Hell Levels?

[Oxboy5]

<DIV>Man, grouped or solo, level 21 for my pally seems like a major wall. :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Question: did EQLive ever get rid of those 30, 35, etc Hell Levels?  I quit around lvl 32 about 6 mos after release and never went back.  What was the purpose of these other than to infuriate the player?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Please say EQ2 has done away with these.....</DIV>

[Aenari]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oxboy555 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Man, grouped or solo, level 21 for my pally seems like a major wall. :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Question: did EQLive ever get rid of those 30, 35, etc Hell Levels?  I quit around lvl 32 about 6 mos after release and never went back.  What was the purpose of these other than to infuriate the player?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Please say EQ2 has done away with these.....</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Hell levels were in fact, a bug.  Nice, eh?

[Kalvarin]

<DIV>They were very clear when I played that they weren't bugs - they were intentional to add challenge and "reward" to those certain levels.. because they were major stepping stones in the path to 50. (50 at the time). However, when the majority of the player base hit those levels and realized just how much a pain they were.. SOE removed them. I would imagine they learned from their mistakes in EQ2.</DIV>

[Aenari]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kalvarin wrote:<BR> <DIV>They were very clear when I played that they weren't bugs - they were intentional to add challenge and "reward" to those certain levels.. because they were major stepping stones in the path to 50. (50 at the time). However, when the majority of the player base hit those levels and realized just how much a pain they were.. SOE removed them. I would imagine they learned from their mistakes in EQ2.</DIV><BR> <HR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'm fairly certain that it was announced that it was a mathematical error and therefore a bug.</DIV>

[Aenari]

<DIV>I did a cursory search and it's tough to find articles related but I dug out this from <STRONG>eq.castersrealm.com </STRONG>:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>HELL FROZE OVER</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rumors from the Safehouse messages boards are that as part of next weeks changes, all hell levels (with the exception of 54 and 59) will be removed from the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Since this is just a rumor at the moment we can't provide any further details on how Sony may address their previous reasons for <STRONG>not being able to fix hell levels </STRONG>(i.e. it would cause all players who had finished those levels already to gain massive experience).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wonderful news if this goes through for new players and old players wishing to make alts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Submitted by Baelish, 3.25 AM.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>That was March 14, 2002.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Go back a bit more and we got ... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>DAMNED TO HELL FOR ETERNITY</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Abashi stated once again that hell levels would not be changing any time in the near future and all "<STRONG>fixes</STRONG>" were merely workarounds that would not be viable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Submitted by Kivlan, 12:19 AM.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That was July 6th, 2000.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's pretty clear to me that hell levels were a <EM>mistake</EM>.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Axxon]

<DIV>Well, 21 is turning out to be hellish for me, but only because I am working off a 50% XP debt from doing AQ3 in Stormhold.  :smileyvery-happy:  </DIV>

[Dewfi]

Lv 21 has pretty much flew by for me...and yea the Hell Levels in EQ1 were a mathmatical error in the Exp system.There are no Hell Levels in EQ2, atleast none that anyone has talked about.

[DaneKa]

<DIV>I'm nearly to 21, and it's flying for me too...AQ's 1 & 2 have gotten me something like 75% experience, and that's with some debt under my belt.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From everything that I've heard, even if they're the only thing you do, starting at 20 and going through all 6 AQ's will get you close to 24.</DIV>

[RioR]

<DIV>It was announced, "loud and proud", by SOE that hell levels in EQ1 were a mathematical error. Also there are no hell levels in EQ2. So we were told by SOE while game was being developed. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[cult]

Hehe, my personal Hell Level was without doubt going from 19 to 20. Much so because i was so looking forward to the new armor, and the steed. 21 on other hand, just flew by <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[JarredDarque]

<DIV>I had problems with lvl 17   weird time to have problems I flew through 18-22   think I did 18 in  amtter of two hours.  got 40% of 23 and 20% of 24 done in about 3 hours the other day.....17 took me two days though..the only reason I find scertian lvls may be harder,  is lack of a soloable mobs  or b  high enough but not to high group mobs </DIV>

[Wolfwind]

<DIV>As I remember, it was due to the levels being set up as blocks, so it took X amount of experience to move from, say, 21-30, 31-40, etc.  I don't remember, were Hell levels on the 0s and 5s, or just on the 0s? Anyway, if I am remembering this correctly, each block had an amount of experience that was needed to progress through it that was SUPPOSED to be equally distributed among each level within the block.  What ACTUALLY happened (again, my memory working here) was that the experience pool was scaled across the block with smallest amounts in the first levels, and a significantly larger block of exp at the last level of the block.  Deaths caused a proportionally large amount of exp to be lost, and you had to be really far into the level to avoid losing level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, I remember sitting in the window room in SolB for hours on end to get out of Hell.  I really hope it doesn't intrude here )</DIV>

[SythRavenha]

<DIV>My biggest problem areas have seemed to be 19 and 20 so far.  The lack of decent solable creatures is killing me.  The wolves & bears in NW Antonica still con yellow, but they don't even give 1% per kill, and it frequently takes 3 kills to move 1%.  Three yellows to move 1% is quite ridiculous considering how slowly paladins kill things.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At least 20 is going a little better.  I made the mistake of ding a couple of pickup groups while I was 19.  Ended up with 14% debt that took forever to solo off.  Pickup groups in this game typically range from bad to horrible it seems.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The biggest problems I have with grouping is we need to take on group mobs, and at present I just don't have the money to get really decent gear.  Those TS group mobs shred thru medium armor tanks faster than a healer could ever possibly keep up, which is why all these group snow need 2 dedicated healers.  Not to mention the fact that it seems about half the healers I play with don't seem to pay attention very well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone I have talked to says 22 is a huge help to Pallies.  We can self heal so we can start really soloing those TS mobs for decent XP, and by that level should have done enough of the AQ's or scrounged up enough money to mostly be in heavy armor, or at least very nice chain.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for EQ1.  The 'Hell' levels were intended.  The 'bug' everyone is talking about is what happened when they originally tried to remove the 'Hell' levels and made things even worse somehow.  Look it up.  In fact, one of the posters claiming it was a bug here included a couple of quotes that hint directly at the bug issue being a bug with the fix, not that the original 'Hell' levels were bugs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At least that is the way I remember it, but it was over a year ago now, so who knows what they may have said after that.</DIV>

[hawnz]

<DIV>if you want good solo xp, you need to stop soloing solo flagged mobs.  a green con group flagged mob will net you many times more xp than a yellow or orange con solo flagged mob.  try the elks in the archer woods in antonica.  </DIV>