Duration of Shared Grp XP Penalties

[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

[Tappin]

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

Exactly.

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.

But we are talking about EXP here. And they designed the EXP to work the way that it worked. It was designed that way. Even if it was WRONG, it was not a bug.

[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.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

And they designed the EXP to work the way that it worked.

Yes, they designed it under certain assumptions that were later found to be incorrect, the assumption being that there was additional power/group benefit that one class offered over another.

They fixed it when they determined those assumptions were incorrect.

So if this should be fixed at the time it was determined that the assumptions were incorrect, then due to hindsight being 20/20, we knew those assumptions were incorrect at the very start of this server, 9 years after those assumptions were determined to be incorrect.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

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.....

So based on that line of reasoning, clerics should have a huge XP penalty based on their utility in a group/raid...

[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. =/

[Virtuosos]

clerics only heal on raids....buffs....maybe if they are idiots they will waste mana and nuke.


paladins offheal, tank, buff, off tank, MA, blind to get aggro off casters, root to keep CC, stun to stop spells...thats not really versatile on a raid is it?

you dont see clerics tanking a mob (unless your name is holey -.-) or rooting mobs or doing anything but healing...thats their role.

you dont see wizards doing anything but nuking
" " chanters doing anything but crowd control -- their pet does everything, not them
druids kite and buff
warriors just tank
magicians sit afk while their pet attacks (or mod rod)
rogue dps


ect ect

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

clerics only heal on raids....buffs....maybe if they are idiots they will waste mana and nuke.

I understand that, but my point was, if class-based XP penalties were based on utility to a group/raid, I think we can all agree that a lot of shit wouldn't be going down without clerics (90% rez, complete heal? yes please!), therefore they probably have the greatest "usefulness" of all... so wouldn't that then warrant the greatest class-based XP penalty if we're thinking in terms of "what a particular class has to offer a group/raid"?

I know what point you're trying to make, and you know what counterpoint I'm trying to make. I'm frustrated hybrids have to have this fight on two different timelines... but it's not like I didn't know what I was getting into playing a ranger on Live from Classic to GoD and then rolling one here again knowing full well what the deal would be. :P