Hybrid XP penalties

[Beaniron]

Originally Posted by t0lkien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But Bards aren't meant to be melee heavy, that's the point of them. They are the RPG class equivalent of McGuyver.

They're hybrids. Rangers are also hybrids, yet they get dual wield, double attack, and kick. Bards also had quad attack in EQ:OA for the PS2. Pallies and SK's are hybrids yet they get Double Attack and Bash. So why does the Bard get the shaft in melee being a Hybrid?

[t0lkien]

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

They're hybrids. Rangers are also hybrids, yet they get dual wield, double attack, and kick. Bards also had quad attack in EQ:OA for the PS2. Pallies and SK's are hybrids yet they get Double Attack and Bash. So why does the Bard get the shaft in melee being a Hybrid?

Balance? They can cast while moving, while simultaneously being the fastest moving class in the game. Those two things combined make them super powerful at times. I think Bards do alright, both leveling and in the endgame, if they are played with knowledge and some skill. That's good design to me.

To be honest, I think the EQ Bard is the best implementation of the class in any game ever made. It's the right balance of vulnerable, powerful, and requiring real effort to play well.

[Rooj]

Kinda wish Ranger had gotten plate and Bard had gotten chain. Oh well.

[t0lkien]

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

Kinda wish Ranger had gotten plate and Bard had gotten chain. Oh well.

Rangers were restricted to chain because of the legacy of the class in D&D and the class's reference - Lord of the Rings. I think it's critically important to maintain that sort of dynamic, as it maintains the role, and the fantasy of it. Modern RPG systems have crapped all over such distinctions and feel homogenized and featureless as a result IMO. Genuine class distinction is a tent pole of good RPGing.

I know there have been lots of skill-only systems, and others where you could basically design your own classes, but they were that much less compelling as a result - to me and my friends anyway. It might have looked good on paper and in concept, but it played out badly. When everyone can do everything you end up without any clear gameplay, and no reason to keep playing, and no reason to cooperate. EQ was designed to force you to group, and that is awesome in so many ways.

It's ironic how all these highly complex, big number systems end up creating build templates that everyone gravitates towards anyway. That to me is the proof positive that it's a mistake.

TL;DR Rangers got chain, but got the most elegant and elegantly useful implementation of the track ability in any game I've seen, and the ability to pwn from a distance, meaning that if they decide to go toe to toe they have to weigh the risk. Great class design (again, IMO).

[Rooj]

Ranger doesn't pwn from a distance until Luclin, unfortunately.

[Faerie]

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

They're hybrids. Rangers are also hybrids, yet they get dual wield, double attack, and kick. Bards also had quad attack in EQ:OA for the PS2. Pallies and SK's are hybrids yet they get Double Attack and Bash. So why does the Bard get the shaft in melee being a Hybrid?

Huge self-haste, and slow/mez, for a few reasons. But yeah, if they gave bards double attack on top of everything they already have, no one would have ever been anything but bard.

Defensive melee/caster hybrid:
SK
Paladin

Offensive melee/caster hybrid:
Ranger

Utility caster/melee hybrid:
Bard
Shaman

[lecompte]

Couple of Notes:
1) 70% of the fun in EQ happens GETTING to level 60 so if you have a group that is a lot of fun, who cares about the penalty?
2) I wear plate.
3) Racial penalties are not shared.
4) Rangers can old agro, and if you have enough slow/dps, it don't matter if you tank worse than a chanter w/o rune 5. (group last night with two backstabbing chanter pets can attest to this)


As a ranger, who has brought the 40% penalty to every group I've been in, I've enjoyed leveling. That exhaltation you get from completing a level? Imagine a level that is 40% harder and thus, 40% more exciting when you finally do it and that is just by the numbers -- disregarding the fact that it is 40% more challenging to get a group.

[Vondra]

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

Couple of Notes:
1) 70% of the fun in EQ happens GETTING to level 60 so if you have a group that is a lot of fun, who cares about the penalty?
2) I wear plate.
3) Racial penalties are not shared.
4) Rangers can old agro, and if you have enough slow/dps, it don't matter if you tank worse than a chanter w/o rune 5. (group last night with two backstabbing chanter pets can attest to this)


As a ranger, who has brought the 40% penalty to every group I've been in, I've enjoyed leveling. That exhaltation you get from completing a level? Imagine a level that is 40% harder and thus, 40% more exciting when you finally do it and that is just by the numbers -- disregarding the fact that it is 40% more challenging to get a group.

All the exp penalties are shared, both class and racial, because the penalty is inherent to the total onhand exp the player has.

The penalty itself is just how much exp it takes you to level. The "penalty" isn't what's actually figured in the group, it's the total exp the person has. A freshly dinged lev 50 ranger has 140% of the exp of a freshly dinged lev 50 human cleric. That's what the calculation is looking at when determining how much exp each person gets. Not what level they are, not what race/class they are, but how much total exp they have.

If one person has 140000 exp and the other person has 100000 exp, then they group together, the person with 140000 exp is going to get about 58% of the exp the mob has to give (140000 + 100000 = 240000, 140000/240000 = ~.583). Then the remaining ~42% to the other guy. Whether that happened because the 140000 xp guy is a few levels higher, or is a bard, ranger etc, or any combination of things resulting in one person having more total exp on hand...the game doesn't look at.

If it was a troll SK, then we'd be looking at the same deal. The troll part would still be "shared", since it contributed to them having a longer exp bar. In the troll SK case, the freshly dinged lev 50 troll sk has 168% of the exp onhand that the freshly dinged 50 human cleric does. Calculation changes accordingly, concept remains the same.

[lecompte]

Mmm... I have a guild that disagrees on the racial penalties front. Would someone with some credentials care to respond? And my understanding of it is that I have the same amount of exp it just gets slashed before it is applied to my bar... that is why a 60 war and a 60 rang lose the same % when they die.

[Beaniron]

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

Huge self-haste, and slow/mez, for a few reasons. But yeah, if they gave bards double attack on top of everything they already have, no one would have ever been anything but bard.

Defensive melee/caster hybrid:
SK
Paladin

Offensive melee/caster hybrid:
Ranger

Utility caster/melee hybrid:
Bard
Shaman

I suppose, but is it too much to ask for an attack skill like Kick?

I know it's a bad comparison, but look at what Bards were capable of in Everquest: Online adventures. They could dual wield AND they had Quad Attack (4 swings at level 35). Rangers, Warriors, Rogues, and Monks also had this (AFAIK there were no Beastlords in OA), but Paladins and SK's had Double Attack only (which is why most used 2h swords). But Bards were not only great utility in OA, but they were capable of some INCREDIBLE melee DPS thanks to quad, all their songs, and their epic rapiers.