Project 1999 needs to evolve with the players, just a bit

[stormlord]

With context to how the game evolved into Velious, I agree that the experience penalties are detrimental, however, you're missing the bigger picture. The fact that these're hybrid classes is the biggest reason nobody plays them. They don't shine at dps or tanking or healing or any single thing. A group in a cut and dry zone in camping circumstances loses effectiveness with hybrids. Hybrids try to be ok or good at a lot of things and never excellent. This turns off people and makes em avoid them. Hybrids aren't specialists. Just keep in mind that EQ greatly favored groups over no groups or small groups by giving them an experience boost.

Picture the following situation:
Group A needs a DPS-class. They /who and find: ranger-37, rogue-36, monk-36. They decide to pick the rogue for maximum dps since they don't need the monk in their case. The ranger hardly even crosses their mind. The camp they're doing is cut and dry; the crowd control is simple and there's no tracking that's needed. They're like soldiers in a bunker and got it down to a science; they just need a slide rule in their shirt pocket to complete the picture.

That's pretty much how it happens for hybrids. I started with a ranger in 1999 and played another one off/on up until 2010 and got lvl 85 with 1300+ aa. So I do know what I'm talking about.

The game really needed to change the environment to make hybrids more useful. As it was, there wasn't enough chaos going on to justify bringing in a hybrid for added security. It's not so much that a ranger can root or snare or cast a patch heal or track or kill from a distance (dots + archery criticals + dd spells) or cast invis or sneak or hide or lightly tank or somewhat dps or cast small buffs or whatever else they have in their tool kit, it's instead that the environment EQ increasingly fostered was unbalanced in terms of its disregard for hybrids. Groups weren't rewarded experience for surviving adversity, they were rewarded for avoiding it altogether. Camping cut down on a lot of the chaos. Zones increasingly simplified so that the need for flexibility diminished. A long list of things happened over the years to make a game that just could not justify hybrids.

I always thought that hybrids did well in small groups of 2 to 4 people or so, but this was only because it used their tools more. In larger groups, their extra tools become redundant and even undesired and their primary dps role can't compete with dps classes. But if making hybrids useful means you have to intentionally gimp your group by not inviting more people, it won't happen. The game never tried to balance this. Instead, rangers ended up gimp for most of the time they were leveling up since groups tended to be 4+ players. This was made worse by other things like camping - where all of the adversity that makes rangers shine is eliminated.

Another thing is that the difference between a ranger and a warrior is very simple, outside of the group environment. I did an experiment and leveled a ranger and a warrior to 17. I then tried to kill the same brigand with each one. Basically, in this experiment, the ranger's ability to snare and root and heal and dot and use close combat and use archery (rangers get criticals) absolutely makes them win with their hands tied behind their back. The warrior basically was dead long before the brigand was dead. Yet the ranger was about 50% health and 50% mana when the brigand died. This really shows hte solo power of a ranger in adverse conditions. This isn't necessarily true in a practical experience situation since players try to reduce adversity.

[fadetree]

Groups weren't rewarded experience for surviving adversity, they were rewarded for avoiding it altogether.

QFT

'The Issue' in a nutshell.

[PizzaHutDelivers]

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

With context to how the game evolved into Velious, I agree that the experience penalties are detrimental, however, you're missing the bigger picture. The fact that these're hybrid classes is the biggest reason nobody plays them. They don't shine at dps or tanking or healing or any single thing. A group in a cut and dry zone in camping circumstances loses effectiveness with hybrids. Hybrids try to be ok or good at a lot of things and never excellent. This turns off people and makes em avoid them. Hybrids aren't specialists. Just keep in mind that EQ greatly favored groups over no groups or small groups by giving them an experience boost.

Picture the following situation:
Group A needs a DPS-class. They /who and find: ranger-37, rogue-36, monk-36. They decide to pick the rogue for maximum dps since they don't need the monk in their case. The ranger hardly even crosses their mind. The camp they're doing is cut and dry; the crowd control is simple and there's no tracking that's needed. They're like soldiers in a bunker and got it down to a science; they just need a slide rule in their shirt pocket to complete the picture.

