Why do some zones have such bad zems?

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by Rothj, Dec 20, 2019.

  1. Rothj Augur

    Specifically I've noticed that most kunark zones have terrible zems. I don't know why this is. Someone recommend I go to howling stones to solo, so I got my key, and I only got .7% exp for killing a level 42 mob at level 46... which is pretty bad. In comparison in kaesora I can kill a level 37 mob and get about ..5%.

    Why is howling stones so bad of exp when it takes a ton of effort to even get in and it's extremely high risk? There's other areas like burning woods that just have terrible exp even compared to outdoor zones and I don't get why.
  2. sumnayin Augur

    Kunark has terrible ZEM, guess they wanted classic zones to maintain usefulness. I think it would have been nice if the lower level zones had decent ZEMs though and just the 50+ ones slow...since in Kunark era you're more than likely doing Kunark zones for 50+
  3. HoodenShuklak Augur

    All part of The Vision.

    Embrace The Vision.
  4. Rothj Augur

    I'm confused by this since kunark is some of the best content there is.
  5. MaxTheLion Augur

    You can blame Necromancers for the reduced ZEM in Howling Stones. It was frequently used as a location for powerleveling services and nerfed not long after.
  6. Machen New Member


    And, unfortunately, didn't get unnerfed when they nerfed charming HS named, which was the principle means of plvling. Seems it should be revisited, it was a great zone to level in (normally) way back when.
  7. Herf Augur


    The Vision died long ago when Brad left. Back THEN you would have been correct :) There were even jokes about it in /gu comics.
  8. HoodenShuklak Augur

    I basically live my life, like many other eq addicts, in the past. Still living at home is just part of the immersion. In this world though? Brad is still thriving.
  9. Risiko Augur

    Personally, I don't understand why there is any difference between killing a mob in one some versus another zone. I've never understood why that even had to be a thing. They should normalize experience across the board, and let people choose where they want to spend their time leveling up based on where they want to go rather than creating min max leveling tracks with some experience modifiers.
  10. Raptorjesus5 Augur

    It's to balance risk/reward in harder areas. If you got the same exp killing easy single pulls in outdoor zones with vendors and banks nearby as you did deep in a dungeon breaking camps with 5+ mobs, with long corpse runs and no vendors nearby then people would rarely do the latter.
    Skuz likes this.
  11. Aneuren Tempered Steel

    The risk vs reward is kind of skewed and has been for a long time.

    Through Classic, dungeons are always stacked because they have the best loot, pulls can be sparse because everybody is packed into them, and it's incredibly difficult to die.

    Meanwhile, in large open zones, pulls take longer (notable exceptions apply for island camps/karana birds/similar areas), there are more roamers, much less of the better loot, and it's just largely more frustrating to make efficient exp. There are notable exceptions, but by and large on TLPs I have always found dungeon exp to be far easier, far better, and far more rewarding - with no downsides at all.
    Risiko likes this.
  12. yerm Augur

    Zems were a great thing they just haven't kept pace with the game and many zones have had them used punitively. For example, uguk has a higher zem than lguk, and since the latter has less roaming level variance and better loot this works. Sol a is the best xp in the 20s and tofs for the 30s barring niche stuff like druids charming, but these zones can be frustratingly difficult. On selo I scouted out xp and mob density and ended up pitching hsm and grimling forest for leveling despite hsm being low and gf being average - they are mob dense, great loot, easy zones. The zem here is fair.

    So the problems are when zones are considered hard but really are no longer, or when zem got used as a punishment tool (STOP DOING THIS DEVS!) or when difficult zones never really see a boost.

    I really wish they would revoke the nerfs to grey, loio, com, hs, and any others I cant think of. Nerfing charm was the right move for hs not the zem nerf. Com and loio just needed a tone down. Grey (like fg) dont get ae'd anymore so these should be fine. The idea that degenerate behavior like selling plvls can be fixed by neutering the entire motivation to even enter a zone is bad process.

