Its time to go Red. Pop on the rise. Noobs protected. GM Events. Put your story here!

[stormlord]

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

Red has a consistent 50% bonus to xp, and then in parties its +50% per member that joins the team (but you're splitting the xp with them when they join).

As I understand it (and maybe I'm wrong) it goes like this:

Players : XP Value : Gained XP
1 : 600 : 600 * 1.5 = 900
2 : 300 : 300 * 2 = 600
3 : 200 : 200 * 2.5 = 500
4 : 150 : 150 * 3 = 450
5 : 120 : 120 * 3.5 = 420
6 : 100 : 100 * 4 = 400

Assuming a 6 person group or a solo person kill at the same rate, a solo person would come out ahead by almost 2x the gain. However, if 6 people can kill at least 3 times as fast, there's no question which is most efficient.

On blue the xp would require (even with a paltry 10% bonus at the end) that the group kill about 6 times as fast as a soloer (tough when comparing vs a quader or a nec).

Given what you show below...

Players : XP Value : Gained XP
1 : 600 : 600 * 1.5 = 900
2 : 300 : 300 * 2 = 600
3 : 200 : 200 * 2.5 = 500
4 : 150 : 150 * 3 = 450
5 : 120 : 120 * 3.5 = 420
6 : 100 : 100 * 4 = 400

....the 6th member provides 6x the killing power, resulting 400 * 6x = 2400. That's a 266% bonus over soloing, meaning the system is cutting experience when you invite new members. If it weren't cutting experience then it'd be 900 * 6x = 5400.

But what I was stating in my post still stands. The required contribution from each additional member is lessened versus the older system. With a 2nd member, for example, experience is cut from 900 to 600, meaning the additional member has to contribute at least 50% of your killing power to make themselves worthwhile. This means if your killing power is 10 then they must provide at least 5. This is 600 x 1.5 = 900. This will make you break even versus if you were just soloing. If they contribute the same killing power as yourself then you'll make 33% more experience.

Note that a full group has a 266% bonus over soloing, meaning soloing becomes a much less attractive form of progression, since I doubt soloers kill things 266% faster by themselves. This reduces the value of rolling a solo-capable class like a necromancer or ranger.

Again, note that the cut in experience is exactly what caused players to heavily discriminate when they invited new members. Is the new member gimp? Are they low level (assuming the group exp gain formulas do not account for the level makeup of the group)? Does the new member afk a lot? Are they reliable? Because if that new member even so much as sneezed more than once, you'd lose experience by adding them.

But if what you say is true it's not as dire as I was suggesting. The probems are still there though. The situation on the progression server on live had another concern too but I'm not recalling at the moment. It was a thread on the live forums started by a necromancer I believe. He/she didn't like the huge group exp gain versus soloing.

EDIT: One potential way to resolve some of this is to allow group members to get experience from each other even if they're not in the same zone or not playing with each other. This means you can group and get the experience bonus while still soloing. I imagine a group of necromancers might do it, to not use their dots ineffectively, since so much of their dots are wasted in gropus when the monster dies long before the dot wears off. This only works if the cut isn't too big because afking is a very common thing when soloing. The advantage to soloing is yo ucan afk whenever you want and play at your own pace.

[tristantio]

Velious was announced (and then subsequently cancelled).

I know a lot of red traffic was blue players who were capped out (or tired of blue overpopulation) that I saw migrate back to blue when news of Velious dropped.

I'd guess they'll trickle back over waiting for 8/2.

[tristantio]

Well, they want to encourage grouping/server population, so it has to be very appealing vs soloing given the risk of groups being ganked by twinks (or by own group members).

I know red in the past had larger bonuses (applied to all xp) than what they have now, but the group bonus seems the best to me (although I've never grouped on red yet - so far 52.5 all solo, but I tend to afk a lot).

[pink grapefruit]

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

Given what you show below...

Players : XP Value : Gained XP
1 : 600 : 600 * 1.5 = 900
2 : 300 : 300 * 2 = 600
3 : 200 : 200 * 2.5 = 500
4 : 150 : 150 * 3 = 450
5 : 120 : 120 * 3.5 = 420
6 : 100 : 100 * 4 = 400

....the 6th member provides 6x the killing power, resulting 400 * 6x = 2400. That's a 266% bonus over soloing, meaning the system is cutting experience when you invite new members. If it weren't cutting experience then it'd be 900 * 6x = 5400.

