Duration of Shared Grp XP Penalties

[eqholmes]

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

I had a blast grouping with you the other day, at this point I almost dread having a warrior in the group : D
Ive yet to see anyone be picky about hybrids in their groups, Im starting to think people are making this up : p Personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with someone that stingy about some exp

+1 for what Oogmog is saying

Thanks man, I love grouping with good shamans. We duo'd the crap out of window! haha

Holmes 50 Nerco DA
Gretzky 44 Ranger DA

[feanan]

i'm just curious, since i never played with a warrior at lower levels on classic. is something messed up here with warriors, or did they just always suck at low levels?

[Oogmog]

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

i'm just curious, since i never played with a warrior at lower levels on classic. is something messed up here with warriors, or did they just always suck at low levels?

They eventually made it so warriors could taunt +5 levels above them.. but for some reason I'm thinking that may have been a 60+ deal, I'm not sure.. I was max level when they added it so not sure of the specifics other than I knew I could. Read the other post I just made on advice for warriors holding aggro though.

[OngorDrakan]

Why not just remove hybrid shared exp. penalties? If people stop grouping with hybrids, that alienates people in our community and then you have people who leave and the community could shrink. Is it worth the community shrinking to keep something like that in? Really?

Look at the big picture here. A person who loves playing a Ranger/SK/Paladin/Bard/Whatever sees that people won't group with them because of their class. How would it make you feel if nobody wanted a Cleric? Or a Druid? Or a Warrior? I'd be pretty pissed since soloing isn't a huge option for some of them. Is it worth it for the classic re-make to have that in there? I don't think so. It hurts more than it "relives classic EQ".

[stormiejs]

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

Why not just remove hybrid shared exp. penalties? If people stop grouping with hybrids, that alienates people in our community and then you have people who leave and the community could shrink. Is it worth the community shrinking to keep something like that in? Really?

It truly depends on what kind of nostalgic experience or philosophy you believe in. There are going to be people who want the true classic experience and then there are people who believe that some of the changes made to the game were for the better. After all, they didn't patch the game to make it worse! (Not intentionally. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]).

I believe I am inbetween those philosophies: I want to see changes, some that may not be identical to the classic experience. Let's be honest, it's an emulator server and there are going to be bugs and changes that will prevent this from being a true classic experience. At the same time, EverQuest is a challenging game and it is not intended to be easy, you have to earn the benefits from the bigger challenges.

The reality is that the penalties are harsh and they're harsh for a reason. I do believe that this server has a playerbase (both hardcore gamers and not) that are willing to level through the penalties. If you want to have a troll shaman or sk, you're going to have to put in a little extra effort if you want that uber regen.

But I do agree it is a problem when it starts affecting how you play with your friends and interact with the community. If you and your friends only leveled together, not only do they get a penalty, but you're going to fall behind in levels significantly by the time they start hitting the 30-40 range.

And that's not fun for anyone.

[guineapig]

I say good riddance to all the shelved hybrids.
Makes it that much easier for my hybrid alts to find groups!

Thanks guys! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lucrio40]

Alright, just going to make sure I understand this. In the name of being "classic" things are going to be changed to purposely not be classic, and only certain things, that are able to be implemented (i.e. things that can't be implemented like old skeletons, are obviously excluded from that statement) are going to be picked and chosen to be put in.

I'm not not in favor of making things like WoW, hell xp could come at twice the rate it does now and it'd still not be anything like WoW. However, if you're on the kick of picking and choosing what goes into this server from classic then why only pick the stuff that seems to negatively effect players.

[nilbog]

Originally Posted by Lucrio40 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not not in favor of making things like WoW, hell xp could come at twice the rate it does now and it'd still not be anything like WoW. However, if you're on the kick of picking and choosing what goes into this server from classic then why only pick the stuff that seems to negatively effect players.

It will continue to seem this way. You see, most of what made classic Everquest different from non-classic Everquest wasn't just the content, it was the gameplay.

If you take the eq live patch notes for example, they continuously unnerfed or made things easier throughout the years.

With that in mind, think about a client and source that promote easy. That's what we had to start working with. 2006ish backwards.

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

I cannot think of many things that "positively" effect players that you might expect to see in the future.

If there is something in particular you know of, bug report it.

[Phallax]

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

It will continue to seem this way. You see, most of what made classic Everquest different from non-classic Everquest wasn't just the content, it was the gameplay.

If you take the eq live patch notes for example, they continuously unnerfed or made things easier throughout the years.

With that in mind, think about a client and source that promote easy. That's what we had to start working with. 2006ish backwards.

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

I cannot think of many things that "positively" effect players that you might expect to see in the future.

If there is something in particular you know of, bug report it.

-not requiring an open spell book pre-35 to meditate(positively effect players)

thats the only one I can think of =P

[Dersk]

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

-remove soulbinders (negatively effect players)
-remove keyring (negatively effect players)
-make invisibility random duration (negatively effect players)
-pets disappear when you invis or zone (negatively effect players)
-magical npcs are immune to non-magical weapons (negatively effect players)

on... and on..

Those are unfair examples considering the request made here is something that existed during velious and is expected to be implemented eventually anyway. If players asked for racial experience penalties to be removed, which didn't happen until years later, then this would be a more appropriate dismissal.

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

-not requiring an open spell book pre-35 to meditate(positively effect players)

thats the only one I can think of =P

That is really a moot point considering UI options. A minimized spellbook doesn't quite have the same effect as forcing a character into the original UI with a spellbook that completely blocked out the player's view. They really don't have an alternative with that one.