Duration of Shared Grp XP Penalties

[Wizerud]

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

Get squishing them. Let me know how far you get. Clock's ticking.

You completely missed my point, but that's ok because clearly from the quoted producers letter it wasn't a bug. It was just a stupid design decision.

[Curmudgen]

For some in this thread I imagine this will be considered a useless post but I shall post nonetheless.

I have read over and over in this thread references to slowing of experience. In one form or another it's present. Am I missing hearing about a deadline of some sort?

Is it so prevalent now that the idea of playing has gone from chatting and messing around to watch the experience bar move as the sole purpose?

I dunno, but reading this thread seems to make the game seem stressful and almost joblike. I really think now the worst thing I can do is read the board chatter, and the best thing I can do is just log in and immerse in the game.

[Tappin]

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

I dunno, but reading this thread seems to make the game seem stressful and almost joblike. I really think now the worst thing I can do is read the board chatter, and the best thing I can do is just log in and immerse in the game.

QFT.

Play the game... Enjoy it. If you can't enjoy it than you can start your own new server where you can create your own environment. When you register on the forums here, you have to answer that bot-prevention question... it said something like, "What game is Project 1999 emulating?"

Project 1999 is EMULATING an experience we lived in 1999.

[Virtuosos]

that does NOT prove it is a bug....it doesnt prove ANYTHING other than they meant for EQ to have class/race/group xp penelties and bonuses, and then later, after a year and a half, decided to change it. just because a dev wants to change their mind over a game design, a design they have had for a year and a half, does not mean it is a bug...it means that their opinions of why it was implemented changed.



"A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways." --- group xp and class penelties did not produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or cause it to behave in unintended ways....infact they did just the opposite, the dev's designed them to behave the way they are now.


the end

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

that does NOT prove it is a bug....it doesnt prove ANYTHING other than they meant for EQ to have class/race/group xp penelties and bonuses, and then later, after a year and a half, decided to change it. just because a dev wants to change their mind over a game design, a design they have had for a year and a half, does not mean it is a bug...it means that their opinions of why it was implemented changed.

Sigh.

They meant for EQ to have class-based XP penalties based on their original design of the hybrid classes and their original perception that they would be "more powerful":

"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."

They then admitted that this concept of "being more powerful" never materialized:

"Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level."

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

"A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways." --- group xp and class penelties did not produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or cause it to behave in unintended ways....infact they did just the opposite, the dev's designed them to behave the way they are now.

Yes, they did. The unexpected result was that the XP penalty in no way compensated for the perceived "greater power" that the class would have:

"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."

"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."

The class-based XP penalties were put in as designed, because Verant thought the hybrid classes would have a greater benefit/more power to the group. This was the expected result. That they would have greater benefit/more power to the group. The unexpected result was that they did NOT have a greater benefit/more power to the group. The Verant dev letter states this. You and I and the rest of us know this playing this 11 years ago. Therefore, by your own definition of a bug that you posted here, these penalties are bugs.

You can twist it and manipulate the words all you want. The dev letter clearly states the class-based penalties that were designed into the game from the start with the original vision of what hybrid classes were meant to offer in terms of power created unexpected results because that "greater power" or "extra group benefit from the class" never materialized in reality. I really can't spell it out any better than what I just did... I'm sorry. I'm going to drop it before I enrage a dev... but I don't see how this cannot be called a bug.

Just because it existed in the game for so long (2 years) doesn't make it any less of a bug, you know.

[nilbog]

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

Nilbog,

If you played a hybrid, then you know how important the revision is and you remember wishing someone had pointed it out sooner for Verant/Sony to fix.

No. I remember thinking.. "wtf why do all the newbies get to benefit from not having the penalty for the past 2 years? Is there even a point to the warrior class?"

Wouldn't it be better for the long-term health for the server and overall gameplay if more people played the hybrid tanks (allowing for more grouping opportunities) instead of feeling compelled to go play some other class because they know in advance how the XP mechanics work and that it is not in favor of playing a hybrid, in terms of both general XP gain and getting a group?

Classic EQ was about you forming your own group.. not the game mechanics being aligned to balance classes. That's the beauty of it later on.. if no one wants to play a ranger, there's lots of good ranger loot that will be rotting on raids. When that starts to happen, people will play that class.

Yes, I know Verant/SOE made the decision based on customer-retention and we do not pay to play here. But my definition of a bug is "something that's not working as intended." i.e. broken. Verant clearly stated here that the original vision for hybrids would be that their "greater power" would warrant the hybrid XP penalty. As people gained levels, it was apparent that that "greater power" was never there. Same thing is happening here. What's your definition of a bug, then?

It's working as intended, because your developers say it is working as intended. If there is a portion of the developer's exp system that does not function as they say it should, that's a bug.

"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."

They then admitted that this concept of "being more powerful" never materialized:

"Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level."

They "admitted" to that fact too early, imo. I disagree with you, because hybrids are clearly very powerful at the end of Velious. Maybe they should have made this change at the beginning of Luclin.

You can twist it and manipulate the words all you want. The dev letter clearly states the class-based penalties that were designed into the game from the start with the original vision of what hybrid classes were meant to offer in terms of power created unexpected results because that "greater power" or "extra group benefit from the class" never materialized in reality. I really can't spell it out any better than what I just did... I'm sorry.

Once again, this letter was written before they could even see the outcome on a grand scale. They listened to all the bitching done in Kunark, and decided to make a carebear group change for complaints. Velious is when paladin and sk hybrids became powerful, and always chosen for group tanks over warriors, in my experience. Bards were always chosen, and needed. It's.. rangers that are left lacking.. and that's working as intended.

*My* opinion on the matter is that there shouldn't be a superfluous amount of hybrids. That seems to be the original intent of the game. If you want to be level 60 and be as good of a tank as a warrior, and have 30% of a spellcaster's arsenal, then there are trials and tribulations you need to overcome. That's my RP opinion though.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

It's.. rangers that are left lacking.. and that's working as intended.

Pffft. :P

Well, we eventually get ours... just not within the scope of this server. =/

[Kassel]

The dev letter clearly states the class-based penalties that were designed into the game from the start with the original vision of what hybrid classes were meant to offer in terms of power created unexpected results because that "greater power" or "extra group benefit from the class" never materialized in reality. I really can't spell it out any better than what I just did... I'm sorry. I'm going to drop it before I enrage a dev... but I don't see how this cannot be called a bug.

See bolded parts for correct logic

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

See bolded parts for correct logic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1286736154

2: an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection <the software was full of bugs>

Yes, I can do that too. Why is everyone so hell-bent on twisting the verbage of the dev letter that plainly states that the class-based penalties were a flaw due to the class-based "extra benefit to the group" or "greater power" never happening, yet the penalties that were supposed to match those were left in the game?

[Virtuosos]

personally, as a paladin, i feel like i am a very useful part outside my tanking role....and i know that all the other paladins and sk's and rangers feel the same. we are extremely versatile with our role, instead of being stuck like the others.

think that means we have a greater benefit TBH

and i played a paladin back on live as well...i lived with it back then, and i chose to do it yet again on p99 soley because i was so useful in groups and raids. granted, once kunark and veilous hit, hybrids were definately not as spectacular as they once were, but thats because of so much new content and balancing.

but in live, a hybrid tank is so much more useful than a warrior tank due to their ability to snatch aggro, keep it, let the warrior build theirs, and then switch to an alt healer or off tank while the warrior lets their weapon contiune proc'ing....thats pretty damn impressive for a class that doesnt have any greater benefit than another class.