View Full Forums : Sony Has a Habit of Fixing things that are not Broken

06-10-2004, 04:12 PM
Some people might feel it makes sense but why did they ever make it so that you can not cast your higher level spells on sub 46 characters. It used to be that you could cast group spells and they would affect your sub 46 characters till they nerfed it. Let me see what affect does this have.
If you are a lower level character it is not like the level 49 and under spells do not make you practiacally a good any ways. As a 65 Druid it just means if I want to PL my alts it takes me and extra week or two.

Can anyone give me a good reason for this cap.

Secondly why is it based on the spell level in regards to the class casting it and not on the spell itself. My 65 BL can not cast Celerity or even Aclarity on anyone under level 46. But this same spell when cast by an enchanter is fine.

If someone wants to PL there character they are going to do it if they want to play there they will. Capping the spells only penalizes the higher level characters. Although it has cut down on the amount of tells that you recieve.

Its not like sony has not done everything they can to make life easier at lower levels.

No Exp loss changed from 5 to 10 items used to drop at level 1 now not till eleven.

Now they put in a tutorial that takes about 30 min to complete and gives you a charm +5 all stats +10 HP Mana. To top it of if you feel like hunting there you get a buff giving you about a total of 180hp. The game was not broken originally but they have been slowly diluting the content.

For all you casters out there is it fun to run out of mana or if you can afford it or have it cast on you is it not nice as a casual gamer to get KEI and go solo till you die or it runs out.

06-10-2004, 04:26 PM
The removal of the ability to group cast high level buffs was not a nerf. It was a bug fix. It was never intended that group casting would be allowed while individual casting would not.

06-10-2004, 04:29 PM
Simple reason : Total Abuse in lower levels. C3, C5, Pot9, our regens and DSes were making powerlevelling a breeze. Not only powerlevelling, but simply levelling.

It was creating a huge demand for C3, amongst the most popular spells. Chanters would then cast C3 all day long, and it was a more than lucrative activity to them. It still is, but less so.

It needed fixing. They fixed it. Perhaps not in the best way, but still. Hence I dont see why you had to use this title.


06-10-2004, 04:53 PM
Now answer me why they used 46 and how come my Beastlord can not cast a spell that is a level 29 enchanter spell on a character that is under 46. EG Aclarity.

Not sure how this was a bug it was only done this way for what 6 or seven months. It is what made the spells so much more valuable. The people that don't complain alot of the time are the ones that had the benefit of it when they were leveling and don't need it anymore. So what if BOT9 works on a level 30 character other then the mana regen it is no different then temperance and less hp AC.

This change made soloing easier not Powerleveling. There are other methods I can use to level my characters that are just as fast or faster then the old ways. It takes about 3 hours to get to 15 and from there to 30 about another 6 hours tops. The casual gamer that used to be able to solo can not anymore.

I don't have an enchanter but so what if they sell there high level spell just creates more demand. If you have a person with tradeskills does it limit who they can sell there items to.

06-10-2004, 05:07 PM
Well, there is no such thing as a valid argument about buffs if you say "other than the mana regen". Now I'll explain how it was a bug that group buffs still worked. They forgot to put a check in the group buff code to prevent players below the limit from getting the buff. It's as simple as that. There is also no validity to the argument that it is not a bug because it went on for several months. EQ is notorious for having bugs last years, let alone months.

The reason for restricting the buffs is obvious. It is definitely clear enough not to warrant a post implying there couldn't possibly be a good reason. I'm not going to repeat the reason, because Cal already posted it.

06-10-2004, 05:50 PM
My problem with it - componentless lev and EB will not land on lowbies. And to a minor extend, in terms of aggrevation, SoE/FoE. You have to admit, these spells are fairly innocuous and aren't on the high end of desirability when you are buffing for a session of PLing.

Other than that, /shrug. I don't really PL anything so it didn't have a direct impact on me so I can't really offer an opinion on it other than what's above.

06-10-2004, 05:58 PM
As a 65 Druid it just means if I want to PL my alts it takes me and extra week or two.

Yeah Sony made a big mistake there. Write to them nicely and tell them you don't want to play your alts at all before they're 65 because playing EQ isn't fun and they might send a GM over to sort it out for you.

