4 ? If not, I'm not sure what you mean.

let necromancers feign death and farm exp while asleep (their pets could solo mobs even in Guk)

You mean for faction..? Who's stopping ya. And their pets soloed npcs because of the weapon delay. They were tough but not nearly as crazy without weapons. Probably not intended by Verant.

, let Monks be able to feign death and disarm npcs

Would like to hear more about this. Was this an intended feature?

, let duping of coins work until it was fixed

Not intended. Seems dumb.

, egg-shaped pumice stones,

I'm down with this really. Fuck casters. Intended feature.

item-loot on pvp death (was in until I think mid Kunark on one of the team zeks and Rallos?), etc.

I'm very pro item loot as well. But yeah, it wasn't on all of the pvp servers. Intended feature on the servers where it was implemented.

The thing is it's a silly argument. There were things that were obviously broken and even Verant admitted it, and hybrid penalties were obviously one of them.

Of all the things you mentioned, hybrid exp penalties were definitely intended as developed.

[Potus]

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

Will when I can. Client limitation for UI. Intended feature.

Why would you want to put that in the game? You might as well prevent people alt-tabbing also. It's another example of something Verant put in the game and realized it was stupid and took it out because it was not fun, added nothing to the game, and no one wanted.

-4/0/+4 ? If not, I'm not sure what you mean.

Necromancer/Mage pets conned higher levels at release. It was one of the first things that got nerfed, because having a level 34 caster summon a level 33-35 pet meant it hit harder and tanked better than any PC tank of that level.

You mean for faction..? Who's stopping ya. And their pets soloed npcs because of the weapon delay. They were tough but not nearly as crazy without weapons. Probably not intended by Verant.

No, Necro pets were insanely strong at release, and lots of necros would feign death and let their pet farm a npc all night while they slept. They got exp for it. I believe they nerfed it so that if a necro feigned death for too long the pet would suicide.

Would like to hear more about this. Was this an intended feature?

It was until people started complaining that monks would feign death and disarm npcs with nice weapons.

Of all the things you mentioned, hybrid exp penalties were definitely intended as developed.

Until they explicitly stated they messed up. Again, it's something that no one enjoys or wants, why have it?

Also while we're discussing stuff from live, pets in general on P99 do not taunt/generate aggro like they should. Is that intended or is it because aggro (like resists) is difficult to code/replicate?

[nilbog]

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

Why would you want to put that in the game? You might as well prevent people alt-tabbing also. It's another example of something Verant put in the game and realized it was stupid and took it out because it was not fun, added nothing to the game, and no one wanted.

Because it existed throughout classic and casters should have it harder than melee. Very rarely will humans choose to nerf themselves. It did add something to the game though..especially for pvp. Casters being forced to see their spellbooks till 35 was a boon to melee. Ducking not interrupting spells was a boon to melee. Once they removed all of this, there was a great disparity between caster->melee pvping especially at lower levels.

Also, I think you might consider what Verant wanted and what paying customers and the financial department deemed 'everyone' wanted can be vastly different.

Until they explicitly stated they messed up. Again, it's something that no one enjoys or wants, why have it?

p99 was created to be a museum for classic eq. A place where these mechanics and nuances would exist if nowhere else. On the topic of fun, I have lots of opinions on what would make the game more interesting.. Like for pvp? Teams, yellow text, item loot, language barrier isolated to your team, racial faction losses. Juice it up and give people a reason to group and to pvp against groups. If we only have 1 pvp server, why not add features from all of them.

Also while we're discussing stuff from live, pets in general on P99 do not taunt/generate aggro like they should. Is that intended or is it because aggro (like resists) is difficult to code/replicate?

There's a huge portion of code dealing with aggro and hatelist. Replicating it exactly would be almost impossible.. but even making minor changes is 10 ft pole category. This is Rogean's dept.

[Dark Team]

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

On the topic of fun, I have lots of opinions on what would make the game more interesting.. Like for pvp? Teams, yellow text, item loot, language barrier isolated to your team, racial faction losses. Juice it up and give people a reason to group and to pvp against groups.

Why not do this?

[Erebus]

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

I'm very pro item loot as well. But yeah, it wasn't on all of the pvp servers. Intended feature on the servers where it was implemented.
.

Item loot is dumb unless it's full inventory (but not equipment) loot.

equipment loot would kill your population. I probably wouldn't play, but I'm the type who'll spend hours camping something. Losing that time just cause some yellow con twink was bored would make me go seek a more rewarding gaming experience.

imo let the guy take my coin and bags full of food, water, and beer. What im wearing is mine.

[nilbog]

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

Item loot is dumb unless it's full inventory (but not equipment) loot.

equipment loot would kill your population. I probably wouldn't play, but I'm the type who'll spend hours camping something. Losing that time just cause some yellow con twink was bored would make me go seek a more rewarding gaming experience.

imo let the guy take my coin and bags full of food, water, and beer. What im wearing is mine.

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

[mostly opinions about item loot]

......

Next argument is.. people will bag their gear before they die. One idea I thought was interesting was any droppable item that wasn't equipped, could be available for loot. This means players wouldn't choose to bag their items, because those are the items players could loot. I've also seen suggestions like, any non-magical bagged item, such as gems or random armor.

The other biggest argument I've seen was, "I don't want to camp an fbss for 10 hours to lose it in a fight". Aside from the custom item loot rulesets which may protect against this, no one is making anyone camp an fbss for 10 hours.

I'd like to think there is some type of item loot ruleset which people could agree with. More features = win.

[/mostly opinions about item loot]

[Erebus]

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

Of all the things you mentioned, hybrid exp penalties were definitely intended as developed.

I think a lot of "as intended" dialogue gets thrown around and imo is pretty misled. Many imbalances existed in classic. These imbalances, although products of "as intended," were fixed because the intentions did not function well as implemented.

Hybrid penalties are just one example of that, imo.

You ought to stop trying to claim that certain things function in p1999 because they are "as intended" in classic and just say its because thats how they are intended in p1999. How can anyone presume to grasp what ultimate goal was fully intended, and what implementations, although intended, didn't function in a properly intended manner on classic?

From what I've seen of your posts, nilbog, you're pretty good as saying "because this is how we want it and get over it." That isn't a bad stance to take and isn't at all a dick move. You should stick by that one and not bother with the one that puts a gaping whole in your argument.

[nilbog]

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

You ought to stop trying to claim that certain things function in p1999 because they are "as intended" in classic and just say its because thats how they are intended in p1999. How can anyone presume to grasp what ultimate goal was fully intended, and what implementations, although intended, didn't function in a properly intended manner on classic?

Well, on a case by case basis, it's often easy to presume. Coding an entire experience system to perform in a certain manner is presumed intended.

Whereas a bug which duplicates money was likely not purposely coded to perform in that manner.

I suppose I put myself in a position to judge the differences and people can choose whether or not to like my decisions. I certainly can not make everyone happy.