so, i'm 60 on my paladin and mid 50s on my necro: about group makeup

[Nirgon]

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

Classic yes, but please explain the very good reason that the Verant/99 Studios team put it in? I understand the "good reason" that the P99 devs put it in -- match classic.

The reason its there is because despite their spells being of lesser level.. they still provide "dat utility". Again, xp penalty for aggro alone. How about a higher effective hp pool due to drains, stuns (more or less), feign death + plate... etc. Sounds like a reason to give a class a penalty. Invis and ITU... the list goes on. Think of ogre sk vs ogre warrior. Tell me again why a class with snare + fear + life taps + a pet (its a little extra..) doesn't need an xp penalty or some kind of penalty otherwise? The obvious answer in today's terms is "well buff warriors" but that's not how it was back then.

Don't warriors get triple attack in Kunark? Or is that Velious? I think rangers definitely got triple attack in Kunark... not sure on any of that.

[Dantes]

I don't mind grouping with hybrids. Honestly I can't really tell the difference because I don't watch the exp bar that closely. It's depressing to keep checking. If I'm grouped with 5 other people who are NOT assholes, then as far as I am concerned that's a win, I could care less what class they are as long as I'm alive and having fun.

[Trisun]

I can see Shadowknight and Paladins being great for tanks in groups even with the exp penalty. BUT Id much rather have a rogue or an extra monk/mage/necro as compared to a ranger/bard. I can notice a SIGNIFICANT Difference in the experience when grouping with rangers/bards. =)

[Ektar]

bard is a good substitute for an enchanter though

[azeth]

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

bard is a good substitute for an enchanter though

Bard's have enough upsides to totally overshadow the penalty. Conversely, I can't think of a single thing rangers bring to the group setting that *any class, who can actually perform the act (heal, root, DS, buff, DPS), cannot exponentially do better than them.

It's a shame, really. They should've been approached from the RANGE(r) perspective from the get go if their melee "advantages" boil down to triple attack and great weapon choices.

[maestrom]

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

it's much better to group with people near your level)

More accurately, its much better to group with people near your current EXP total.

To evenly distribute EXP, if you're grouping with a human warrior, make sure they are the highest level in the group. If you're grouping with a troll SK, make sure they're near the lowest level in the group.

[Nirgon]

If it brings more xp than having a blank spot, its a gain.

[Werlop]

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

Bard's have enough upsides to totally overshadow the penalty. Conversely, I can't think of a single thing rangers bring to the group setting that *any class, who can actually perform the act (heal, root, DS, buff, DPS), cannot exponentially do better than them.

Bards add haste and mana to a group. If you can't find a chanter/shaman for haste, these two abilities alone justify adding them. Even with a shaman, you want someone to cc that 5-mob pull so the group doesn't wipe.

As an enchanter, I like having hybrid tanks in the group because their greater aggro generation makes things flow more smoothly. It's not something that translates well in a parse, but if you consider how small a 40% penalty split 6 ways becomes, it's a fair trade. Yes, a very good warrior has no problems with aggro ever, but warriors have to rely on random procs to build aggro over melee. Hybrid tanks don't. I've never been in a group where the group has turned down a hybrid tank solely because they weren't a warrior. Most groups that I've been in would be glad just to not have a monk tank.

Rangers... rangers sucked in classic Kunark and they aren't any better now. I know that the rangers in my guild are awesome and would toss them an invite no matter what because they're cool people, but from a stranger's standpoint, there are few situations where it would be better to take a ranger over a monk/rogue/necro. Necros even have better heals and there are a million of them. I haven't parsed extensively, but by comparing exp in groups with and without rangers, it seems as though they just barely make up for their penalty (i.e. everyone in the group made just as much exp with the ranger as without).

Tl;dr version- Most hybrids are cool. There's a reason the least-played class on the server is ranger.

[BelenosThePagan]

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

I don't mind grouping with hybrids. Honestly I can't really tell the difference because I don't watch the exp bar that closely. It's depressing to keep checking. If I'm grouped with 5 other people who are NOT assholes, then as far as I am concerned that's a win, I could care less what class they are as long as I'm alive and having fun.

^^Exactly. People should make their class choice based on what they want to play. If the group is staying alive, killing efficiently, and most importantly having fun,
then it's a good group. This is an MMO...and to me that means engaging with other people and adapting those you have to the situation you're currently in, not grouping exclusively with the most mathematically superior chars. If someone came you your house to play D&D with a weaker char would you send them home?

just my opinion.

[baalzy]

It should be noted that Iksar monks have a 44% xp penalty. Which is slightly more then a hybrid penalty as long as there isn't an additional racial penalty to add.