So when did classic get rid of xp penalties?

[Zuranthium]

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

No one is saying rangers didn't suffer a bad rep prior to Kunark.

Rangers were the most popular class in the game for awhile pre-Kunark. When Everquest first came about, people treated it as an actual RPG and they loved the fantasy flavor of the Ranger class (inspired by characters in the genre such as Aragorn, no doubt). This love for the idea of the class was backed up by them being relatively overpowered in Original EQ, during the time when all of the Chain and Plate wearing classes used the same armor, Rubicite, and thus Rangers were very close to Warriors in terms of tanking/melee ability and had spells on top of it (with their ability to snare being VERY important back in the day, because monsters would sometimes flee at full run speed and create insurmountably devastating trains).

After Rubicite armor was removed from the game and more players became higher level and Warriors became much better tanks (and necessary for the big raid encounters), the Ranger class lost some popularity but their status was still healthy. The only class that people actively shunned in Original EQ (aside from roleplaying reasons), at times, were Rogues.

Kunark then came along and turned Rangers into a joke for the most part. They became vastly inferior to Warriors/Monks/Rogues, while at the same time knowledge of how the hybrid exp penalty negatively affected groups became more widespread.

[Extunarian]

Still NOWHERE near classic, as the diagnal strafe / run was more than .01

This doesn't make sense...are you saying that jumping/strafing effectively raised your run speed to over 1.01?

It sounds like Aoelwind and other spent a long time tweaking mob run speed one hundredth at a time. Your off-the-cuff estimates don't really hold water against the kind of empirical evidence he has purportedly gathered.

[Vexden]

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

This doesn't make sense...are you saying that jumping/strafing effectively raised your run speed to over 1.01?

It sounds like Aoelwind and other spent a long time tweaking mob run speed one hundredth at a time. Your off-the-cuff estimates don't really hold water against the kind of empirical evidence he has purportedly gathered.

Actually no.. it was a diagnal run. you would hold your forward and strafe key at the same time while using your mouse turned just a bit to make sure you would run in a straight line. I believe this caused the mob to not path exactly straight. So it would not really make you run faster, but make the mob go slower if I understand it right.

[Qaedain]

No, because fixing it wouldn't be classic.

(In b4 "but P99 isn't really classic")

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

No, because fixing it wouldn't be classic.

(In b4 "but P99 isn't really classic")

"Knowing about the hybrid XP penalty being shared across the group and it not being corrected" isn't classic.

[Vexden]

Face it, there are so many little things that will make this game NEVER be 100% classic, why not just admit that it is a game with a classic feel?

On top of that, why not make it so people enjoy playing the game. It is one thing to get penalties that you yourself have to live with because you made the choice yourself, why make it worse and have it shared with others?

Broken record? Beating a dead horse? I think it just doesn't make sense. Someone earlier posted "hey if anything Hybrids are getting buffed because the xp will be faster". NOT True if they aren't allowed in the good groups with people that know about the shared penalty. It is bad when HARD HEADED Sony figures out that this is discrimination, so they change it, because that is what it is. Sorry Troll SK's aren't allowed to ride in the front of the BUS, must sit in the back. (There is your classic for you)

[Landis]

For those that haven't seen it here's how the original EQ team felt about experience penalties. Yeah it came out during Velious, but if you read the whole article you'll see the solution wasn't trivial to implement.

Experience Penalties - Resolutions

Over the past week the EverQuest team has been considering experience penalties in all their forms. We had many meetings where the issue was hotly debated from both sides. We had to consider not only the effect on the individual player, but also the effect of any changes on the game as a whole. Eventually, we nearly unanimously decided the following:


1. Race-based penalties are appropriate. An ogre, for instance, does indeed make a better warrior than a halfling. It is not so little that the faction and size problems make up for it, and not so much that it is really unbalancing at upper levels, but enough that the penalty should apply. Secondly, the penalty is not so severe (compared with class-based penalties) that it would cause groups to break up on the journey from one to sixty due to level differences.

2. Class-based penalties are not appropriate. Classes are roughly equivalent in power throughout the level ranges, and the versatility does not make up for that penalty. In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other.

3. Penalties, in any form, should not be shared with the group. Players know that no one class is immensely more powerful/valuable than another, and as such it is not fair to ask them to share a burden. If classes with penalties were really more powerful or valuable than the other classes, then it might be right, but that isn't the case here. Furthermore, sharing of penalties causes people to reject potential group members on the basis of them "sucking" too much experience.

4. We're going to fix it.

5. Class-based experience bonuses (which warriors and rogues get) are also not appropriate, as they cannot be so if penalties are not. However, we've decided to leave this as-is, since the bonus is not so severe as to be unbalancing. Bottom line: we don't feel the bonus is enough to warrant a fix that could be interpreted as a 'nerf'.

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/edit...rs_letter.html

[zeval31]

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

No, because fixing it wouldn't be classic.

(In b4 "but P99 isn't really classic")

so the philosophy is not to correct known bugs and know issues "because that wouldn't be classic" ? even though those were eventually amended during Classic era by the developpers themselves ? Seems a bit tough to me.

Don't get me wrong, I am really thankful for the wonderful works the devs and the community have put so far and for what will be coming in the future.


This or I'm completely misguided (which is also possible)

[Vexden]

Thank you Landis, I was trying to find that post.

I think their team explains it best, and it makes sense. I have no idea why this team is being so hard headed against this.

I am not even a class that is effected by the change, but I do play this class to group. Come on guys, listen to reason.

[eqholmes]

Gotta be honest I feel like punching myself in the nuts for making a ranger twink now. Oh well got him to 41, maybe time to retire him. Time to go back to my overpowered nerco.

Holmes 50 Nerco DA
Gretzky 41 Ranger DA (Probaly retired)