Question about the AA change

[Idracab]

Ok, so I did some light reading on the EQLive boards *whimper* and came away with the following understanding about the recent AA changes ...

The bonus is additive instead of multiplicative and is a smooth line (no big drops from 1 AA to the next in terms on xp gained).

What I'm interested in is the first point above; the bonus is additive instead of multiplicative. This means that if you have 4 AA point and you kill the hardest red con mob, netting fifty million xp toward AA, you get exactly x amount of bonus AA. If you have 4 AA points and you kill the lowest con green mob, you get the same x amount of bonus AA as above.

For my purposes, I posit the following scenario:

You are in a group killing low con green mobs. So low, in fact, that you get ONE point of AA xp per kill (yes I know this can't happen ... work with me here people!). Given the bonus AA xp characters get now, how many kills do you need to get 1 AA point.

The reason I ask this is simply because we ADD the xp bonus. This means it's a set rate every time. So it should be possible to know exactly how many kills are required to get 1 AA, because the bonus rate gain is independent of things like levels or other bonuses.

I would normally ask this on the EQLive boards, but my subscription expired a couple weeks ago, so I can't post there. I figure Samanna is the best source of EQ infoz these days, so it would be the best place to ask this question.

So ... anybody know?

Oh, and one more question that I didn't find out (or skimmed over) - does Lesson of the Devoted double the amount of bonus AA xp gained?

[Unmei]

Lesson does not impact the new AA bonus XP.

It is designed to be the same under -all- circumstances. It ignores ZEM, it ignores lesson.

[Datzy]

Hmm, not sure i can agree with that, When the AA' exp patch went live, I was in ship and was getting 14% per kill, and with lesson was getting 23-22% per kill depending on mob. Maybe that is changed now, but for sure when it went live LOTD did effect aa' exp.

[Grammaw]

LoTD effects the base aa points, but not the bonus exp added for lower aa totalled toons.

[Sowslow]

[quote="Datzy"]Hmm, not sure i can agree with that, When the AA' exp patch went live, I was in ship and was getting 14% per kill, and with lesson was getting 23-22% per kill depending on mob. Maybe that is changed now, but for sure when it went live LOTD did effect aa' exp.[/quote]
So if I understand the AA exp, in this example he gets about 8% of exp from the kill and 6% added based on the number of AAs. With lesson running it doubles the 8% to 16% and then adds the 6% again? Is that correct?

[Grammaw]

That is my understanding, with the caveat that the (in your example) 6% bonus would be a fixed number added to the end. 6% of a doubled aa base would be doubled as well.

[Veril]

This is what they mean by addative, not multiplicative:

Lets say you have 1-4 AA. The "AA Boost Number" at this point is 2.25, which is 1 (the normal XP) + 1.25 (bonus XP)

Assuming that your share of the Mob's XP (due to group size and your level vs the mob level) is 100XP

That 100XP gets multiplied by the zone bonus (lets say is 1.5 as you are in a hot zone) and then by the LotD bonus (lets say 2) and the Mob Difficulty bonus (lets say 1.2).
So the 100 becomes 100 * 1.5 * 2 * 1.2 = 360XP.

The AA boost is 1.25 * 100 = 125 (this ignores the zone, mob and lotd type modifiers)

The total XP you get is the sum of those two numbers (360 and 125): 485

[Idracab]

So it still does matter what mobs you fight.

In other words, if you have 0 AA, you do not get a base boost of 6% (for example) on each mob you kill. So if you decide to slaughter low green mobs that normally give you 1% every three kills, you might get getting 1% every 2.75 kills now. So instead of a flat bonus per kill based on your AA level, it's still based off the comparible level of your group to the mob. Good to know.

Anyway, while I'm still on the topic, I personally hate the design decision to have AA based off the highest level character in the group, period. This has always struck me as short sighted, and often penalizes people for grouping even slightly outside of their level range. I really wish SoE would change this, because there are so many possible solutions to the problem of 'high level powerlevels low level' that it seems backwards and counter intuitive to keep with the current system.

For example, take the group average minus 5 for the highest level character. So the average for a level 80 and 54 (a 'typical' expliot scenario - highest level grouped with the lowest level possible) would be level 67. However, highest level - 5 means the average group level would be 75. So instead of getting DB xp (usually the best type) down to level 62 (which would be carnage for most classes), you get DB xp to level 70, which I think is much more reasonable.

In a more typical group, you might have two level 72s, a level 73, and two 74s killing level 74 mobs. This is 'white con' xp and is really nice for that particular group. So you invite a level 80 druid, and suddenly that AA xp will PLUMMET. That one level 80 character will drop the AA xp 3 or 4 times, simply by being in the group (the mobs would now be considered Light Blue instead of White cons). With the example above, the total number of levels is 445, divided by 6 would = level 74. So by adding a level 80, you are bringing the average level up to 74, so the mob con would remain 'white' instead of dropping it to light blue.

