I agree with some of what you say.
Mana boost for Hybrids: I couldn't care less. What they get doesn't affect
me. I honestly wouldn't use the mana boost anyway. Like it was originally
said, the only time I'm OOM is after a res. (of course having an enchanter
in my regular group means I don't have to charm all that much)
Exp penalty: Luck of the draw. We deserve the penalty. Not because we are a
hybrid of 2 classes. We deserve it because we have many abilities and to
offset the sheer number we need to have an exp penalty. The penalty has
nothing to do with parent classes, it has to do with having more ability
than one of the pure classes.
Rangers can track and they get spells. This means they have more abilities
than the pure class of warrior, so they get an exp modifier.
Paladins can LoH and get spells.
Sks get HT and spells.
We get tracking, songs, we can cast while moving (HUGE) so we get a
modifier. Makes perfect sense to me.
Now, for broken songs, if we can find that original post of abashi's where
he admits the problems and announces an intended patch, then we can use that
as fuel on our fire and force the issue.
Drae
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Mann [mailto:
dabard@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:26 PM
To:
eqbards@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [eqbards] Oh this can't be good....
For me, it's not so much that I'm getting an exp penalty as it is that VI is
using it against us.
Example:
VI: "All hybrids get a mana boost" (and honestly, I could care less about
more mana)
Bards: "Where is our mana boost?"
VI: "You are not hybrids"
VI: "All hybrids have an exp penalty"
Bards: "Why do we have it?"
VI: "You are hybrids"
DOH!
Another of my favorites is
VI: "No, mana for bards isn't really mana usage, but a timer to stem off
possible exploits"
Bards: "Well, since it's just a timer and we don't have any way to regen
mana faster, what about the death penalty?"
VI: "Tough s***"
Another big problem I have with Abashi's post is that he himself admitted
that there was "an in advertant nerf" to Chains when they lowered the rate
on the lvl 54 song. He then stated that a patch would follow to fix it.
This is the first that has been mentioned since then. I guess our patch was
"It's not broken".
And I'm not even going to get into Lullaby or the fact that a literal wave
of song ideas were posted months ago for the level 49 song, and we have been
given no word yet.
-=B=-
Disgruntled Bard of 39 Seasons
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin L. Crawford <Lyrnia@...>
To: <eqbards@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [eqbards] Oh this can't be good....
> I agree but that isn't a valid arguement for removing xp penalties. It's
a
> valid arguement for changing the way that group experience is shared. It
> should be based on level, not on total xp gained. The reason it was set
up
> the way it is was that Verant felt, and I tend to agree with them, that
> friends would be grouping alot and would want to level at the same rate so
> they divided xp the way they did so that friends would level at around the
> same rate.
>
> This worked, but the problem is that most people do not, in fact, group
with
> their 'friends' regularly and thus groups of strangers are penalized for
the
> hybrid's experience.
>
> Unfortunately experience sharing is embedded deeply into the client and
I'm
> not sure if Verant is willing to totally re-write the game engine to fix
> something that was put in intentionally. I'm not sure I would expect them
> to.
>
> > The hybrid penalty is a HUGE problem. If it worked like it did in AD&D,
> > fine, that would be one thing. The problem is not that a class is
slower
> to
> > level, but rather that having a hybrid in your group makes the whole
group
> > level slower. This unfairly penalizes your group members for what is
> > supposed to be your penalty.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@...
with the subject submissions.
>
>
Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@...
with the subject submissions.