But what I was stating in my post still stands. The required contribution from each additional member is lessened versus the older system. With a 2nd member, for example, experience is cut from 900 to 600, meaning the additional member has to contribute at least 50% of your killing power to make themselves worthwhile. This means if your killing power is 10 then they must provide at least 5. This is 600 x 1.5 = 900. This will make you break even versus if you were just soloing. If they contribute the same killing power as yourself then you'll make 33% more experience.

Note that a full group has a 266% bonus over soloing, meaning soloing becomes a much less attractive form of progression, since I doubt soloers kill things 266% faster by themselves. This reduces the value of rolling a solo-capable class like a necromancer or ranger.

Again, note that the cut in experience is exactly what caused players to heavily discriminate when they invited new members. Is the new member gimp? Are they low level (assuming the group exp gain formulas do not account for the level makeup of the group)? Does the new member afk a lot? Are they reliable? Because if that new member even so much as sneezed more than once, you'd lose experience by adding them.

But if what you say is true it's not as dire as I was suggesting. The probems are still there though. The situation on the progression server on live had another concern too but I'm not recalling at the moment. It was a thread on the live forums started by a necromancer I believe. He/she didn't like the huge group exp gain versus soloing.

EDIT: One potential way to resolve some of this is to allow group members to get experience from each other even if they're not in the same zone or not playing with each other. This means you can group and get the experience bonus while still soloing. I imagine a group of necromancers might do it, to not use their dots ineffectively, since so much of their dots are wasted in gropus when the monster dies long before the dot wears off. This only works if the cut isn't too big because afking is a very common thing when soloing. The advantage to soloing is yo ucan afk whenever you want and play at your own pace.

What exactly are you saying with these posts? That something important is lost when groups don't divide xp? I feel that min/maxing is a silly way to approach the game and am quite glad for the fun social interaction that takes place with the bonus in place. There is absolutely no reason that soloing should be as efficient as grouping on red.

[Swish]

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

What exactly are you saying with these posts? That something important is lost when groups don't divide xp? I feel that min/maxing is a silly way to approach the game and am quite glad for the fun social interaction that takes place with the bonus in place. There is absolutely no reason that soloing should be as efficient as grouping on red.

Soloing is definitely slower. If you're really into your maths and statistics then go ahead and read through all that (it's only speculation unless the devs post up the actual rates)... the bottom line is it's quicker to level on red, but it's quicker to level in a group on red.

No solo artist unless they're supremely twinked with an ungrouped healer is going to match a full group of pals xp'ing in an area.

[pink grapefruit]

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

Soloing is definitely slower. If you're really into your maths and statistics then go ahead and read through all that (it's only speculation unless the devs post up the actual rates)... the bottom line is it's quicker to level on red, but it's quicker to level in a group on red.

No solo artist unless they're supremely twinked with an ungrouped healer is going to match a full group of pals xp'ing in an area.

I know. stormlord seems to be saying that the group bonus is a bad thing because it makes soloing comparatively less efficient and makes group members lazy. Which is confusing.

[stormlord]

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

I know. stormlord seems to be saying that the group bonus is a bad thing because it makes soloing comparatively less efficient and makes group members lazy. Which is confusing.

I'm not saying it's a bad change. I've praised this kind of system before. It changes the game. That might be good if you like it. But the more it's changed the less you can say it's EQ classic.

The greatest thing about reducing divisions of exp with additional group members is it reduces discrimination. This is great for gimped players or afk players or hybrids or whoever feared being closely examined. In past years, I've revered this experience system for this reason. BUT it changes the game....

Here's a quote from my first submission:

This change means minimum REQUIRED expectations are lowered. This I think fudnamentally changes the game. It also greatly reduces the value of solo-classes like druids or necromancers, since they're far better off joining groups than soloing. If there's no exp cut, a 6th member would mean potentially 6x more experience than soloing. That's substantial and means a player is better playing a group-based class like a warrior/cleric/enchanter/rogue/monk. It means soloing is no longer a viable path to progress since grouping is up to 6x faster.