06-10-2004, 07:16 PM
On the lev and EB what is the sense of level restricting them have to carry Batwings and fish scales incase someone sub 46 wants lev or EB.

alyn cross
06-10-2004, 07:52 PM
as to why '46'... it has always been the arbitrary number that separated the lower levels from the high levels. i.e. it was the level restriction put on the plane of fear (well, not initially, i still remember seeing level 1 ogres in pofear), it was the level restriction carried over to pop, it's just what they decided to make it. /shrug.

the spell menus to mem a spell should make it easy enough to find your lower spells if you want to p/l... and maybe, just maybe, that extra two weeks means you learn something new about your new class, that you would have otherwise not known (attribute of a spell, way to fight certian mobs, ways to sneak aruond, whatever...).

just maybe.... it's a good thing, if somewhat annoying?

06-10-2004, 10:24 PM
Rather than taking the level of the spell for the caster when determining if a buff should be allowed to land, they should take the lowest spell level for all the classes that can cast it. Enforcing the spell restrictions on group spells was necessary though.

06-11-2004, 02:15 AM
Now answer me why they used 46

That is easy, it is not 46. The number is 51, as in the first level added with the Kunark expansion.(Actually it is above 49, since they added 50 spells in velious, but not sure if any of them are relevant to this discussion anyway) Any spells 51 and above can only be cast on people within a certain level range. For 60 spells that number is 46. It gets weird again from 61-65 and actually does not seem consistent at all on PoP.

You can for example cast a mid 50s spell on a 43ish person.

So the answer to your question is, 46 is not a special number at all. Just the way the formula works out at 60.

06-11-2004, 03:11 AM
Not sure how this was a bug it was only done this way for what 6 or seven months.

The level restrictions have been in since Kunarks release. The fact that group spells went around the limit was not known untill a bit later when people got into their mid to late 50s and group spells started being used.

I dug up the post below on Casters Realm. it is from May of 2000 and explains the thinking behind the level 39 limit on 51+ spells. (It is a moving limit as I mentioned in my previous post).

<font face='verdana' size='2pt'>Source: <a href=><b>Everquest Gameplay Forum</b></a>.<br><br>
As I understand it, a level limit had been put into place for level 51 spells
and higher whereby you can't cast one of those spells on anyone who's lower in
level than level 39. Is this information correct?
<p>Let me say this first, I can see the reason/logic behind your decision in
implementing that level cap. However, I would like to point out how this cap can
be very unfair to a lot of players as the cap is implemented right now.
<p>This is mostly a grouping matter, btw. In my experience, at level 30, I was
able to group with a level 45 and get XP, but not with a level 46. As you,
yourself said before, Gordon, as you go higher up in level, the wider the level
range can be in a group for the lower levels to get XP grouping with a higher
level. In another word, level range in a group for XP purpose is based on a
curve and the higher you go, the larger the range. Base on that, by my
conservative estimate, a level 35 would be able to group with a level 51 and

still get XP. I guess you can see where I am going now, right? In my opinion,
it's not really fair for a person to group with another one and then being
denied of the most beneficially buffs, especially when he/she can still benefit
in grouping and contribute accordingly.
<p>From an anti-twinking view point, what you did is perfectly logical; however,
not everyone out there is twinking and out to take advantage of any and all
loopholes. Here is my thought on this subject: if you can group with a certain
person of a certain level and still get XP then you should be able to received
any of the buffs that's available in that level range.
<p>If there is any question regarding how can a low level contribute in a group
with higher level people, let me give you some examples: damage shields/healing
for druid, stat buffs/healing for shaman, hp buffs/ac buffs/healing for cleric,
mana song/melee buff song for bard, clarity/speed buff for enchanter...etc
<p>Granted, their usefulness in the group would be much more limited grouping
with higher level people, however, they take a proportional of the XP pool and
if you deny these people the benefits of the best-in-group buffs, you are
creating an extremely adverse and uneven playing field for these people.
<p>My apology, I tend to ramble on confusingly once I get into a certain
subject; but I hope that you can understand my post and the point that I am
trying to get across to you.</p>
<b>I understand your argument, however the only reason we were able to make the
51+ buffs as powerful as we did was based upon them not being able to be cast
upon drastically lower in level. If you are over 51 and you wish to group with
someone out of the range for some reason, you can feel free to buff them,
however you'll still be limited to the 49 and lower spells.</b>