    Meanwhile a little sweep over some zones could be helpful. Zones that people would enjoy if the xp wasnt so bad, boost. Zones that people would like to go to but nobody wants to set foot in, boost. Zones that suck people in because they are so good why go anywhere else and theyre easy, tone down. Velious zems are pretty good. Luclin could just use a boost to deep and me and a slight nerf to griegs. Stuff like that.
    Risiko likes this.
  13. Skuz Berserker Logic: Kill everything.

    ZEMs are only relevant in the pre SoD era of EverQuest, after that point camp/mass mob kill gameplay for experience is eschewed for questing/progression as the source of level & AA experience gain.

    Dungeons typically had higher ZeM than open world because they are generally more densely populated & so usually required more careful pulling/crowd control & emergent gameplay like quad-kiting made outdoor zones easier to gain experience in, ZeM were used to encourage grouping in less popular or more out of the way zones, or in places that took much longer or were more difficult to reach.

    Personally I would prefer both types of gameplay, missions/questing for Experience & AA as well as some limited camp/mass mob kill grind style. If I was building future expansions I would have 4-6 open & unlocked zones in which you need to do missions/quests that have most of the experience tied to that progression with one locked behind progression "endzone" & in the end zone there is decent camp/mob level & aa experience along with a "finisher" set of missions & quests with some desirable rewards from the tasks (augs/clickies etc.) though the mobs are significantly tougher than in the earlier zones.

    That said I think some may remember zones being better than they are now due to old Hotzone problems that were eventually fixed, for example Burning woods was famously bugged - it had been a Hotzone multiple times and on each time of it being a hotzone the ZeM got bumped up by a Hotzone bonus ZeM being added but it had (due to a bug) retained the prior Hotzone ZeM (instead of reverting back to the old ZeM) so it had over time ramped up & become pretty ridiculous xp there, its ZeM after the fix went in took it from a "must go to" zone to just an ordinary zone.
  14. That0neguy Augur

    The problem is with how they adjusted in the last round. DBG's idea of adjustment was nerf zones that they think are too popular and too crowded. Which in the end did nothing.

    I think the recent trend in balancing in the industry is more of a buff other things instead of nerfing.

    What they could of done is increase the ZEMs where they want people to go instead of nerfing the places they want to tone down.
  15. Rothj Augur


    I think the major problem is that the way eq was set up, you had a handful of viable zones for various reasons(mob density, location, loot, zem, difficulty to kill etc.) so if the devs go in and kill a couple of these zones completely, it doesn't increase the number of places you can play. It forces you all into velks or some other place that's still as good as before. Right now you have a lot of zones that they just simply killed the value of completely by overnerfing them to where you can't easily justify going there.
  16. Risiko Augur

    I see the Risk vs Reward as pertaining to gear only. Gaining experience shouldn't be based on the same Risk vs Reward, but rather time and effort put in to it.
  17. Risiko Augur

    The thoughtfulness that goes in to some people's replies on these forums just goes to reinforce what I've said before that the Everquest platform can exist for more than one type of mmo design. You see it all the time on the emulated servers.

    You don't need a new game client nor server code to accomplish it. Just make a server editor program that allows people to design their own server using the Everquest assets, game client, and servers, and the industry would be amazed at what the creativity of the players can come up with.

    It could point the industry in to new highly profitable directions that they might have never thought about before.
  18. Hadesborne Augur

    Let's be honest here. the reward for killing mobs in certain zones over others should ONLY be the loot. The experience gain for all mobs of a certain level should be normalized across the board. THEN if you want loot then you better go camp the harder zones for it. There is your risk vs reward model. This would spread people out across more zones effectively.
    Risiko and Aneuren like this.
  19. Rothj Augur

    This isn't really a good model because it would only reward going to the safest zones. This is the entire point of zem, loot isn't a good motivating factor to make normal exp groups go there.
  20. Ulain Journeyman

    So instead of variance, people go to the same 5 zones 1-50/60 for the past 9 years. No, we NEED to have "risk/reward" in this 20 year old game where the gameplay is so slow you can play several characters at once.

    People like you are hilarious.

Share This Page