Do pets currently take 50% of your exp?

[Deathrydar]

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

I don't know how many times I'd join a PUG and they'd tell me not to summon a pet because it would "steal their exp". Where do you suppose this incorrect assumption originated?

The same place where all of the other incorrect assumptions arise (hybrids will slow you down, rangers are worthless, etc).

[DMN]

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

The same place where all of the other incorrect assumptions arise (hybrids will slow you down, rangers are worthless, etc).

I'm talking about vanilla EQ. It was quite awhile before the hybrid exp penalty being shared was common knowledge among players. most players back then thought warrior and rogues the worthless ones.

[Dolalin]

The idea that pets would steal xp if they got the kill shot was a common myth from beta days. I see it all over the newsgroups.

Searching some more this morning I found this post from April 2000:

4/3/00

> A while ago Gordo posted some notes stating that in a group a pet took an
> insignificant amount of exp. Now I'm hearing rumours that ShowEQ contradicts
> this. Does anyone have any more info on this?
C&P from Lum the Mad's

***Quote
3. Pets do not take a fixed amount of exp when solo.

Surprise, surprise! Pet exp penalties do not work *at all* like Verant claims. If a
pet class, for example a mage,
is fighting blue mobs with a pet and the pet does less than 50% of the combined
damage done between the
mage and pet, the mage gets 100% of the exp. If the pet outdamages the mage and the
mage gets credit for
the kill, the mage gets 50% of the exp.

This works for blue through red mobs, but when dealing with green mobs of any kind,
if the pet outdamages the
mage, the mage gets no exp. If the mage outdamages the pet, though, he gets the
normal green exp, be it 50%
or 25%.
***end quote


This is a small bit of a larger article about exp. in general.

http://lum.xrgaming.net/eqexp.html

Also an interesting bit about those race/class combos which are supposed to slow
down group members (e.g. Troll SK) which claims that the hybrid just levels slower
(therefore no penalty in grouping with them)

--
Simond AKA
Morrighan. Barbarian Shaman, Vallon Zek
Cealena, Human Necromancer, Vallon Zek
Dea Crystalmist, Freelance Ranger, Europa

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....0/Sjmq0Zfwb4IJ

The web archive link to that Lum the Mad address is here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200007091...net/eqexp.html

3. Pets do not take a fixed amount of exp when solo.

Surprise, surprise! Pet exp penalties do not work *at all* like Verant claims. If a pet class, for example a mage, is fighting blue mobs with a pet and the pet does less than 50% of the combined damage done between the mage and pet, the mage gets 100% of the exp. If the pet outdamages the mage and the mage gets credit for the kill, the mage gets 50% of the exp.

This works for blue through red mobs, but when dealing with green mobs of any kind, if the pet outdamages the mage, the mage gets no exp. If the mage outdamages the pet, though, he gets the normal green exp, be it 50% or 25%.

Interesting to note here that this is something the ShowEQ and Hackerquest guys discovered on their own. This wasn't a change Verant put in, it was them discovering how things worked for the first time. There's no indication that I can see that this had been touched or changed since launch. Happy to be corrected if someone knows more.

Oh and one last tidbit which is damaging to my hypothesis that pets might take 50% of xp in groups if they did most of the damage:

6. Pets take no exp in groups.

No matter what they do, how many there are, and how much damage they put out, we can not find any cases where pets take *any* exp away from a group. It's possible that there is some way for pets to take exp from groups, but in every sort of normal fighting in Everquest, it simply does not occur.

[Dolalin]

Maybe it's not so damaging after all:

That article is basically junk. There are too many errors in it for
me to believe any of the parts that are supposed to be news. The
xp requirement formula is correct, but I would not trust anything
beyond that.

First of all, the conclusion that a Troll SK does not slow down a
group is bunk. A Troll SK has something like a 70% experience
penalty. So, sharing xp with a Troll SK of your level is like
sharing xp with 1.7 High Elf Clerics. It will slow down the whole
group.

Also, the ShowEQ people have figured out xp penalties on death.
Apparently you lose a percentage of the total experience required
for the previous level. That is why you lose so much when you die
in a level after a hell level. Also, the experience loss is the
same for everyone, so Warriors will seem to lose more than hybrids
because they are losing a larger fraction.

--
Morgan
(crossposting all posts to rec.games.computer.everquest)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....0/GzxZm0ioRA8J

He's right, there are some obvious errors in that Lum post.

Anyways I'm now off topic for this thread. Need to find the original posts on the ShowEQ boards. Would rather see those than read hearsay all day long.

[Donkey Hotay]

I'd like to interject here and remind the disgruntled folks that while Skorge and Dolalin are advocating and researching, respectively, aspects of the game that are a detriment to mages, they are not the persons implementing the changes.

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

The standard of proof many would accept for things that make their game easier seems to be different from things that make their game harder. I don't think it has much to do with purity of classic either way.

[Valion]

Well at least this one should nerf Necros and Chanters too not just mages. It should apply even to charmed pets. Ohh yeah I forgot Sk's and Shammy's. Do druids get the pet on P99?

[Gunnie]

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

I remember Necromancer pet being god with dual daggers.
It shows that no one really were playing back in 1998.

Keep listening to the pretend to be classic EQ'ers

This is pick and choose Classic, developer edition.

[cd288]

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

These sources dolalin are using are absolutely fucked and arent part of the classic timeline. This dude is 100% cherry picking. This shit above he is quoting is from out of era content, hes using posts from AFTER THE NERF WENT IN. Time to do some searching.

Lmao, this is great.

At any rate, I've begun to realize it's kind of pointless to have discussions about these topics and/or with people like him altogether. People like him, and also apparently the staff, want the server to be a selectively classic experience with the hard (or stupid parts even if they were changed later because it was awful design) left in and anything that could possibly make the game easier for everyone or specific classes removed. If you try and post evidence supporting your claim, these people will shoot it down if it's not essentially an express statement from EQ devs, but then they'll defend their own argument with 20 year old forum posts from random EQ players and claim that's sufficient evidence lol. If you try and do the same for your argument, you get shot down or otherwise they just ignore your evidence and refuse to respond to it.

[Dolalin]

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

These sources dolalin are using are absolutely fucked and arent part of the classic timeline. This dude is 100% cherry picking. This shit above he is quoting is from out of era content, hes using posts from AFTER THE NERF WENT IN. Time to do some searching.

When did the 'nerf go in''?

I'm obviously an idiot. Help me out and link me to it.

[cd288]

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

When did the 'nerf go in''?

I'm obviously an idiot. Help me out and link me to it.

Right, I bet we need an official patch note in order for you to deem it sufficient evidence right? As opposed to the forum posts by random players that are sufficient evidence whenever they allegedly back up what your agenda is lol