As it stands, I don't think anybody would argue that Berserkers as a class are better than Warriors. Tweaks that have happened lately have helped Berserkers, but in terms of overall ability Warrrior always seems to be the better choice. As such does it make sense that Berserkers have an EXP penalty and warriors don't?
Also Berserkers are always going to con die quickly, why not make it that bit easier to get to pin in the first place?
the government subsidizing a policy is usually not smart b/c it leads to unintended consequences. subsidizing berserkers would seem to fit in that mold, even though i agree any straight melee class should be more accommodated in the game, so it's a dilemma.
While I agree in part, I think that some races that are able to be berserkers would be overpowered.
Surely EXP change wouldn't make any difference at Pin, and thats where "overpowered" kicks in, as before Pinn there are powerpeaks all over the place anyway where certain combos are overpowered.
Honestly, I never understood why we had xp pens at all. If the game is meant to be played at 50, and that is where it is balanced at, then what point is there in having a Elf Paladin be harder to rank than a Human Paladin?
Some would say that Elf Paladin's are better. Okay, that's just, like, you're opinion, man. But I hear time and time again how FL is balanced at 50. So why make it so much harder to rank an elf paladin over say, a human warrior?
If it's because it "balances" the game on the way to 50, what's the point in that if the game is intended to be played at peak? Just seems strange to me.
a-g
That made so much sense I just exploded. :eek:
Honestly, I never understood why we had xp pens at all. If the game is meant to be played at 50, and that is where it is balanced at, then what point is there in having a Elf Paladin be harder to rank than a Human Paladin?
Some would say that Elf Paladin's are better. Okay, that's just, like, you're opinion, man. But I hear time and time again how FL is balanced at 50. So why make it so much harder to rank an elf paladin over say, a human warrior?
If it's because it "balances" the game on the way to 50, what's the point in that if the game is intended to be played at peak? Just seems strange to me.
a-g
You have to take into consideration PK ranges. A level 50 Elf Paladin reaching down to fight a level 42 human dark-knight. Or a level 50 Drow Shaman reaching down to fight a level 42 Ogre Warrior.
You have to take into consideration PK ranges. A level 50 Elf Paladin reaching down to fight a level 42 human dark-knight. Or a level 50 Drow Shaman reaching down to fight a level 42 Ogre Warrior.
Why not have everyone have the same exp penalty and pk range 
'aw heck. just make everyone start at 50, with appropriate pk range, update the low level rares, and make the scare crows stronger. Fixes everything. and newbs can start out as adventurer who can't pk.
As fun as all of these posts have been, I really think this an idea that could stand looking at, regardless of the thread derailament.
Argument for removing Berserker Exp penalty.
**** give people more of a reason to level an underused class.
**** Bring them in-line with warriors.
**** Balance the fact that Berserkers die quickly and as such don't live long at 50.
Reasons against.
**** Possible Pwnage in low level pk due to pk ranges being easier on said Berserker.
'The pwnage at lower levels would be almost garunteed, since i think ogre zerks own in the 20s and low 30s. This would give protection from higher ranked peeps as well as making any race zerk combo stronger at the low levels. other than that. i think its a good idea.
You think zerks would rock the 20s/30s super-hard? How about a level 50 decked caballed zerk able to pound on level 42s?
You have to take into consideration PK ranges. A level 50 Elf Paladin reaching down to fight a level 42 human dark-knight. Or a level 50 Drow Shaman reaching down to fight a level 42 Ogre Warrior.
How is a drow shaman at 50 beating on a 42 ogre warrior any different from a human shaman doing the same? I guess that's my basic question.
If it's a basic stance of a level 50 paladin, or any class, beating on lower level players easier than any other class, just limit their ranges based on that fact alone. Have a pk range guided by class alone?
The number one reason I don't play Elves, blademasters, paladins, etc. is because of xp pen. But that's just my reasoning, and it's certinly not the reasoning for many other players. And, in all honesty, the current system isn't broke. So why fix it? But as for berserkers's pen.:
It's kinda a rough and tumble road there. As they have a massive powerspike at the lower levels that is rounded out by the exp pen, but as they get higher it severly limits them. At least that's my understanding from the posts I've read (haven't pinn a zerk). I suppose you could look at it by way of at the lower levels the xp difference between classes isn't much, so a one or two level increase in their range isn't that big of a deal.
And there are many inncentives for moving up the ranks and not just sitting still. As it stands, there is only two reasons to sit at the lower ranks: Training and waiting on a quest app. There are systems in place to prevent people from sitting at one level and just going on a killing spree... I've seen it with my own two eyes, and an immortal doesn't need to be on for it to be present and active.
So, I guess my point is: I really don't understand why the Berserker has a 250 xp pen. Hrm. Could have summed all that up in a lot less words, but would that be my style? 
a-g
You think zerks would rock the 20s/30s super-hard? How about a level 50 decked caballed zerk able to pound on level 42s?
Is there a level 50 decked caballed anything that wouldn't rock a 42?
a-g
Something played by Pali probably
Aulian...you spelled Deykari wrong.
Aulian's just mad that he's never able to take me out. 
Well here's another quick tid-bit since everyone is throwing out all these pali/shaman/berserk references. A level 42 Pali vs a Pinn MIGHT and WILL PROBABLY survive the encounter if played right. A Shaman MIGHT and MIGHT survive the encounter. A zerk won't, pure and simple. So if we're throwing around the 42 vs 50 ideas there it is right there.
Yea, he had a nice place picked out and everything. He was going to suggest you get the Veal Scallopini.
On a side note. Zerks are not "stronger" than warriors, they are not weaker. It is trading off, if you are basing your zerks on how they compare to warriors, then your not playing a zerk right. Yea they are both strictly melee, but that is about where there similarities end, you do NOT play the same at all. Most warriors are all about dirt and their warrior lore, berserkers have to constantly be changing in the course of a fight, and willing to take huge risks that you don't take on warriors. I think a zerk having an exp pen is fine as is, because there are things zerks do that warriors just can't.
A level 42 Pali vs a Pinn MIGHT and WILL PROBABLY survive the encounter if played right.
Oh, you bet I'll survive.