<p><b>Some of the 51+ buffs have serious increases to duration, with some lasting
a full 2 game days. That's some serious power, and we don't want it being used to
enhance buff-twinking.</b>
<p><b>- Gordon</b></p>

06-11-2004, 03:41 AM
When they leave a bug in the game for a year or two, it becomes part of the game, like it or not, and a "Fix" is indeed a nerf, not just a fix. If they want to fix bugs and have them not be seen as nerfs then they should do it in a timely manner.

06-11-2004, 03:55 AM
soooooo.......If they make a quest work as intended after a year, they "nerfed" it?

Nope I disagree. A bug is a bug. This is not Microsoft. We don't label bugs "features" and charge extra for em.

06-11-2004, 03:58 AM
In either case, we had this very same debate 2 years ago when the nerf took place and it changed nothing 8(

Now let me again quote one of my favourite thoughts about developer intentions:

Posts: 560
(10/30/03 8:35 am)
Re: thott's explanation for a story by thott
Uh huh, right.

Let's think of a few things that were 'not intended'

1) Quad kiting.
2) Camping
3) Pulling (at all)
4) Root-kiting
5) Aggro-kiting

Not intended no longer means anything. Sorry, it doesn't. It implies that the Dev team has had a consistent vision since the beginning, which is obviously incorrect. For that matter, what incarnation of the Dev team are we on now? 2? 3? 4?

Saying that feign pulling was never intended dodges the stated fact that pulling at all was never intended. Hence, 'lull' was not the 'intended' pulling tool since there was, in fact, no 'intended' concept of pulling.

Let's be blatantly honest here. Whichever team of people is currently the Dev team, will more or less arbitrarily make game design decisions based on their views of what EQ should be. These decisions may or may not be consistent with decisions of prior dev teams (by and large, they're not). That's it, folks.

1) What was 'not intended' by a prior dev team may be intended by that dev team at a later point in time or by a later dev team.
2) From 1, there is not necessarily any consistency in the 'intendedness' of a concept/skill.
3) It's not unknown for a dev team to say that something was 'not intended' by them, but to create content with it in mind and/or allow it to remain in game for an indefinite period. (There's a term for this with respect to laws, but I can't think of it)
4) From 1,2,3, saying that something was 'not intended' without giving a time reference and demonstrating that this 'not intended' thing was actually actively discouraged doesn't say anything, other than the dev team can do whatever they want.

To be blunt, the Dev team can change whatever they want, whenever they want, and the interests of the player base are irrelevant.

To attempt to use the inconsistency of the dev teams as some sort of argument is asinine.

If the dev's decide that they didn't intend bards to be able to run fast, Thott could log on tonight and discover he's a level 1 dancing girl who's perma rooted in a bar in neriak, and there isn't a single thing he could do about it.

Welcome to Everquest, no warranty is expressed or implied with respect to any in-game material. You're paying to use our world now. Please insert token.
Lyndar Everdead
Grandmaster of Succoring Winds
"Classes are not that out of balance - AbsorEQ"

onkley Business - Oct 30, 2003

06-11-2004, 09:24 AM
What I am curious about is the relevance of the thread title.

1 - Fixing things that are not broken : Sorry, it was broken. hence the title is irrelevant. But you might have believed it wasn't, so let's give you the benefit of the doubt

2 - "Habit" implies that you will, in your post, suggest *at least* a few areas where Sony fixed things that were not broken. You tried to present *one*.

So why the title?


06-11-2004, 09:49 AM
2 entries found for nitpick.
nitĚpick ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntpk)
intr.v. nitĚpicked, nitĚpickĚing, nitĚpicks

To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details. See Synonyms at quibble.

nitpicker n.

v : be overly critical; criticize minor details

....couldn't resist. :)

06-15-2004, 08:59 PM
This change made soloing easier not Powerleveling.

Clearly, you meant harder, not easier. And here, you have answered your own question.

63 druid of Tunare

06-16-2004, 03:30 AM
I think it is actualy good they fixed it.

