Questions Verant won't give answers to.
xlar...@my-deja.com
the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer service and
answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I don't care - I just
want thruthful ones). Anyways....
#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
#2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything officially from
Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it lifting you
higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit from recasting, why
was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying way) and not fixed?
Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It does not fall under the
category of "well it was something new/secret")
#3)After all the posts from people who like to solo, why isn't this an
option yet? There is no need to "buff up" monsters to accomplish this,
just make them move in packs.
#4)After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why was only one
server added? Also, why is there no ability to move (one time only) a
pre-exsisting character to that new server? Economy doesn't really
matter. A skewed ecomony will "right" itself given time, and the
overcrowding issue far outweighs any initial skewing of the economy.
#5)In regards to #4, Verants initial statements when I purchased the
game last April were that a good server population was approximately
1200 players. Why was this upped recently to 1800+ in the face of
overcrowding complaints? While the hardware may be able to handle 1800+
users, it appears that the players cannot handle that many. I.E. New
York city holds approx. 6-7 million people (probably more). At full
capacity, it could probably house double that. The problem lies with
putting that many people together within a certain area. Irratibility
goes up, crime raises (Kill Stealing comes to mind).
#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining about
how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the change was
made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't have full
stats on this and am going by what I have personally seen on this NG).
Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
appear not happy.
#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes (even if
you say they are enhancements) appear to have the effect of slowing
player level advancement?
I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this, or if I do,
they will be the usual round of PR. In the case that I am proven wrong
on this:
Thank you for your time,
Brent M. Rose
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sam Schlansky
>Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up
>in the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer
>service and answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I
>don't care - I just want thruthful ones). Anyways....
>
>#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
A bug. They can't fix it, because the fix would give everybody a lot
of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
>#2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything officially
>from Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it
>lifting you higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit
>from recasting, why was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying
>way) and not fixed? Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It
>does not fall under the category of "well it was something
>new/secret")
It was nerfed because an *item* (the pegasus feather cloak) when
clicked on really fast, could let you get to areas where you're not
supposed to be.
It was nerfed and not fixed because they're overworked and didn't
want to allocate enough time to fix it right.
It wasn't in the patch message because their community communication
is nonexistant.
>#3)After all the posts from people who like to solo, why isn't
>this an option yet? There is no need to "buff up" monsters to
>accomplish this, just make them move in packs.
How do you then solo a pack?
Everquest is a group-oriented game. There's no way to allow real
soloing without removing class inter-dependence, which takes away the
whole point of unique classes in the first place.
>#4)After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why was
>only one server added?
Because it's VERY expensive to add a new server, and they have no
real way of combining servers if usage drops significantly (ie, TZ
and VZ). Thus, if the server never takes off or the usage drops after
awhile, they just wasted a lot of money.
>Also, why is there no ability to move (one
>time only) a pre-exsisting character to that new server?
Because there's no way to automatically do it. It would take a human
being. Everquest doesn't have a central name server, so every
transfer would have to be done manually, including resolving name
conflicts.
>Economy
>doesn't really matter. A skewed ecomony will "right" itself given
>time, and the overcrowding issue far outweighs any initial skewing
>of the economy.
See above.
>#5)In regards to #4, Verants initial statements when I purchased
>the game last April were that a good server population was
>approximately 1200 players. Why was this upped recently to 1800+
>in the face of overcrowding complaints? While the hardware may be
>able to handle 1800+ users, it appears that the players cannot
>handle that many. I.E. New York city holds approx. 6-7 million
>people (probably more). At full capacity, it could probably house
>double that. The problem lies with putting that many people
>together within a certain area. Irratibility goes up, crime raises
>(Kill Stealing comes to mind).
No, their initial statements WERE 1500 players, and I agree that the
game is pretty good with 1500 max.
It was raised to 1800 because the new zones aren't online yet. Note
they said that it will REMAIN 1800, even when Paineel, Air, The Hole,
and all of Kunark are added.
>#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining
>about how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the
>change was made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I
>don't have full stats on this and am going by what I have
>personally seen on this NG). Monks were apparently fine with how
>it worked and happy. Now they appear not happy.
Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
thought that was a bit much.
>#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes (even
>if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the effect of
>slowing player level advancement?
