|
|
#241
10-10-2010, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#242
10-10-2010, 12:41 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Just saying... Tick Tock Tick Tock
__________________
I have to many alts...
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#244
10-10-2010, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
This bug:
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/edit...rs_letter.html _________ "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. 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. We could not let any one race or class be immensely more powerful than another at that final point, as it would essentially put parts of the game off limits to those who chose the less powerful classes. While we did a good job of making races vary in power, but not so much as to be unbalancing, the same could not be said for classes. Still, though classes would be roughly equivalent in regard to the compelling reason to play them through versatility, the experience penalties were kept. In regards to the sharing of the experience penalty, it was apparent in beta, before the penalty was shared, that those playing characters without an experience penalty leveled faster than those that did. It was obvious that this would occur, but it was to the extreme that a group of friends, all playing together, would become separated to the point that they could no longer group efficiently in the mid to upper-mid levels. So we chose to distribute experience in the group on the basis of the total experience of each member rather than the level, in order to keep groups together. As such, a level 20 Troll SK, having more experience total than a Human Wizard of the same level, would get more experience from each kill, while the total experience for the kill was unchanged. Essentially, the SK would take part of the Wizard's share were everything distributed equally to begin with. 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 individualplayer, 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'." ________________ I bolded the parts that indicate Verant/Sony recognized the class-based XP penalties and the group-sharing of the XP penalties were WRONG and a design flaw made during the original design of the game. Therefore... a bug. They fixed it. We have the opportunity to fix it in advance, just as other bugs found well after their time were fixed here in advance.
__________________
Another witty, informative, and/or retarded post by:
 "You know you done fucked up when Yendor gives you raid commentary." - Tiggles | ||
|
|
|||
|
#245
10-10-2010, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
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 | ||
|
Last edited by Virtuosos; 10-10-2010 at 02:10 PM..
|
|
||
|
#246
10-10-2010, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
That's not a bug, that's just an excuse to post that link again.
I've read it many times. I read it in 2001 when it was written. You'd be amazed what people cave to, given enough pressure. You think the developers changed that because they considered it a bug? I really don't think so. Most likely the customer service department spoke with management which led to them changing it because people complained that the game was too hard. Since day 1. I played a paladin at the time. I had a level 50 paladin when Kunark came out. I have a level 60+ paladin rotting for eternity on whatever my live server is now. We'll remove the penalties in VELIOUS. Argue for gameplay to change on a timeline, and I will most likely agree with you. | ||
|
Last edited by nilbog; 10-10-2010 at 02:04 PM..
|
|
||
|
#247
10-10-2010, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
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. It's not about just making it easier for hybrids to XP. I think this is the key thing about the letter: "Classes no longer have a true class-based experience penalty, making it easier for people to play the class that they want to play, rather than the class that they feel compelled to play due to faster advancement." 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? How many assling druids do we need? How many casters do we need? All the min-maxers here know where the "greater class-based power" is. Certainly not with the hybrid classes. 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?
__________________
Another witty, informative, and/or retarded post by:
"You know you done fucked up when Yendor gives you raid commentary." - Tiggles | ||
|
|
|||
|
#248
10-10-2010, 02:22 PM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
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." Quote:
"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.
__________________
Another witty, informative, and/or retarded post by:
"You know you done fucked up when Yendor gives you raid commentary." - Tiggles | ||||
|
Last edited by YendorLootmonkey; 10-10-2010 at 02:27 PM..
|
|
||||
|
#249
10-10-2010, 02:32 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
A mistake does not make something a bug. A bug is when something was acting in a way that was not intended. If you play another MMO.. WoW for example, and your class gets nerfed and the devs tell you that they decided that class was doing to much damage with a certain skill... that does mean that skill was bugged. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#250
10-10-2010, 02:37 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
The way it was intended was that there would be "greater power" or "extra benefit to a group" for a particular class to create the need for an class-based XP penalty. The dev letter states this in no uncertain terms: "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." However, there was no "greater power" or "extra benefit to a group" for particular classes, therefore it was not working as intended. This is also clearly stated in the dev letter: "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." Thank you for helping me make the case that a bug = something not working as intended.
__________________
Another witty, informative, and/or retarded post by:
"You know you done fucked up when Yendor gives you raid commentary." - Tiggles | |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
