Mages are up shit’s creek I guess

[Obrae]

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

"classic" seems to be applied one-sided to the "harder" side, although mages have taken more than their share, for sure.

Given a choice of a harder or easier "feature", it'll be the harder one. "because classic" if it's classic, "because, uhm, we think we know what was intended" if not. I wish they'd stop the charade.

Exactly classic as nothing to do with launch, all thos nerds didnt even knew the game existed back then and it shows.

[cd288]

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

Research has also shown mage pets didn't used to eat half the exp. "Classic experience" seems to be applied pretty one-sided against mages, a class that has nothing to look forward to in the future and so really doesn't need extra special nerfing in classic.

Yeah it's kind of strange. There seem to be a couple select individuals here who are obsessed with applying what they deem to be the "classic experience" to other people and classes, even if they aren't playing those classes themselves. It's ironic though, because again, it's not actually 100% the classic experience, because those same people would be against applying the no pet EXP split that you mentioned; so essentially they're obsessed with ensuring that other people have the negative parts of classic launch inflicted upon the person's class, but not any part of classic that made things easier for that class.

Makes me wonder what those select individuals are like in the real world if they're so focused on making sure that things are as difficult and/or annoying as possible for other people when it has no effect on those select individuals.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

"classic" seems to be applied one-sided to the "harder" side, although mages have taken more than their share, for sure.

Given a choice of a harder or easier "feature", it'll be the harder one. "because classic" if it's classic, "because, uhm, we think we know what was intended" if not. I wish they'd stop the charade.

Quit yer bellyachin'

[cd288]

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

I'm still waiting to see this mythical research showing there was a time when pets weren't eating 50% xp.

I want to see it. Please point me to it.

Everything I've read so far shows that the ShowEQ guys found pets were eating 50% of xp from the very first time they started looking at xp values in late 99 / early 2000.

With all due respect, some of the evidence that shows pets weren't eating EXP, while may not necessarily be direct evidence, is equivalent to the level of proof that the staff has accepted for many other changes.

But you're one of those people who wants the harder parts of classic but wants to remove anything that could make it easier (which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter, but then you can't really use a "because classic" argument), so why bother engaging in a discussion with you.

[oldhead]

Originally Posted by port9001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This thread confuses me.

I think we can all agree the current implementation is not very good. That is not in question.

But...

Isn't the point of this server, and in particular green, to emulate the classic timeline of EverQuest? If you prefer how SOE changed the mechanics months later and can't wait, why not play on blue? What's the point of a classic timelined server that violates the timeline constantly?

(For the record, IMO pets should be getting full xp and all the other dumb mechanics SOE launched with should be in right now, but not my server)

Problem with the "but it is classic" argument is that it is selectively classic. Things are not implemented because they will be patched out shortly. Not implemented because it would be too harsh. Not implemented for balance to be true to how the game should be.


Right now we should be able to loot other peoples corpses when they die. All kids of nasty foul stuff like that when the game was released. Also things that will make classes overpowered are selectively left out , like being able to afk farm with pet.

[Dolalin]

So none of you can link to any research showing pets weren't eating xp at launch? I don't think I'm asking for much here.

[oldhead]

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

So none of you can link to any research showing pets weren't eating xp at launch? I don't think I'm asking for much here.

Can you link that they were?

[cd288]

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

So none of you can link to any research showing pets weren't eating xp at launch? I don't think I'm asking for much here.

This conversation has been had a million times. People have linked evidence over the past couple weeks. Go back through the lengthy posts and find it if you'd like.

[Dolalin]

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

Can you link that they were?

Yes, back to November 1999 at least:

11/30/99

I performed a test as Alasdair suggested to determine how much
experience pets take. For each test I rolled a new character, and
provided him with "Cavorting Bones" and a few bone chips. The test was
performed by battling only large rats at the North Qeynos gate area in
various configurations of player and pet. The player was armed only
with the standard dagger and no armor or clothing. The test counts the
number of rats it takes to get to level 2. All characters were rolled
with the following stats:
All Male, Human Necromancers.
STR 90
STA 80
AGI 75
DEX 90
WIS 75
INT 90
CHA 75

Test #1
Subject: Fridgemagnet
Conditions: No pet was used.
Number of kills until level 2: 10

Test #2
Subject: Jamrambler
Conditions: Pet was conjured, but instructed to sit and never attacked.
Number of kills until level 2: 10

Test #3
Subject: Soupgnasher
Conditions: Have pet do most damage (>50%). 1 4pt lifetap issued to
make sure rat does not kill pet.
Number of kills until level 2: 20
Notes: Pet issued 18/20 killing blows. (I had to step in on 2 occasions
to prevent pet from getting killed)

Test #4
Subject: Bubblegum
Conditions: Player did more damage than pet (>50%). Pet was told to
continually back off.
Number of kills until level 2: 10
Notes: Although backing off, pet managed to get in 5 killing blows.

Miscellaneous notes:
- In every test, an equal amount of experience was gained for each kill.

Conclusions:
- In test #4, as pet got in 5 killing blows and it did not effect how
much experience was gained, we can put the killing blow myth to rest.
- If pet issues more than 50% of the damage required to kill a mob, it
is given 50% of the experience, and the player is given the other 50%.
- If pet issues less than 50% of the damage required to kill a mob, the
player is given what appears to be ALL of the experience (perhaps the
<=1% party experience rule applies here... not way to tell).

Any comments? Anyone care to confirm these results? Any speculation as
to other race/class combos effecting experience distribution?

Roger

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....Y/bb3GvXeOpl8J

I really wanna be proven wrong on this but none of you are helping.

Can you tell me when this 'Nerf' went in? That would help me track it down.

[Obrae]

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

Yes, back to November 1999 at least:



https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....Y/bb3GvXeOpl8J

I really wanna be proven wrong on this but none of you are helping.

Can you tell me when this 'Nerf' went in? That would help me track it down.

Dude, that’s November almost décembre... why do you think it’s Suddenly tested?