ANY nerf slows player advancement, ANY enhancement speeds it. They
have a lot more (real) nerfs than enhancements in the list. It
appears that way because that's how it truly is.
That said, they're not LOOKING to slow us down; the checks and
balances they felt were necessary to preserve the game's integrity
just seem to have had that effect.
>I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this, or if I
>do, they will be the usual round of PR. In the case that I am
>proven wrong on this:
>Thank you for your time,
I'm not Verant, but the above is accurate.
Sam
--
/| Sam Schlansky <sam[at]operation3d[dot]com>
/| I speak for myself only unless noted otherwise.
/| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
/| 3DNews.net: News With Perspective!
/| 3DHardware.net: Taking Your Machine To The Third Dimension!
/| Remove "deletethis" to email.
jcm...@my-deja.com
perferring to take my vague "one liner" answers straight from Brad or
the helpless servants at Verant. And you are correct, you won't get a
detailed answer. My biggest complaint is the overcrowding. How can it
be justifiable for me to roam around for hours looking for a group, or
something to solo? I picked the necro class because I enjoyed
soloing. But there is nothing much to solo with over two thirds of the
server over 30. Absolutely nothing is in place to dynamically adjust
for server demographics. "Just keep throwing em in", seems to be
Verants mindless philosophy. I am so pissed that AC's graphics sucked
so bad, or I would be playing another game. Perhaps in the coming year
the bozos will get some competition. ;)
In article <83r17m$t12$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
xlar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up in
> the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer service and
> answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I don't care - I just
> want thruthful ones). Anyways....
>
> #1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>
> #2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything officially from
> Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it lifting you
> higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit from recasting, why
> was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying way) and not fixed?
> Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It does not fall under the
> category of "well it was something new/secret")
>
> #3)After all the posts from people who like to solo, why isn't this an
> option yet? There is no need to "buff up" monsters to accomplish this,
> just make them move in packs.
>
> #4)After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why was only
one
> server added? Also, why is there no ability to move (one time only) a
> pre-exsisting character to that new server? Economy doesn't really
> matter. A skewed ecomony will "right" itself given time, and the
> overcrowding issue far outweighs any initial skewing of the economy.
>
> #5)In regards to #4, Verants initial statements when I purchased the
> game last April were that a good server population was approximately
> 1200 players. Why was this upped recently to 1800+ in the face of
> overcrowding complaints? While the hardware may be able to handle
1800+
> users, it appears that the players cannot handle that many. I.E. New
> York city holds approx. 6-7 million people (probably more). At full
> capacity, it could probably house double that. The problem lies with
> putting that many people together within a certain area. Irratibility
> goes up, crime raises (Kill Stealing comes to mind).
>
> #6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining about
> how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the change
was
> made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't have full
> stats on this and am going by what I have personally seen on this NG).
> Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
> appear not happy.
>
> #7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes (even if
> you say they are enhancements) appear to have the effect of slowing
> player level advancement?
>
> I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this, or if I do,
> they will be the usual round of PR. In the case that I am proven
wrong
> on this:
> Thank you for your time,
>
jcm...@my-deja.com
s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam Schlansky) wrote:
> xlar...@my-deja.com wrote in <83r17m$t12$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up
> >in the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer
> >service and answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I
> >don't care - I just want thruthful ones). Anyways....
> >
> >#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>
> of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
>
> >from Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it
> >lifting you higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit
> >from recasting, why was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying
> >way) and not fixed? Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It
> >does not fall under the category of "well it was something
> >new/secret")
>
> clicked on really fast, could let you get to areas where you're not
> supposed to be.
>
> It was nerfed and not fixed because they're overworked and didn't
> want to allocate enough time to fix it right.
>
> It wasn't in the patch message because their community communication
> is nonexistant.
>
> >this an option yet? There is no need to "buff up" monsters to
> >accomplish this, just make them move in packs.
>
>
> Everquest is a group-oriented game. There's no way to allow real
> soloing without removing class inter-dependence, which takes away the
> whole point of unique classes in the first place.
>
> >only one server added?
>
> real way of combining servers if usage drops significantly (ie, TZ
> and VZ). Thus, if the server never takes off or the usage drops after
> awhile, they just wasted a lot of money.