* People learning there chars without V and Kei, manamangement is an important skill for any caster. Level 10 druids with Kei and Bot9 do not need manamanagement. At later levels you need manamanagement to learn

* Making EQ to easy, A level 10 warrior with V + DS + Replensiment cannot die, where is the fun in that where is the learning in that ?

* Grouping, with all the long time buffs specially kei is was almost impoissible for lower level chanters to get groups, with V + Massive manapools adds were no problem and who wants breeze when you can get kei

All in all it might be bad for the PL'ers that they banned all the high levels spells but for the normal players it is not a bad thing and to be honest, i do not care for powerlevellers.

06-17-2004, 06:25 PM
i guess the question is, did "fixing" this "bug" really do anything to improve the game? i think that was the point of the original post (as i understand it at least).

has restricting buff levels prevented powerleveling? no

has it preventing making characters that reach their 60s in one week? no

has it prevented high level characters that have never learned to play their class? no

has it prevented grouping with level 65 players that have to ask "what is DS?" when you ask for a damage shield? no

so what was the point? it didn't stop anything, it just slowed it down. by a few DAYS tops. the thing it HAS done is make it inconvienient for people who LIKE to help low level players because we have to swap spells to buff them.

and to further the argument that this "fix" was wasted effort that STILL doesn't work as SOE supposedly intended, i'll point this out: it has also inadvertantly caused the untimely demise of a few young players that i have tried to save by casting a HoT on them to save them from poison or disease in PoK. HoTs take up buff slots and are restricted just like Regen or Skin lines.

Additionally, consider that no class can cast a spell that is lvl 51 for THEM on another player. a paladin can't cast Resolution on a lvl 20 player, a Cleric can. how does THAT fit into the theory that they were fixing a bug to prevent powerful spells from being cast on low level players? that's just lazy coding.

06-20-2004, 05:53 AM
i guess the question is, did "fixing" this "bug" really do anything to improve the game? i think that was the point of the original post (as i understand it at least).

has restricting buff levels prevented powerleveling? no

has it preventing making characters that reach their 60s in one week? no

has it prevented high level characters that have never learned to play their class? no

has it prevented grouping with level 65 players that have to ask "what is DS?" when you ask for a damage shield? no

has restricting buff levels prevented powerleveling? No, But it did made it harder.

has it preventing making characters that reach their 60s in one week? no, But it did made it rare.

has it prevented grouping with level 65 players that have to ask "what is DS?" when you ask for a damage shield? no, But stupied players have alwyes been around... yes even before Kei and Virtue.

And now for some real Questions

has restricting buff levels made it so that player with lower levels had to group ? Yes, a level 20 druid with Po9+Kazad+Kei do not need a group, same for most any other class.

has it prevented new players to reach level 65 way to fast? Yes.

I know it would shock you but not everyone between level 1-45 is a twink, and haveing group members take a break in order to run to PoK and get frash kei/virtue/Po9/fo7... is simply crazy.

And frankly when the single version spell dont work on someone it's pretty clear that haveing the group version work on them a bug, it got fixed and there realy is no sense in crying about it.

06-22-2004, 05:45 PM
I think the difference between this bug and some of the others mentioned is that anyone who has been around since Kunark was released was just waiting for the patch where it was fixed. We all knew it would happen eventually (I am sligtly amused at just how long it took them to fix it).

Since people were pulling all the way back into Beta, it is safe to assume that it is enver goign to be changed, and they have never come out and officially stated that they believe pulling is overpowered.

They did say that 51+ buffs on low level characters is over powering (And they are right), so the fix was inevitable.

Fenmarel the Banisher
06-22-2004, 06:02 PM
If anything SOE is guilty of over fixing things that they say are bugs. Roughly equal to using a hammer to re-install a bad video card. However I don't think that this is the case. Personally I think they should remove all group buff effects from the game. At the very least KEI/Tranq/VoQ should be self only.

06-22-2004, 06:58 PM
Err...why? Taking away all group buffs would just make buffing tedious, without reducing the potential power of the characters. There would be no benefit to the game.

Fenmarel the Banisher
06-22-2004, 11:15 PM
OK, take away all targeted buffs too then! Problem soved.

