Btw, there is a new developer's post at the (Japanese) beta tester's site
that explains the whole system in minute detail. Talk about fast reaction ^.^/
Basically it's 8 hours per week @100% Skill increase, then dwindling to 0
in 10% increments during the following 7 hours. However, this is class-specific.
So playing another class will give you a fresh 100% start for that class for 8 hours.
As pysical level is shared between classes, however, after 8 hours/week it's
down the road no matter what.
And SE seems pretty adamant about that.
Which I, personally cheer them for. Some people simply have to be guided to
get a life. Or play WoW. Or a Korean Grinder.
Of course, you CAN play longer without switching classes and you WILL get EXP.
But by playing double the "normal" time for that class (16 hours) will net you
only 150% of what a 8-hour-player gets.
The only thing SE did wrong was naming this a "fatigue/penalty" system. If they had
stated that "for the first 8 hours every week, you'll get a 100% EXP bonus. Yay!"
everybody would have been happy. Although technically this would be the same thing.
That doesn't sound right to me, as "8 hours/week" would amount to a little over 1 hour/day on any one class and that sounds TOO extreme to be serving the (supposed) intended purpose. It also does not explain what happens with the "surplus EXP" players are supposedly "gaining."
If it were simply an EXP cut, I don't know why the game would be coded to show us that we "gained x amount of surplus EXP." I don't even think the term "surplus" would be used if that were the case, as a "surplus" refers to an amount of a product that is in excess of what is needed (the product being EXP in this case), however that excess product still exists somewhere; it IS the surplus. If we were JUST "not getting as much EXP as we did before", surplus would not be an accurate term. Then it would be a fatigue system and I'd imagine the text would go from something like "You gain 200 EXP for killing Monster X." to "You gain a fatigued 100 EXP for killing Monster X." I'm sure it would be worded better, but you see my point.
It makes more sense to me that it works, as some beta players have assumed, to "transfer" some of that surplus EXP to other classes as a kind of EXP bonus. Not necessarily 100 EXP directly to them, but into a pool of "bonus" EXP that goes toward any class you level that is not currently under the effect of surplus. I know that doesn't alleviate the problem of the players who are only concerned with seeing their main class' number go up, but it might be a slightly better explanation for the ones who are concerned because they love playing one job and don't want to be forced to play others. Yes, it's true that they won't be getting as much EXP toward that class, but they're still getting an EXP bonus towards the "unappealing" classes that they may have to level anyway (due to the ability share system), similar to sub jobs as others have said. In other words, they can play the class they do like MORE, in order to be able to play their "sub jobs" LESS. Still, I don't think we should be forced to do that at all, but it is a little more palatable than the idea of EXP being lost straight into the void.
It's true that Tanaka should have been able to forsee the issue if he was implementing a system like that without explanation. I don't blame anyone for coming up with "wild speculations." I did pretty much the same thing, though we were almost excessively up in arms about the situation. I'm curious about how much SE really explained about any of the other systems in-game. Is it that this is just another one of many things that they did not explain before giving it to us to test, or is it "conveniently" the one thing we despise that they chose not to explain? In the first case I can understand how we come off looking a little bit ignorant; if we were okay with something not being explained (because it doesn't affect us negatively) but not okay with another thing being explained (because it does affect us negatively), then that's being a bit hypocritical, especially if we are using the argument "well, you should have told us because you wanted us to test it!" That's something that should be true of all things, whether we like them or not. If it's the other case (where SE is, for some reason, purposely lacking explanation on this one aspect of the game), then **** right he should have expected this because it is a purposely deceptive attitude (assuming everything else is explained to the testers' satisfaction) and not one that should be used when you're trying to test something. I'm assuming the truth is somewhere in the middle, but as I'm not in beta I have to ask to be sure. Edited, Aug 25th 2010 9:37am by Kaelia88