>
> >time only) a pre-exsisting character to that new server?
>
> being. Everquest doesn't have a central name server, so every
> transfer would have to be done manually, including resolving name
> conflicts.
>
> >doesn't really matter. A skewed ecomony will "right" itself given
> >time, and the overcrowding issue far outweighs any initial skewing
> >of the economy.
>
>
> >#5)In regards to #4, Verants initial statements when I purchased
> >the game last April were that a good server population was
> >approximately 1200 players. Why was this upped recently to 1800+
> >in the face of overcrowding complaints? While the hardware may be
> >able to handle 1800+ users, it appears that the players cannot
> >handle that many. I.E. New York city holds approx. 6-7 million
> >people (probably more). At full capacity, it could probably house
> >double that. The problem lies with putting that many people
> >together within a certain area. Irratibility goes up, crime raises
> >(Kill Stealing comes to mind).
>
> game is pretty good with 1500 max.
Have to disagree here. 1500 positively SUCKS if over two thirds seem to
be camping or hunting what YOU are hunting. Setting a static maximun
number is fine, but you need to adjust for a top heavy unbalanced
server (such as Cazic Thule or any of the original servers started in
March). Or not, and encourage people to seek entertainment elsewhere.
About the only time I log on now are extrememly odd hours. I have
better things to do than wander around begging for a group, or watching
druids pull giants before they have had a chance to take even one step
after spawning.
>
> It was raised to 1800 because the new zones aren't online yet. Note
> they said that it will REMAIN 1800, even when Paineel, Air, The Hole,
> and all of Kunark are added.
>
> >#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining
> >about how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the
> >change was made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I
> >don't have full stats on this and am going by what I have
> >personally seen on this NG). Monks were apparently fine with how
> >it worked and happy. Now they appear not happy.
>
> Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
> Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
> thought that was a bit much.
>
> >#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes (even
> >if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the effect of
> >slowing player level advancement?
>
> ANY nerf slows player advancement, ANY enhancement speeds it. They
> have a lot more (real) nerfs than enhancements in the list. It
> appears that way because that's how it truly is.
>
> That said, they're not LOOKING to slow us down; the checks and
> balances they felt were necessary to preserve the game's integrity
> just seem to have had that effect.
>
> >I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this, or if I
> >do, they will be the usual round of PR. In the case that I am
> >proven wrong on this:
> >Thank you for your time,
>
> I'm not Verant, but the above is accurate.
>
> Sam
>
> --
>
> /| Sam Schlansky <sam[at]operation3d[dot]com>
> /| I speak for myself only unless noted otherwise.
> /| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
> /| 3DNews.net: News With Perspective!
> /| 3DHardware.net: Taking Your Machine To The Third Dimension!
> /| Remove "deletethis" to email.
>
Fabno Licious
> Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up in
> the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer service and
> answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I don't care - I just
> want thruthful ones). Anyways....
>
> #1)Why are there Hell Levels?
Because at a hell level its hard to camp the hermit like this druid I know
*cough*
>
> #2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything officially from
> Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it lifting you
> higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit from recasting, why
> was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying way) and not fixed?
> Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It does not fall under the
> category of "well it was something new/secret")
I used levitate over and over on myself, but it was because floating trees
look sweet
[snip]
You forgot one:
#8)What is up with the billing server??!
Brian
Schlansky) wrote:
>Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
>Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
>thought that was a bit much.
SInce I have never been on a plane breakin (and probably never will
be) could someone explain how and why this is bad?
Brian
Calbik, 14th season Magician on Nameless
Sam Schlansky
<hd726so3em3qpoero...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:48:12 GMT, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com
>(Sam Schlansky) wrote:
>
>>Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
>>Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
>>thought that was a bit much.
>
>SInce I have never been on a plane breakin (and probably never
>will be) could someone explain how and why this is bad?
A monk pulled a GOD through a zone populated with seriously
asskicking monsters all the way to the zone-in point, safely.
It isn't obvious why they might see that as bad?
Paul V
s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam Schlansky) wrote:
>
> Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
> Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
> thought that was a bit much.
I see Brad's point but then why not make Innoruk smarter instead
of "enhancing" feign death? Make Innoruk immune to feign death. He is a
diety after all.