06-23-2004, 12:05 AM
Once again, why? How does the game benefit when you take away a major aspect of interdependence?

Fenmarel the Banisher
06-23-2004, 12:22 AM
Because that interdependance is phoney when you can get a buff that lasts for hours. Then leave the person who gave it to you and go elsewhere. True interdependance would make you stay group with the individual that gave you the buff or lose the buff. I would also get rid of MGB and TGB as they adversely effect some classes you only need one of to buff the whole raid. Do that and you will have true interdependance.

EDIT: Let me also add that I'm not convinced that you need to have this interdependance in the first place. In EQ atleast it seams to favor only certain classes. Whats the point in that?

06-24-2004, 12:15 AM
Interdependence can't work in EQ, there are two many classes. We are really too far along to make "Archetypes" work in EQ. I don't think we will ever see a case where priests are all interchangeable.

Archetype interdependence like they plan in EQ2 is a much more realistic concept. It still remains to be seen if they can deliver, but you never know.

06-24-2004, 04:05 AM
I have come to the conclusion that people who stand around and whine for buffs should be shot.

Also, referring to Virtue as "V" makes it sound like a street drug, and gives me a nearly uncontrollable urge to slap someone senseless.

06-26-2004, 03:12 PM
Interdependance is fine for the people that group or raid or like to group but you can not always find a group or someone to raid with.

People say the change was needed maybe you think it was. I started playing the game when luclin came out before that I was playing Acherons Call. In acherons call there are no level restrictions for spells although the spells do not last as long.

What they have changed has made it harder for the casual player not for the power gamer.

I logged in last night and got a tell from a good friend in my guild. Him and his wife both play. They have him 65 Necro and her 65 Mage and have been playing longer then I have. Our guild atm about 75% of it has either left the game or is away.

A regular night used to be log in and hey whats going on. Would be around 25 to 30 people online including people leve 65 alts. This would limit us to stuff like Bot Towers minor named Grummus Mujaki, POI Dragon, Vindi, HOT etc. Equipment wise most of us are pretty well full ornate with some upgrades.

Well for about the last 3 months I have been the only officer in the guild that is on at all regularly. The guildleader has been gone for about 2 months give or take poped in to change the MOTD to hi about 2 weeks ago. Our average turn out on a night now is about 5 or 6 players which gives us if everyone boxes what they can about 18 toons. We are currently trying to do VT key and the only thing stopping most of us is rift from Emporer SSRA.

The game now for me is mainly pick up raids etc to try and get elemental flagged. Or playing alts some I actually play from lower levels and some I pl.

For what the buff thing has made difference not really all that much. If I want to pl it is PC to about 15-20 then from there I do Splitpaw to about 46 if want.

Example of PL'ing in split paw. Leave PLly at Zone.

65 Druid Spell Line up
AOE Nuke
Hand of Ro
Shield of Bracken
Shield of thorns
Natures Infusion

Have SCR3 and Shawl so they last quite a while

tanglewood Shield for ensnare
Ornate legs Savage Root
Ornate BP Blessing of replenishment

I keep pl character buffed and self buffed.

Then it is as simple as this character being PL'ed I map cycle npc to .
and mem lowest 1 target nuke spell or if not caster load up ranged weapon.

Druid goes in to zone and pulls from 6 to 10 mobs and brings then to round room at entrance. I use ensnare to pull. At this point my hp will go down a bit but not all that fast.

At this point I have no DS on.

Character I am pl'ing if pet class does not have pet up they take half the exp if you do even if you do all the damage. Maybe not quite half and this is from exp is pretty easy to see when you bar jumps slightly under double without pet before all the pet classes start arguing. I either throw or cast till hit first target then hit . for next target and do this till all targets are hit at this point I cast both my DS for a total of 53 point DS. Mobs kill themselves on DS and my PL character gets full exp at 25 this is about 1 level per 6 to 7 mobs and at 35 you get about 2.5 orange per pull average pull about 10 min.

You know what I have this luxury If I want.

The person that sent me a tell had come and grouped with me a few times but what he sent me last night was.

Can you come help me we hit a bit of a road block at 40. I was just logging at the time and was not able. His new Character is 40 SK atm and his wife has 40 cleric so not to bad a group. You know what his goal is atm get both to 46 so he can get buffs. How much fun is there in the two of them fighting for 5 or 10 min then having to sit while he bandages and she regens mana.

