kunark zems adjusted

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by taliefer, May 9, 2018.

  1. taliefer Augur

    from test patch notes:

    - Many Ruins of Kunark zones have had their experience modifier adjusted for balance reasons and/or to encourage variety in leveling.

    was hoping they wouldnt keep the trend goin in kunark. just felt like an overall nerf on coirnav, with no zones getting anything resembling a buff that made them worth going to. sol b might be slightly better than it was, but it still doesnt bring it up to par overall with the other options.

    these changes felt like an overall nerf to me on classic zones, and i fear the same for kunark
  2. Dythan Augur

    Ya, we all read them. What's your point?
  3. MaxTheLion Augur

    Correct. The good got brought down while the bad was slightly increased. All in all, it did not appear to help "encourage variety" but rather slow down an already slow process.
  4. Dythan Augur

    Why are you such a jerk.
    doah likes this.
  5. Febb Augur

    What nerf? Has someone tested out before and after changes? Where is the data that supports this nerf claim?
  6. Kahna Augur

    Yes, many folks tested this, it “normalized” zones, but mostly by lowering exp rates. Did little or nothing to change leveling paths. Overall it reduced exp gain.
  7. Fumi-chan Augur

    Many players have reported an XP drop in the popular zones (guks, unrest, etc) and not enough of a boost to others. This effectively feels like a nerf because XP rates are slower on the standard leveling path which is exacerbated by Coirnav's slow XP rates.

    The reality is these zones are popular for a reason and no ZEM will change the most efficient leveling path. An out of the way zone with poor mob density and respawn times will never compete with Frogs who apparently breed like rabbits.

    DBG if you want to break the cycle then you need to make unpopular zones have a noticeable ZEM. The testing done with Coirnav demonstrated that the boost was laughably small and didn't help provide alternatives to frogs. It was one of the many issues people had with Coirnav early on and probably contributed to players getting fed up and quitting.
  8. Febb Augur

    We're talking about Kunark zones on the test server, not classic zones. Did someone test out the experience gained before the latest test server patch and after?
  9. Kahna Augur

    The OP referred to both classic and Kunark. Stating classic felt like a nerf and he feared Kunark would be also. You were the only one referring to only Kunark.

    Testing exp rates on test is difficult, at best, and there is no reason to assume the changes were drastically different from the changes made in classic. A general normalization.
  10. Fumi-chan Augur

    I'd like to see better communication this time around with Kunark. If we can't be told which zones had their ZEM lowered, at least tell us which zones were improved. Give us something positive to focus on.
  11. Febb Augur

    The OP quoted the kunark changes, not the classic changes which is why I'm asking about the data for kunark. Yes I'm aware the changes for classic zems weren't what people were expecting. We just haven't seen how that will translate for the kunark changes yet since apparently no one did any testing before and after. We won't know until this patch goes live.
  12. taliefer Augur


    i dont know if you are trolling or what, but i specifically said: these changes felt like an overall nerf to me on classic zones, and i fear the same for kunark

    i dont have any agenda here, im just worried that these changes are going to result in a farther nerf to exp rates on top of an already slow exp server. i base this on the exp on coirnav after the zem changes taht were done for that server.

    the bonus they gave to certain zones in classic wasnt near high enough to get people to go to them regularly, as most people feared would be the case.
  13. Bobbybick Augur

    RIP Dalnir Powerleveling, you will be missed.
    doah likes this.
  14. Febb Augur

    Yes and I'm pointing out that you don't know if the kunark changes are like the classic zem changes because no one has tested this out. You can't base your feelings on something just because the zem's were changed for classic. I still haven't seen any data for the classic changes either so I don't really take people's word for this.
  15. taliefer Augur


    i can base my feelings on whatever i want, actually. thats what makes them feelings, and not facts. the changes to zems were largely a net negative. i fear the same for kunark. nowhere did i say they WILL be a net negative in kunark.

    as for testing for exact numbers, thats rather hard to get as there are no servers with the same base exp rate as coirnav, but without the ZEM changes.

    the fact taht people stuck to the same leveling paths on coirnav as ever speaks to the fact that the classic ZEM changes didnt really serve their stated intended purpose of encouraging variety
  16. Coirnav Augur

    The classic ZEM changes did nothing to change our leveling path whatsoever, all it did was slow it down. The path we took on the last 3-4 TLPs was still the most optimal path.

    This was an overall nerf to exp in general. It did not change the optimal path sadly. I wish it would have, but mob level and mob density always affected exp per hour more than anything else.
  17. Fumi-chan Augur


    Can we take a moment to marvel at what appears to be someone having a conversation with himself.
  18. monkypowah Elder

    coirnav exp is so bad for me that i've left a 44 enchanter to rot and play instead again on phinny/agnarr etc. also, DBG letting mabbu back on a TLP server after banning him previously and not only is he on it but he controls the biggest guild and the entire kronos market now. No thanks, bye Coirnav
  19. HoodenShuklak Augur

    The krosino grows.
  20. snailish Augur

    Zem changes will only change the optimal path if:

    Typical leveling zone A's XP rate per hour is less than out-of-the-way-and/or-underused-zones.

    For example:

    Guk has mob density, ease of kill for today's overpowered groups, appealing loot table, relative ease of travel to and traditionally high ZEM in its favor.

    Guk could be given the worst negative ZEM in classic and it would still hold appeal for loot, and probably would still always have a group in it --they would just own the whole zone to make up for the now-low XP.


    I would prefer if XP was just baselined (and not at some low amount. We aren't spending years in the content... any one that wants to level slow can easily do that). Then later, possibly, provide an XP ZEM bump to the zones that are clearly underused due to being sparsely populated and a pain (i.e., healer mobs).

    However... the underused zones probably need more density, faster respawns, better loot. In a baselined flat ZEM EQ it would be obvious pretty quick which zones players want adjusted by their neglect of them.

Share This Page