Classic pet exp

[Roanoke]

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

The amount of whining in this thread is incredible.

Are people really complaining that they only solo 10x better than melee instead of 20x?

This is EverQuest. A group based game. Melee were never intended to be able to solo like the pet classes. This isn't about being fair to the people who choose to play melee, that was YOUR DECISION TO CHOOSE A GROUP CLASS. It's about being fair to the people who set out to play pet classes and are missing some of the mechanics to be able to do so.

[Literati]

Wow, you people are something else. The fact that pet-classes are still better at soloing than melee classes has nothing to do with anything, of course they are going to be better at soloing. The fact is that they are not as effective at as they should be in an effort to be "classic" while their pets are kept not "classic" deliberately, which also has a negative effect on the class.

Using "classic" as a means to nerf my class, then dismissing my call to keep the game "classic" because my class is too good? Do you guys really not see why this annoys people?

[Kevlar]

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

This is EverQuest. A group based game. Melee were never intended to be able to solo like the pet classes. This isn't about being fair to the people who choose to play melee, that was YOUR DECISION TO CHOOSE A GROUP CLASS. It's about being fair to the people who set out to play pet classes and are missing some of the mechanics to be able to do so.

It is one of the things that makes everquest such a shitty game though. No kind of balance between the classes. I mean you have uber necros and mages soloing reds, while most melees can't handle a dark blue, and when they can they have to sit on their ass for 10 mins after wasting a couple gold on bandages.

Granted, the game is a lot of fun if you just stick to the uber classes.

[Literati]

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

It is one of the things that makes everquest such a shitty game though. No kind of balance between the classes. I mean you have uber necros and mages soloing reds, while most melees can't handle a dark blue, and when they can they have to sit on their ass for 10 mins after wasting a couple gold on bandages.

Granted, the game is a lot of fun if you just stick to the uber classes.

I don't know about that, I feel that the game is fun when you are playing the class you like, no matter what it is or how hard it may be. If you like warrior, for example, then thats what you should play if you want to have fun, but in the year 2011, on a not so highly populated server, of course theres gonna be a large amount of solo classes.

In the end though, in a server aiming for classic, you can't deliberately dismiss people for asking for things to be classic. If they stated their reasons were to balance the game, there wouldn't be as many people mad. Their reasons are "keeping it classic" though, which is simply not true.

[Nihilist_santa]

Am I the only person who has considered the fact that changes like this happened in "Classic/Live" because Everquest was becoming more popular and it was a subscription based game owned and operated by Sony? The whole business model revolved around making you play longer......I mean im sure everyone here was so consumed with the game at that time that we really thought this was a balance issue that needed addressing. The corrections that came later such as hybrid xp penalties and such were probably based more on the fact that Sony/Everquest was actually encountering competition in the market.

Then again perhaps I am just being paranoid....

[Tux]

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

Am I the only person who has considered the fact that changes like this happened in "Classic/Live" because Everquest was becoming more popular and it was a subscription based game owned and operated by Sony? The whole business model revolved around making you play longer......I mean im sure everyone here was so consumed with the game at that time that we really thought this was a balance issue that needed addressing. The corrections that came later such as hybrid xp penalties and such were probably based more on the fact that Sony/Everquest was actually encountering competition in the market.

Then again perhaps I am just being paranoid....

Exp penalties were almost certainly inspired from D&D which in interviews the design team says they played and borrowed heavily from. The original design figured a 9th level paladin will be stronger then a 9th level warrior, so crude balancing steps were taken such as exp penalties which attempt to change the comparison to a 7th level paladin vs 9th level warrior (based on accumulated exp) instead.

Of course in practice this doesn't happen at all, people group based on their levels not compared experience accumulated, rangers are not 40% better then clerics, etc. It became obvious that it was stupid, so it was removed once recognized in EQ, never existed in WoW and will never exist in another commercially successful MMORG. It only passes here because we're insane and hunger for nostalgia.

But this is getting way off topic. The topic here is asking me to do what I'd have to do 9000 times, 18000 times instead deserves a lot of complaining. Exp penalties are a serious consideration at character creation, people making rangers knew what they were signing up for, people hit with this change didn't.

[Roanoke]

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

It is one of the things that makes everquest such a shitty game though. No kind of balance between the classes. I mean you have uber necros and mages soloing reds, while most melees can't handle a dark blue, and when they can they have to sit on their ass for 10 mins after wasting a couple gold on bandages.

Granted, the game is a lot of fun if you just stick to the uber classes.

Again, EQ is not a solo game.

Roll a melee, expect to group. "Balance" doesn't come into the picture at all. This game predates all the bullshit MMO's where you twiddle your thumbs solo and DING MAX LEVEL. If that's the kind of game you are looking for there are plenty of opportunities out there to fulfill a challenge-less experience.

Edit: EQ shitty? It's 12 years old. EQ was the Optimus Prime of MMOs when it released.

[Autotune]

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

Again, EQ is not a solo game.

Roll a melee, expect to group. "Balance" doesn't come into the picture at all. This game predates all the bullshit MMO's where you twiddle your thumbs solo and DING MAX LEVEL. If that's the kind of game you are looking for there are plenty of opportunities out there to fulfill a challenge-less experience.

Edit: EQ shitty? It's 12 years old. EQ was the Optimus Prime of MMOs when it released.

confirmed idiot.

EQ is a solo game as well as a grouping game. Soloing classes usually have a hard time finding groups where as shitty solo classes usually excel in getting groups (aside from rangers).


The only class that is both good at soloing and has great potential for groups is an Enchanter (should also be necro's but people hate them for odd reasons).

Also, I find it much more rewarding and fun not having to play with 5 incompetent retards that I have to rely on to progress. I'd rather solo dungeon camps and take all the risk myself than the alternative (unless i'm playing with 5 other people as good as I am).

Edit: the thing about Grouping classes. They are usually more desirable in raid settings and high level camps ( Seb Shroom king etc. ) where as necros, mages, druids really aren't desirable for much other than basic utilities. In overall balance of the game, I think it's pretty even. soooo

STFU and stop crying.

[Lazortag]

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

...

The only class that is both good at soloing and has great potential for groups is an Enchanter ...

Bard? Mage? Necro? Shaman?

...

[Autotune]

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

Bard? Mage? Necro? Shaman?

...

Bards sometimes yeah, but usually gets overlooked for enchanters, same with shamans (both are prefer'd over necros)


Bards < Enchanters most of the time (both i like tho)

Mages (never seen them needed for much of any group)

Shamans (this one around high 50's and 60 are definitely as powerful or more so than necro and enchanter, but before hand not so much)

Shamans are more on a level with necros, mages and enchanters at 60 but I don't see many of them around the upper 40's low 50's soloing in Lguk or anything of that nature. They are definitely powerhouses at 60 tho.

Edit again: I was mostly speaking on the terms of Soloing outdoors and indoors ( which mostly only Necros, Enchanters and Mages [in some cases] can do ). I haven't seen many Bards or Shamans leveling solo in the mid level to higher level dungeons. Again, shamans start to around mid 50s, but not overall like mages, enchanters and necros.