The only change I'll add to it is that it's not 6x faster (at best) with a 6th member. It's ~266%. So whatever I say in that post was assuming the worst. However, the "probelm" is still there, just smaller.

Beyond this, my reason for posting was if the pvp server is easier to level up in then blue because of these changes and others it might be more attractive than blue for even hte most blue players. I think some extra reward is warranted, but by all means, keep the pvp server challenging and risky.

My reason for playing on pvp servers has always been the added risk of pvp, not fast leveling.

[pink grapefruit]

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

I'm not saying it's a bad change. I've praised this kind of system before. It changes the game. That might be good if you like it. But the more it's changed the less you can say it's EQ classic.

The greatest thing about reducing divisions of exp with additional group members is it reduces discrimination. This is great for gimped players or afk players or hybrids or whoever feared being closely examined. In past years, I've revered this experience system for this reason. BUT it changes the game....

Here's a quote from my first submission:

The only change I'll add to it is that it's not 6x faster (at best) with a 6th member. It's ~266%. So whatever I say in that post was assuming the worst. However, the "probelm" is still there, just smaller.

Beyond this, my reason for posting was if the pvp server is easier to level up in then blue because of these changes and others it might be more attractive than blue for even hte most carebear of players. I think some extra reward is warranted, but by all means, keep the pvp server challenging and risky.

Interesting how different minds work. I play my best on red and blue, and would not be quick to boot group members even on blue if they were playing poorly. Last week a really bad necro kept AOEing, breaking mez and hitting group members. Eventually the other people in group killed him and kicked him out. And I've seen an afk druid PKed and removed on principle, too.

Somehow I don't think we're all that much more unforgiving than blue when it comes to inefficient players.

Also, soloing is totally a viable option still. Did you see that other poster who said they soloed into 50s because they afk a lot? Soloing is still faster than leveling as a bluebie, and a lot of people do it.

[stormlord]

I'd be in more support of an overall increase to exp, but no change to group exp gain versus soloing. So if it's 20% faster to group on blue, I'll keep it that way. I'd just make levelling faster.

Why? Because monkeying with it eventually makes it so it's only remotely EQ classic. And I think increasing the exp too much is also monkeying with it, since outleveling things can be a problem too.

What you have here is the fact pvp in the open world (in EQ classic especially) is unpopular. You can't make it popular without making this into a completely different game. Don't use EQ in the same sentence.

I'm friendly to the "loot and scoot" thing which reduces corpse camping. But can it be exploited? While I don't like PnP's, they seem to work out well on servers which use them. But enforcement is questionable.

EDIT: I made posts in the pvp section of this forum some years ago. I supported an exp increase and removing exp loss on pvp death. I also wanted a leaderboard or something. Give you an idea of where I stand.

I did play on red for a while. But most of my time was on blue. On live, I was mostly pvp. I've been through everything yo ucan imagine pvp-wise. I was even corpse camped on Rallos zek early on.

Here're some posts I made in the pvp section of this forum in early 2012:
http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...&postcount=509
http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...&postcount=515
http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...&postcount=156

[pink grapefruit]

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

What you have here is the fact pvp in the open world (in EQ classic especially) is unpopular. You can't make it popular without making this into a completely different game. Don't use EQ in the same sentence.

What?

How is pvp in the open world unpopular?

The rest of your post makes sense if you want "classic" to mean how the mechanics worked back in the day, but there's so much more to it than that. You played RZ so you know the classic FFA social scene involved a big anti-PK movement. Plus there were a lot more players to xp with back then. So the PKs were generally well-known and ostracized by the community, and there were plenty of groups happening within the anti-PK circles.

I don't really like having an xp bonus at all, but it's hard to argue that it doesn't bring players together as it is now. Which is more in line with the classic experience than having everyone out soloing on a dead server and getting those easy kills on rogues and warriors whenever they're seen.

The real problem is the low population, not any particular xp system. Honestly I'll never understand why the blue server gets so many more players than red.