People like various things some enjoy the low levels and I do also fun to go play with some newbies sometimes with no equip. It is pretty easy to tell who has played for a while and who is new. You know what for the amount of times I have played low level characters there are very few new people entering the game atm. Most of the low level characters are players that are playing alts etc. Just do a who all 1 5 and see how many are on most will be in the bazaar. Or drop by a few newbie zones and just do /w what you ussually see is couple low level and couple anon high levels.

It used to be fun to go to newbie zones and hand out some okay equipment to low levels to help get them started now you offer it to them and they already have 2k worth of stuff on them.

I play on Solusek Ro which is one of the older servers so maybe it is different elsewhere but it is sad to see the people I have grouped and played with for the last 3.5 years leaving the game becuase the fun has gone out of it for them. I enjoy the game and hope to continue playing for quite some time but there could be alot done to make the game feel rewarding again.

I have seen this suggestion before and think it is one of the best I have seen so far I don't have any real suggestions.

We have rain spells why not a single target burst nuke or something. You cast and It sends 1 nuke then 1 tic later another nuke etc for three nukes or five or something. Not a DOT so that focus effects work on it.

Or ave a spell or AA or something for wizards maybe a 1 hour reuse timer that for 15 or 30 seconds your nukes hit for double damage plus any effects.

06-26-2004, 06:31 PM me a nearly uncontrollable urge to slap someone senseless.Soooo... I see you've been on Fennin Ro! :thumbs2:

06-26-2004, 06:33 PM
************************************************** **************
And now for some real Questions

has restricting buff levels made it so that player with lower levels had to group ? Yes, a level 20 druid with Po9+Kazad+Kei do not need a group, same for most any other class.
************************************************** **************

Simply not true. the buffs that are STILL available to low levels are MORE than powerful enough to let a level 20 druid solo (just like level 20 druids have done since the dawn of EQ) low level casters still solo, low level melee get Temperance and solo. not all of them, but a lot of them.

************************************************** **************
has it prevented new players to reach level 65 way to fast? Yes.
************************************************** **************

that's the whole point of my hasn't, in any way, shape or form. the first lvl 65 berzerker on my server was 8 days old the day he dinged. i don't know what your definition of "too fast" is, but i think most would agree that the difference between 4 or 5 days to reach level 65 or 2 weeks to reach level 65 is pretty friggin negligable.

the slowest part of the powerleveling process ISN'T lvls 1 to 46, despite the "fix." levels 1 to 46 take 3 to 4 days if you really, really want to pl a character. the time that takes the longest is the 46 to 55 range, when high exp zones aren't available and significant exp penalties slow "grouping" exp. spending time and effort to "fix" the buffing issue simply didn't accomplish much.

************************************************** **************
I know it would shock you but not everyone between level 1-45 is a twink, and haveing group members take a break in order to run to PoK and get frash kei/virtue/Po9/fo7... is simply crazy.
************************************************** **************

yes, i understand not every low level is a twink. i have no idea what you're trying to say with the rest of your statement or how it relates to what we are talking about. are you saying that having a low level group break up to go get buffs is different from when lvl 65s do it? are you saying that in a lvl 30 exp group the MT never says "hey, my temperance just faded, i'm going to run to pok for a refresh"?

************************************************** **************
And frankly when the single version spell dont work on someone it's pretty clear that haveing the group version work on them a bug, it got fixed and there realy is no sense in crying about it.
************************************************** **************

i never said it wasn't a bug. what i said, or at least what i was trying to say, is that there are a LOT of bugs in EQ. and a LOT of them were more detrimental than this one, especially in light of the fact that their "fix" didn't really accomplish anything.

if the goal was simply to prevent spells over level 51 from landing on characters under 46, then yes, they succeded. if the goal was to prevent people from pl'ing alts, to prevent low levels from begging for buffs, to prevent players from reaching high levels with no clue how to play their class, or to keep "overpowered" low level players out of the game, they failed miserably, and should have worked on the cleric pet that was broken forever, or on the sk epic quest item drop rate, or on pathing issues in Mistmore (the castle, not the LDoN) or on any number of things that actually NEEDED to be fixed.