Shin
Sam Schlansky wrote in message <8EA485C0Cvi...@207.126.101.100>...
>xlar...@my-deja.com wrote in <83r17m$t12$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up
>>in the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer
>>service and answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I
>>don't care - I just want thruthful ones). Anyways....
>>
>>#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>
>of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
>
>>from Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it
>>lifting you higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit
>>from recasting, why was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying
>>way) and not fixed? Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It
>>does not fall under the category of "well it was something
>>new/secret")
>
>clicked on really fast, could let you get to areas where you're not
>supposed to be.
>
>It was nerfed and not fixed because they're overworked and didn't
>want to allocate enough time to fix it right.
>
They may be overworked, but this was just damn lazy of them.
>>#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining
>>about how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the
>>change was made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I
>>don't have full stats on this and am going by what I have
>>personally seen on this NG). Monks were apparently fine with how
>>it worked and happy. Now they appear not happy.
>
>Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
>Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
>thought that was a bit much.
>
More lazyness from Verant. Nerf the monk, but don't bother to fix the God.
After all the shit they got for doing it, woudn't it have been a hell of a
lot easier to just make Innoruk not fall for FD, peroid?
Honestly, would a god fall for FD? I think not.
David Gaines
these...Verants explanations:
xlar...@my-deja.com wrote in message <83r17m$t12$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up in
>the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer service and
>answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I don't care - I just
>want thruthful ones). Anyways....
>
>#2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything officially from
>Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it lifting you
>higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit from recasting, why
>was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying way) and not fixed?
>Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It does not fall under the
>category of "well it was something new/secret")
Verant: Thats correct, Levitate was nerfed because people were using a
cloak to get to the ceiling and go where they weren't supposed to.
ME: Terribly wrong way to fix this!
>
>#3)After all the posts from people who like to solo, why isn't this an
>option yet? There is no need to "buff up" monsters to accomplish this,
>just make them move in packs.
>
Verant: Some classes can solo better than others.
ME: I agree, some classes are more suited to soloing. A warrior is not,
will not, should not. A necro is. A wizard can.
>#4)After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why was only one
>server added? Also, why is there no ability to move (one time only) a
>pre-exsisting character to that new server? Economy doesn't really
>matter. A skewed ecomony will "right" itself given time, and the
>overcrowding issue far outweighs any initial skewing of the economy.
>
>#5)In regards to #4, Verants initial statements when I purchased the
>game last April were that a good server population was approximately
>1200 players. Why was this upped recently to 1800+ in the face of
>overcrowding complaints? While the hardware may be able to handle 1800+
>users, it appears that the players cannot handle that many. I.E. New
>York city holds approx. 6-7 million people (probably more). At full
>capacity, it could probably house double that. The problem lies with
>putting that many people together within a certain area. Irratibility
>goes up, crime raises (Kill Stealing comes to mind).
>
Verant has put in more zones, and majorly adjusted others. These new zones
mean more places for people to go, which means the player limit can be
raised to account for the new zones.
ME: If they double the size of the world, would you still want the same
player limit?
>#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining about
>how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the change was
>made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't have full
>stats on this and am going by what I have personally seen on this NG).
>Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
>appear not happy.
>
Verant: Because it let monks do something incredibly powerful without much
fear of failure. So powerful that it became unbalancing.
Me: I agree, a Monk was just too much a necessary component of high level
groups. I was hearing too much of "I'm not going to such and such zone
without a monk to pull", or "With a monk, you can hold that room with only x
people, but you need 3 full groups without a monk".
>#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes (even if
>you say they are enhancements) appear to have the effect of slowing
>player level advancement?
>
ME: You have bad perception. When they make something more powerful
(shadownight line of spells) this is often far overlooked by one of the
nerfs they do (monk feign death).
Dorian Brytestar
Same with the dungeons, FD was being used to only pull one target.
--
Dorian Brytestar
Lvl 41 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
Povar
"Brian" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hd726so3em3qpoero...@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:48:12 GMT, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam
: Schlansky) wrote:
:
: >Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
: >Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
: >thought that was a bit much.
: SInce I have never been on a plane breakin (and probably never will
: be) could someone explain how and why this is bad?
:
:
: Brian
Dorian Brytestar
out of many. FD pulling was bragged about as being the ultimate pulling technique.
