Do pets currently take 50% of your exp?

[Videri]

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

mages are so rough, thats why they are 190 of them on right now

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

[strawman]

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

The very same source he used stated that it was 25% at some point earlier and he still went with the 50% for his evidence.

I think you misunderstood the source.

Originally Posted by Rich Waters

If you do less than half, your pet takes as little as 25% of the experience when it used to always take half.

This is plainly saying that a 25% XP penalty is a result of the 2002 change being discussed in the post, and that prior to the change, pets "always" took half XP. Not only does this say that the 50% penalty came before the 25% penalty - the use of "always" may imply that the 50% penalty existed for the entire history of Everquest prior to this post.

[Obrae]

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

I think you misunderstood the source.



This is plainly saying that a 25% XP penalty is a result of the 2002 change being discussed in the post, and that prior to the change, pets "always" took half XP. Not only does this say that the 50% penalty came before the 25% penalty - the use of "always" may imply that the 50% penalty existed for the entire history of Everquest prior to this post.

wrong source we are talking of 1999 not sure what you guys are looking at

[strawman]

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

wrong source we are talking of 1999 not sure what you guys are looking at

I linked the source earlier in the thread: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=960

Do you have a different, earlier source?

[Obrae]

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

I linked the source earlier in the thread: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=960

Do you have a different, earlier source?

yes its in one of dolalin post.
like i said not wasting time reading through it again, it was there, was always there and they decide to go with 50% anyway.

Cant control it

[strawman]

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

yes its in one of dolalin post.
like i said not wasting time reading through it again, it was there, was always there and they decide to go with 50% anyway.

Cant control it

So let me make sure I'm clear.

You were the first reply to this thread and asserted that the 50% XP penalty wasn't classic and there's proof.

After asking several times for you to provide the proof, you told me to look in some guy's post history for it.

I looked in that guy's post history, found the proof, and plainly demonstrated that you're wrong and the 50% XP penalty is classic.

Now you insist there's different proof, but you won't provide it, so we should just take your word for it, that pets didn't take 50% XP in classic, even though the only source posted so far in this thread explicitly says that they do?

You're the one being dishonest.

[Dolalin]

I've been trying to take this whole pet xp thing apart because I think it's been in since the beginning. I've dug up a few old threads on it that make for interesting reading, namely that people were asking these same questions in 2000.

I don't know for sure that pets taking 50% xp was in at launch but it was definitely a thing in 2000, so it's at least that old.

It also seems to have been that it wasn't something that was patched in, rather the ShowEQ guys started parsing xp and discovered the pet thing, and Verant was forced to respond. I'm still looking for these bits.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=338377

[Dolalin]

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

Pretty much sums it up

All that's missing is some shoddy misinterpreted Allah link from 2002

Tell me how I am misinterpreting that Rich Waters post. What have I gotten wrong?

[Quinas]

The standard of proof many would accept for things that make their game easier seems to be different from things that make their game harder. I don't think it has much to do with purity of classic either way.

[DMN]

I don't know how many times I'd join a PUG and they'd tell me not to summon a pet because it would "steal their exp". Where do you suppose this incorrect assumption originated?