06-30-2004, 07:08 PM

Well all the bugs are on a list. They are now appareently up to fixing (non game destroying) bugs introduced just after the release of Kunark. At this rate, Everquest through GoDs will be bug free in late 2008 (Assuming nothing changes.....).

07-01-2004, 06:11 AM
has it prevented new players to reach level 65 way to fast? Yes.

Phread you mis read this and it is the most important part. That beserker that was 8 days old wasn't a new player he/she was a new character. Any long time player can with the proper methods and support get a new character to 65 extremely fast. That level 65 8 day old will still have the game knowledge of their player with all information about the game, grouping and game play. This is not necessarily a problem.

What was a problem (and still to a degree is) is that in a fully developed game those that would like to group at lower levels and new players that need to group at lower levels had an extremely difficult time finding groups and learning the lessons that need to be learned. Before the fix many mid level enchanters in my guild just flat gave up trying to find groups, there was no need or want for clarity or even c2 cause everyone went to Nexus and had KEI. Low level Clerics never learned when to use which heal because all their tanks had HoV.

And Tunare help the true newbie that didn't know about or didn't have the money to get their full buffs before a group. Toss that OOM, low hp noob from the group they are hurting our chain pulling.

07-01-2004, 11:38 AM
I understand your point now and i agree.

i still think that the buffs available are defeating the ability of a new player to "learn" the game at low levels. but frankly, this seems to be an issue of age of the game and its playerbase rather than just the fact that buffs may or may not be too powerful.

you basically have three types of "new" players in eq: purchased characters that start the game at level 65 with no knowledge of the game (which i suspect there are a lot fewer of than it seems like in game), new characters that joined the game to play with a friend who are being equipped and pl'd by that friend or that friend's friend, and no kidding new players who use their no drop weapon until they get their first fine steel drop and put on the cloth armor dropped by orcs.

the buff issue, i believe, effects the last type of new player and while i'm not saying that limiting the power of buffs available to all low level players may have helped them find groups more (although i don't know if i believe that to be the case), i still don't think that SoE really accomplished much with this particular fix.

and i'll stop posting about this because frankly, it's NOT that big of an issue for me. i don't really care one way or another. i just happened to agree with the guy that started this thread, and thought i'd say so. lol

07-03-2004, 08:01 PM
Character I am pl'ing if pet class does not have pet up they take half the exp if you do even if you do all the damage. Maybe not quite half and this is from exp is pretty easy to see when you bar jumps slightly under double without pet before all the pet classes start arguing.

Gonna hafta argue anyway, since you are completely wrong about that.

June 5th, 2002 3:00 am

** Pet Changes **

With this patch we've made some rather sweeping changes to the way pets work.

- Pets will not attack mesmerized creatures. Pets basically treat mesmerized NPCs as if they were dead
- Pets are neutral to NPCs. Monsters will not attack pets first unless the pet is being aggressive to something
- Pets take 75% of the experience from a creature if no player does damage to that creature
- Pets take ZERO experience from a creature unless no player does damage to that creature
- The exception to the above rule is Dire Charmed pets, which will take a share of the experience scaled by the amount of damage they do. In most situations (with an active party, for example) the Dire Charmed pet will not take experience. Like all pets, they will take 75% of the experience if no PC does damage to the target. As long as a player does damage to a creature, a Dire Charmed pet will never take more experience than it used to.

- Charmed NPCs will now respond to the /pet report health command
- /pet sit down command should now work on charmed NPCs
- Fixed a bug that was preventing reclaim energy from working on Magician Epic pets.

The nature of charmed pets and dire-charmed pets has since been changed some, but regular pet have not. So long as the PLee does even 1 single point of damage, the pet takes NONE of the exp.

07-08-2004, 05:48 PM
True I got from 49-59 only using that pottery made ring for damage with my mage. That was a nice fix. I never really had anyone put higher level buffs on my pet until my 50s so, I am not sure if that would have had any effect on me.

The reason they are doing it is quite clear. It would be entirely to easy for level 1 pets to have virtue all the time with pet zoning coming in.

I am actually amazed to see SoE think through a change that far.