That's pretty much how it happens for hybrids. I started with a ranger in 1999 and played another one off/on up until 2010 and got lvl 85 with 1300+ aa. So I do know what I'm talking about.

The game really needed to change the environment to make hybrids more useful. As it was, there wasn't enough chaos going on to justify bringing in a hybrid for added security. It's not so much that a ranger can root or snare or cast a patch heal or track or kill from a distance (dots + archery criticals + dd spells) or cast invis or sneak or hide or lightly tank or somewhat dps or cast small buffs or whatever else they have in their tool kit, it's instead that the environment EQ increasingly fostered was unbalanced in terms of its disregard for hybrids. Groups weren't rewarded experience for surviving adversity, they were rewarded for avoiding it altogether. Camping cut down on a lot of the chaos. Zones increasingly simplified so that the need for flexibility diminished. A long list of things happened over the years to make a game that just could not justify hybrids.

I always thought that hybrids did well in small groups of 2 to 4 people or so, but this was only because it used their tools more. In larger groups, their extra tools become redundant and even undesired and their primary dps role can't compete with dps classes. But if making hybrids useful means you have to intentionally gimp your group by not inviting more people, it won't happen. The game never tried to balance this. Instead, rangers ended up gimp for most of the time they were leveling up since groups tended to be 4+ players. This was made worse by other things like camping - where all of the adversity that makes rangers shine is eliminated.

Another thing is that the difference between a ranger and a warrior is very simple, outside of the group environment. I did an experiment and leveled a ranger and a warrior to 17. I then tried to kill the same brigand with each one. Basically, in this experiment, the ranger's ability to snare and root and heal and dot and use close combat and use archery (rangers get criticals) absolutely makes them win with their hands tied behind their back. The warrior basically was dead long before the brigand was dead. Yet the ranger was about 50% health and 50% mana when the brigand died. This really shows hte solo power of a ranger in adverse conditions. This isn't necessarily true in a practical experience situation since players try to reduce adversity.

Excellent post man. Honestly makes me want to roll a ranger.

[Roth]

Honestly I don't think the exp penalty really matters at all as far as when people decide what they want to play. Maybe I'm just being naive, but to me when I pick a character I consider two things: 1) am I going to enjoy playing this character, and 2) will I be viable at end game. The biggest problem I think with the weak classes is not the exp penalty, it's just that they're generally unappealing. I think for example, any class without bind affinity is not something I'd be interested in playing without a cleric constantly with me. It really limits what you can do in the game. There are a lot of other issues as well, but I think people generally just want to be powerful and useful. There has to be a solid reward for playing a paladin or whatever that makes someone want to make one over something else.

edit: ill further say I think the game would be overall better and more fun if ANY class could bind affinity at level 1, with no restrictions other than the obvious ones like no dungeons, but for obvious reasons that can't happen. It's really hard to say what from classic made the experience more fun/better and what made it worse.

[kylok]

I agree with the exp penalty thing, case and point Iksar monk - 44% exp penalty and they're a dime a dozen. I've always played melee toons in EQ and not being able to bind hasn't stopped me from doing much, but I guess you and I have different play styles - to each his own!=D

[Roth]

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

I agree with the exp penalty thing, case and point Iksar monk - 44% exp penalty and they're a dime a dozen. I've always played melee toons in EQ and not being able to bind hasn't stopped me from doing much, but I guess you and I have different play styles - to each his own!=D

That's true... I enjoy the exploring/soloing aspect of the game. I often play necros or mages.

[FansyTheBard]

Just play the game without the pressure to gain exp and play the class u WANT to play. easy as it is

[MaksimMazor]

I don't really have trouble finding groups as a rogue.

_______________
Gabobrik the Ronin

[Slave]

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

I don't really have trouble finding groups as a rogue.

_______________
Gabobrik the Ronin

That is because Rogues do by far the most damage in the game, and they do it for the least amount of experience. Win - Win - Win for groups. Nobody is disputing the awesomeness of Rogues.

[Twin]

You guys are playing an emulated version of a game that's practically 15 years old. I'm pretty sure if you go in with the mentality that you need to min/max everything that you couldn't before, you're going to shoot yourself in the foot (enjoyment wise).