Duration of Shared Grp XP Penalties

[Dantes]

Have all you folks shelving your hybrids actually done any tests and compared those to how exp used to be? Or are we all just blowing smoke here and being over dramatic?

[liveitup1216]

this is how classic was, painfully slow leveling every step of the way, improved gear/mob design over kunark/velious made it not AS bad, but it still wasn't a cakewalk by far.

[Tseng]

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

Have all you folks shelving your hybrids actually done any tests and compared those to how exp used to be? Or are we all just blowing smoke here and being over dramatic?

The problem in their eyes isn't their own XP, it's that they feel shunned by others who know they'll be a dent to their own XP. I'm not sure that's been the case in my experience, I just walked my SK into Unrest typed /shout 19 SK LFG and got a group in 10 seconds, so who knows.

[Arclanz]

^ agree. And thank God my main character was not a Ranger. I'd be uber bummed to find this paradise server only to realize no one wants to group with me. Cut the penalties in half or something if you MUST have penalties.

Kudos to those folks who leveled with the penalty (like I did in 1999). But please, think of the Rangers... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And Tseng, I don't suppose that's you from Brell; is it? Tseng the enchanter.

[mimixownzall]

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

It will continue to seem this way. You see, most of what made classic Everquest different from non-classic Everquest wasn't just the content, it was the gameplay.

If you take the eq live patch notes for example, they continuously unnerfed or made things easier throughout the years.

With that in mind, think about a client and source that promote easy. That's what we had to start working with. 2006ish backwards.

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

I cannot think of many things that "positively" effect players that you might expect to see in the future.

If there is something in particular you know of, bug report it.

I keep hearing the classic arguement and I agree that it is a valid arguement.

I have yet to read anyone argue this point:

I will try to explain what is going on in my head, but sometimes I have a hard time relaying what I'm thinking into words.

One way of being 'classic' is to stick to a timeline no matter what: this was changed at this time... period. Another way of looking at 'classic' is to consider the reason for changes.

When EQ started, people were clueless about the shared group exp penalty for hybrids/races. This went on well into Kunark. The cat came out of the bag eventually and people started complaining and refusing to group with hybrids so they could level faster - much of what we are seeing on P1999. Someone said it was a bug that they fixed, but I'm not sure about that.

They removed it, thus creating a place in the timeline for the removal. Well, since we know about it now, how about we just move the timeline up to when we know about it? In a sense it is still being 'classic' - feature/bug goes un noticed; gets revealed; get corrected/removed. The only thing different is the timeline stamp, but it still happens in a classic way.

I guess I'm just trying to help the developers come up with a good rationale to change it and still feel they are doing right by being classic. =p

[jimmygarr]

This exp penalty is largely the cause of the lack of tanks in the game. Warriors are great in raids but boring as hell to play and have a hard time keeping aggro over an SK or Pally tank, but with the penalty these hybrid tanks are in short supply. I say if the penalty was MEANT to be in classic EQ it should stay, so keep the penalty on classes and races for now but drop the group sharing of the penalty. (If it was truly a bug and not intended, it should be removed here too right?) Maybe someone has the actual link to the Verant devs saying it was an accident? Either way, i know i prefer SK tanks regardless of penalty, and I know its not our call or our server and these devs do not answer to us. However the classes i personally enjoy are all hybrids and if there is going to be any change in the penalty it will only come from polite intelligent discussion on the part of the player base.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

This exp penalty is largely the cause of the lack of tanks in the game. Warriors are great in raids but boring as hell to play and have a hard time keeping aggro over an SK or Pally tank, but with the penalty these hybrid tanks are in short supply. I say if the penalty was MEANT to be in classic EQ it should stay, so keep the penalty on classes and races for now but drop the group sharing of the penalty. (If it was truly a bug and not intended, it should be removed here too right?) Maybe someone has the actual link to the Verant devs saying it was an accident? Either way, i know i prefer SK tanks regardless of penalty, and I know its not our call or our server and these devs do not answer to us. However the classes i personally enjoy are all hybrids and if there is going to be any change in the penalty it will only come from polite intelligent discussion on the part of the player base.

The link has been posted before in these discussions. The argument has been "This is how it was in classic." Except we didn't know all the mechanics of the XP/group XP sharing in classic, so hybrids weren't shunned from groups because of it back then. The difference is now all the min-maxers know what's up. The argument to that has been "I don't see anyone refusing certain classes in groups based on the hybrid XP penalty being shared, so whatever." Since we can't come up with empirical proof otherwise, this is what we get. :P