Patch Notes, Tuesday July 13th

[doacleric]

Guard changes were made because they were highly unbalanced. For a pure risk vs reward standpoint, killing guards offered far less risk compared to a dungeon (sow available, zone lines available, less trains, etc), while offering spawn rates 4x that of a dungeon. In other words, a far easier encounter that potentially offers 4x the experience. It didn't make sense, and thats why it was fixed by Verant back over a decade ago.

Again, we have nothing against players hunting guards. EQ has never placed any restrictions upon what you can and can't kill (like WoW for example). But there has to be a certain amount of balance in the game.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Guard changes were made because they were highly unbalanced. For a pure risk vs reward standpoint, killing guards offered far less risk compared to a dungeon (sow available, zone lines available, less trains, etc), while offering spawn rates 4x that of a dungeon. In other words, a far easier encounter that potentially offers 4x the experience. It didn't make sense, and thats why it was fixed by Verant back over a decade ago.

Good, so here's a perfect example of a change to something that does not make sense and was fixed by Verant at a certain point much later in the timeline than was done here on this server. A post above showed this change didn't go in until after Kunark was released.

I agree that it doesn't make sense from a risk/reward standpoint, but you can't make that change if you are strictly following the timeline. Otherwise by the same reasoning, I would ask that you remove the class-based XP penalties which also were stated by Verant as not making sense, and change them earlier in the timeline as you have done here with the guard spawn time changes.

Again, tremendous amount of respect for the amount of time you guys put into maintaining this server for us, and I'm not trying to be rude or imply you're accountable to us in any way, but don't you see it's a tad hypocritical to have it both ways? This change kinda shows you're intentionally picking and choosing things to fix ahead of the classic timeline.

[JaVeDK]

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

Good, so here's a perfect example of a change to something that does not make sense and was fixed by Verant at a certain point much later in the timeline than was done here on this server. A post above showed this change didn't go in until after Kunark was released.

I agree that it doesn't make sense from a risk/reward standpoint, but you can't make that change if you are strictly following the timeline. Otherwise by the same reasoning, I would ask that you remove the class-based XP penalties which also were stated by Verant as not making sense, and change them earlier in the timeline as you have done here with the guard spawn time changes.

Again, tremendous amount of respect for the amount of time you guys put into maintaining this server for us, and I'm not trying to be rude or imply you're accountable to us in any way, but don't you see it's a tad hypocritical to have it both ways? This change kinda shows you're intentionally picking and choosing things to fix ahead of the classic timeline.

Well said sir. I am in agreement with the above and the respectful manner in which it was expressed.

[dali_lb]

Think People just in generally (incl myself) expect the P99 to be an exact copy of the EQ timeline on live, wich when you sit down and reflect on it just isn't fair to expect.

The P99 Team is by far as big as Verant/Sony.

The EQEmu isn't a 100% copy of EQlive. It's propably not more than 80% correct. There is countless things that just can't be made work 100% like EQlive with EQEmu.

And yet we expect things to be 100% correct.

Wether It's correct to make certain patches to stabilize server economy even its not 100% consistent with EQlive timeline ... hard to say

Personly, I think people have considerable more platinum on P99 than they had on live, so Yes, I think its fair to do it. There is too much plat flowing around allready.

But then again. personly I'd also like something added to eg. Lower Guk named camps that would make it very undesirable to try solo camp these spawns, just like city guards.... but again that aint classic, as necroes always used to solo these things to make huge amount of plat on selling fbss, ssoy, smr and 2h mithril.

[guineapig]

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

Guard changes were made because they were highly unbalanced. For a pure risk vs reward standpoint, killing guards offered far less risk compared to a dungeon (sow available, zone lines available, less trains, etc), while offering spawn rates 4x that of a dungeon. In other words, a far easier encounter that potentially offers 4x the experience. It didn't make sense, and thats why it was fixed by Verant back over a decade ago.

Again, we have nothing against players hunting guards. EQ has never placed any restrictions upon what you can and can't kill (like WoW for example). But there has to be a certain amount of balance in the game.

I totally agree with the reasons for doing this both by the P99 staff as well as Verant back in the day.

However, even I'm a little surprised that this was changed pre-Kunark.
May of 2000 should be after Kunark is released, after The Hole and a few months before epic quests go live. Besides following progression, it also makes sense since there is so much more content available for the population.

What could be changed now is the guard stats. That would roughly fall in line with classic progression.

(I have never killed a single guard yet on P99 myself so this doesn't effect me at all, unless you consider how many more people will be LFG in dungeons now).

---------------------------------------------

On a side note, I'm also excited to hear about the pet fixes!