As a final quick example, you have five level 65 characters and add a level 80. Average level for the six would be 67.5, but top level - 5 means the average group level is 75. So this system would prevent obvious *coughcough* exploits like having one high level player invalidate the challenge for lower level characters, while still allowing people to group outside a tightly defined level range (+/- one level) and not destroy their AA xp.

[Veril]

A level 80 is an order of magnitude more powerful than a 54. basing the group on the 80 is the sensible way. 20 mobs that are db to the 54 can beat on the 80 and not do anything significant

[Idracab]

[Veril]

The power level of a character (especially a melee) 5 levels higher than the rest of the group is disproportionaly large compared to the ratio of the levels difference between the two. Adding that one single level 80 character lets the level 75 group do things they couldn't do before. That's the magnitude of the difference.

Mathematically: A level 75' is 93% of a level 80. So if you added a single 75 out of group to a level 75 group, that would be the better than replacing a 75 with an 80 in group. Experience suggests this is not so.

A 75 in solteris gear has 500hp/slot. An 80 in Crystallos gear has 750hp per slot. That's 50% more HP. And they have more AC, and do 50% more damage. They aren't just a little bit better that are massivly better.

This effect is noted far more with melees than with casters and priests, because melees are the ones taking damage. With a good tank, the rest of the group doesn't matter. But you can't easily apply the XP scaling rules for tanks and not for others.

[Idracab]

So Everquest should be a game where people only play + or - 1 level of each other, or they shouldn't be grouping?

You could just as easily say that a level 80 raid equipped character is twice as powerful (four times as powerful? perhaps 10 times?) as a level 80 group geared character. Should we start making definitions there as well? Hell, I think it's fair to say a level 75 raid geared player is probably equally as powerful as a group geared 80 level player, and I'm sure the case could easily be made that the raid geared person is MORE powerful (higher level focus / shielding / ac / hp / everything) even when 5 levels lower using slightly less powerful spells.

Perhaps SoE should start defining things like 'bazaar geared', 'group geared', and 'raid geared', and penalize people for jumping between classes. Have a bazaar geared character exploiting the system by grouping with raid geared characters? XP slashed by 75% to prevent this exploit. It's only fair.

[Veril]

[Idracab]

I do understand that's the way the current system is. I also understand that yes, in general, a level 80 character will improve the 'power' of a group moreso then a level 75 character.

However, the current setup is overly harsh, in my opinion. If you have five level 74 characters in a group fighting white con mobs, one might say they are taking on challenging content and the xp gains are commensurate. By adding one level 80 character, that 'white con' xp suddenly becomes 'light blue con' xp. To get back to the level they were at before, this group would have to start fighting level 80 mobs (ie. white con to the highest level).

Now a case could be made this is fair from a design standpoint. In other words, it looks good on paper. But have you EVER grouped with someone higher level then you? Did you consider it an exploit to have a character 6 levels higher in a group with you, such that you would agree to have your AA xp output cut, perhaps by a drastic amount?

Everquest is a social game. Part of the fun, for some people, is meeting new people. However, Everquest is also an older game, and in many ways has become more clique-y as time has gone by. I remember Back In The Day that I could log in and get a pickup group relatively quickly. Last time I logged on (a few months ago), I remember being on my shaman casually soloing in Loping Plains, do some orc/werewolf quest. I had my lfg on. I finished the quest, tore through a lotd, played for another little bit, then went afk. When I came back, I had been online maybe 90 - 120 minutes. During prime time. As a shaman (a relatively desirable class). I hadn't had one tell asking if I wanted a group. Now yes, I know, make my own group. Join a guild. Don't suck so much. But what it came down to was that for about 2 hours during prime time, I wasn't invited to a group as a shaman. This was my experience more often than not (as a full time casual player).

I can't help but wonder if some lower level groups bypassed me, because they were working on AA xp (these days, even by the devs admission, you need 500 AA at level 80 to be 'tuned' for the easiest zones), and didn't want a level 80 to kill their AA xp gain for the average improvement I would bring them. I doubt I could help the group kill 4 times faster, which is about the about of AA xp I would be taking from them.

The point is, in the end, Everquest needs to be more open then ever. Player numbers are down, there are more instanced zones (which means less casual PUGs), and in general there is a more entrenched player base (people who have been playing years and have a solid guild / group of friends). Basically it is more difficult than ever ... in my opinion ... to get a group these days. And by having a design decision that explicitly states "if you group with someone outside your tight level range, your AA xp gain will be negatively affected", is, again in my opinion, a Very Bad Thing(tm).

[Veril]