I guess they didn't want people to selectively "pick" out their targets and ignore
others.
--
Dorian Brytestar
Lvl 41 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
Povar
"Shin" <ah...@capecod.net> wrote in message news:s62b3m...@corp.supernews.com...
:
: Sam Schlansky wrote in message <8EA485C0Cvi...@207.126.101.100>...
: >xlar...@my-deja.com wrote in <83r17m$t12$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
: >
: >>Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up
: >>in the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer
: >>service and answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I
: >>don't care - I just want thruthful ones). Anyways....
: >>
: >>#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
: >
: >A bug. They can't fix it, because the fix would give everybody a lot
: >of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
: >
: >>#2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything officially
: >>from Verant on this (I have read something about recasting it
: >>lifting you higher and higher). If this was due to an exploit
: >>from recasting, why was the spell nerfed (in an extremely annoying
: >>way) and not fixed? Also, why was this not in a patch message? (It
: >>does not fall under the category of "well it was something
: >>new/secret")
: >
: >It was nerfed because an *item* (the pegasus feather cloak) when
: >clicked on really fast, could let you get to areas where you're not
: >supposed to be.
: >
: >It was nerfed and not fixed because they're overworked and didn't
: >want to allocate enough time to fix it right.
: >
:
: They may be overworked, but this was just damn lazy of them.
:
:
: >>#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining
: >>about how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the
: >>change was made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I
: >>don't have full stats on this and am going by what I have
: >>personally seen on this NG). Monks were apparently fine with how
: >>it worked and happy. Now they appear not happy.
: >
: >Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
: >Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
: >thought that was a bit much.
: >
:
: More lazyness from Verant. Nerf the monk, but don't bother to fix the God.
:
:
:
:
:
Brian
Schlansky) wrote:
>n...@home.com (Brian) wrote in
><hd726so3em3qpoero...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:48:12 GMT, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com
>>(Sam Schlansky) wrote:
>>
>>>Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
>>>Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
>>>thought that was a bit much.
>>
>>SInce I have never been on a plane breakin (and probably never
>>will be) could someone explain how and why this is bad?
>
>A monk pulled a GOD through a zone populated with seriously
>asskicking monsters all the way to the zone-in point, safely.
>
>It isn't obvious why they might see that as bad?
Since I have never been to a Plane, much less seen one, no I don't see
why this is bad. Seriously... who cares if someone pulled a god to
the zone? Or is the problem that the group the monk was in was able
to fight the god without having to fight the "seriously asskicking
monsters"? <the light begins to get brighter>
Olaf
news:8EA485C0Cvi...@207.126.101.100...
> xlar...@my-deja.com wrote in <83r17m$t12$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> >Also, why is there no ability to move (one
> >time only) a pre-exsisting character to that new server?
>
> Because there's no way to automatically do it. It would take a human
> being. Everquest doesn't have a central name server, so every
> transfer would have to be done manually, including resolving name
> conflicts.
What they should do is put up a webpage or even just an email address asking
people if they want to switch to a new server about a week or so before the
new server is set to go live. They take say 50 players from each level
range 10-19, 20-29, etc. They just have to check THOSE names, as there are
no new players (yet) on the new servers. Then when the patch goes live,
those characters are just on the new server at some arbitrary starting
point. Seems pretty simple to me. One of the reasons they say they wont
do it is economy. Well, IMO, their economy is fucked already, and the new
servers get fucked up eventually too, so what they could do is just cap the
plat that carried over to like 1000 or something like that.
I think the above is very doable, and would help out with overcrowding if
they brought up more than one server at a time. The EQ playerbase has yet
to peak, so the overcrowding is only going to get worse.
olaf
Timothy J Parker
>
> FD was not just used against Inno, it was used everywhere to only pull one creature
> out of many. FD pulling was bragged about as being the ultimate pulling technique.
> I guess they didn't want people to selectively "pick" out their targets and ignore
> others.
I believe they call this "cherry picking." Pulling the mob with the best loot
and not fighting your way to him first. Tneir idea of no reward without risk.
Matthew Mc Clement
Pulling a God to the zone line, is like pulling Lady Vox to the zone line.
Totally and utterly amazing, and a massive abuse of game mechanics.
