Item recharging is an exploit of game mechanics

[Brinkman]

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

Obviously you're wrong about A) being true or it wouldn't have taken them 4 years to fix it and you would have proof!.

So because they took 4 years to get it fixed means its a fact it wasnt an unintentinal bug.


You take the cake my friend.

[Brinkman]

Ok check this out. This is in no way proof at all btw.

This is a quote from the safehouse forums in 2003 talking about the recharge nerf.

"It's still a fix if they had come out and plainly stated that it was an exploit, which they did. The fact it took them this long to actually code a fix doesn't justify it's use. They said it was wrong plain and simple.

They came out and said that plain as day over 2 years ago, so if you were still using it, then you were knowingly exploiting it. It would make you in fact a cheater, not someone using a 'feature'."

In this thread people asked him for the quote from SoE that said it was a bug or exploit, he never made another post after this ( which means nothing ) Either he is right, or wrong who knows.

We need people to search google, etc and see if they can find anything showing SoE or VI saying its a bug and not intended. Im searching myself as well.

Not that something like this needs a quote from sony, its pretty obvious to anyone thats NOT Samoht =)

Its an unintended BUG

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

It's a broken Game mechanic..

So were the class-based XP penalties. The relative class balances did not pan out as designed to warrant the penalties, therefore class balance in relation to XP penalties was broken as a game mechanic.

Again, if you are saying that item recharging must be a design bug because it was fixed later, then class-based penalties is also a design bug since it was fixed later.

[Brinkman]

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

So were the class-based XP penalties. The relative class balances did not pan out as designed to warrant the penalties, therefore class balance in relation to XP penalties was broken as a game mechanic.

Again, if you are saying that item recharging must be a design bug because it was fixed later, then class-based penalties is also a design bug since it was fixed later.

I never said it was a design bug, do you not see how you are trying to twist what im saying around to fit better into what you are trying to compare?

I said it was a game mechanic bug ( a coding bug )

The class exp penalty design was not a bug nor was it broken. The coding was proper and how they intended it to be at the time, they even said this.

"When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors."

The realative class balances they are talking about are all the spells, changes to spell and song functions, items and so on over 3 years of updates, leading to this conclusion in 2001. Its all timeline proper, and INTENDED.

I never said it must have been a bug because they fixed it later, i said it was a bug because its obvious it was a bug and they were not ABLE to fix it until later.

Yendor let your failed exp thing go man. And im getting hijacking feelings coming on, so please resurect your old post or what have you.

It's completely different that a coding bug creating exploits.

Many coding bug exploits were very much classic ( like quests giving too much exp, too much plat ) yet not fixed until well into PoP. Yet these bugs do not exist here on p99 Because they are BUGS.

This bug should be one of those removed, as it is similar in fuction.

[Sarkhan]

Yes it is obvious that they notice/knew about recharging items and its ability to be exploited and that is why they adjusted/upped the buyback cost of certain items - yet they never made the items buyback 9999999, instead they left many of them around 10k-ish for example.

Unless i am wrong and the price-hike of buybacks didn't happen until after classic-velious era, my vote would be to keep in recharging since it was addressed but never "fixed" in the sense that they made it not rechargeable/99999+ buyback. Having said that i would still hike up the buyback cost of many items to much higher than live had, to accommodate the P99 economy.


A little off topic here but as for experience penalties, whether or not they were deemed not needed and removed later on in the game, it is still of my opinion that this server is to recreate the nostalgia of the classic experience - particularly all of the pain in the ass that EQ was and penalties should stay in.

Pretty sure (though i could be entirely wrong) the idea came from old D&D of hybrids having penalties for the ability of doing things from 2 different classes... Maybe it didn't quite work out in theory though (especially for the ranger's case, haha)

[Samoht]

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

In this thread people asked him for the quote from SoE that said it was a bug or exploit

It wasn't any more wrong eight years ago than it is today. If it was ever announced to be a bug or exploit, you should cite that as proof instead of just assuming it's there.

Let's play this game your way from now on: It's against common sense to take out item recharging on this server since it was clearly classic. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't have any common sense.

We can play it Hamahakki's way, too: Anybody who thinks unclassic changes need to be applied to this server is just trolling and stupid, really stupid.

[Sarkhan]

dammit samoht, you posted 2 mins after me now people will only see your recent post and never read mine! :-P
hehe

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

I never said it was a design bug, do you not see how you are trying to twist what im saying around to fit better into what you are trying to compare?

But it IS a design bug.

The data structures for items were not designed to have different IDs or attributes based on the amount of charges the item had. Therefore, when the item was placed into the vendor data structure, they designed it to increment the current quantity of the original item instead of creating separate items on the vendor, each with a different amount of charges.

Or, the class-based XP penalty was a coding bug:

The classes were coded to have different strengths and weaknesses based on the particular max skill values and different abilities and spells coded into the game. The balance of power that would require the class penalties never materialized, therefore it was fixed.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The point is still -- if you fix one thing before its time, you set the precedent of fixing other things before their time. I don't care whether class-based XP penalties are corrected now or in Velious, I'm 2 yellows away from 60, so I did my time already.

[john_savage1982]

I believe yall are using designed in a different context. In the coding of the game, the programmers designed their data structures in a way that allowed for the recharging exploit. In other words, the programmers did a poor job in designing the data structures to execute the design they intended for the game. As a result, we have the recharging exploit.

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

But it IS a design bug.

The data structures for items were not designed to have different IDs or attributes based on the amount of charges the item had. Therefore, when the item was placed into the vendor data structure, they designed it to increment the current quantity of the original item instead of creating separate items on the vendor, each with a different amount of charges.

Or, the class-based XP penalty was a coding bug:

The classes were coded to have different strengths and weaknesses based on the particular max skill values and different abilities and spells coded into the game. The balance of power that would require the class penalties never materialized, therefore it was fixed.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The point is still -- if you fix one thing before its time, you set the precedent of fixing other things before their time. I don't care whether class-based XP penalties are corrected now or in Velious, I'm 2 yellows away from 60, so I did my time already.

[john_savage1982]

There are so many instances of classic features purposely removed for the sake of balance. The devs are already picking and choosing which features contribute to the classic experience and which are too OP to allow. Any argument about keeping things classic forgets this fact.