But, was this ever duplicated? That monk must have been VERY skilled at feign
pulling and VERY VERY VERY lucky with his feigns. I think Verant did over react
with the whole feign death thing, but hey, life goes on, and monks seem to have
learned how to get on with the new way feign works.
Matt
Quantum Mechanic
Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
news:8EA485C0Cvi...@207.126.101.100...
> >
> >#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>
> A bug. They can't fix it, because the fix would give everybody a lot
> of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
>
How do you come to the conclusion it would be "free XP" ? If the hell levels
are actually a bug and each hell level is robbing the player of exp/levels
then wouldn't the levels we receive from the fix simply be returning
experience the hell/bug levels robbed us of in the first place ? If what
you say is true then it seems to add weight to the idea that Verant is more
than diligent at fixing bugs that allow players to advance yet seem very
lethargic when it comes to fixing bugs that prevent players from advancing.
> >#2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything officially
---Snip----
>
> It was nerfed because an *item* (the pegasus feather cloak) when
> clicked on really fast, could let you get to areas where you're not
> supposed to be.
>
> It was nerfed and not fixed because they're overworked and didn't
> want to allocate enough time to fix it right.
>
> It wasn't in the patch message because their community communication
> is nonexistant.
>
*cheers* I believe you "hit the nail on the head" as the saying goes. I hope
you are wrong though, it seems almost sinister that Verant would add yet
another way for players to lose exp and one more way to slow their advance
with a across the board nerf , under the guise of fixing one item.
> >#3)After all the posts from people who like to solo, why isn't
> >this an option yet?
---snip---
>
> Everquest is a group-oriented game. There's no way to allow real
> soloing without removing class inter-dependence, which takes away the
> whole point of unique classes in the first place.
>
I think that "many" (not all) people originally bought this game "because"
it was group oriented (or because they had grown tired/frustrated of UO). I
personally thought the whole group idea was great and the class
inter-dependence was a awesome way to accomplish this. Sadly though, it
seems that Verant has become focused on trying to force players into groups,
with constant nerfs that fail to do what they were intended, instead of
adding things to the game that might encourage grouping.
> >#4)After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why was
---Snip---
> >Also, why is there no ability to move (one
> >time only) a pre-exsisting character to that new server?
>
> Because there's no way to automatically do it. It would take a human
> being. Everquest doesn't have a central name server, so every
> transfer would have to be done manually, including resolving name
> conflicts.
---Snip---.
>
I really have no opinion one way or the other on "moving characters from one
server to the other" . I do agree that it would take a great deal of human
intervention on Verants part if suddenly people could hop from one server to
another with their lvl 50's. I wonder though, If Verant was to stop the
knee-jerk "no can do" and instead think "hmm, is there a way we could do
this that would add to the game without creating huge problems" then maybe
they could come up with an incredibly difficult quest or possibly a reward
for players that do something that helps solve a current problem.
For example, one of the most creative ideas I ever seen the people over at
OSI come up with (and good ideas from OSI seemed to be few and far between)
was after years of fighting server lag caused by item hording. They fought
this problem for years the same way Verant tackles all their problems
now -nerf nerf nerf- and only seceded in doing the same thing as Verant ,
upsetting and angering their customers without solving the problem. Finally
someone at OSI came up with what I thought was a really cool idea. They
allowed players to install a sort of trash bin in their houses and rewarded
them with points for destroying items in the trash bins. The players could
collect points and the more items you destroyed the more points you
collected and greater the item or service you could trade your points for.
Some of the rewards were nice armor and weapons , certificates to change
your hair color/style permanently , change your name permanently and the
biggest reward I believe (requiring a huge amount of points) was a
certificate that allowed you to give one of your items newbie properties
(this was a very big deal in UO were PK"s and Corpse looting was a problem).
Sorry this ran kind'a long , but I think it is an excellent example of how
rewarding customers to solve problems may take a bit more imagination on the
designers part but has a much better chance of success then repeated
attempts to 'force' the customer down the path by nerfing them into
submission.
> >#5)In regards to #4, Verants initial statements when I purchased
> >the game last April were that a good server population was
> >approximately 1200 players. Why was this upped recently to 1800+
> >in the face of overcrowding complaints? While the hardware may be
> >able to handle 1800+ users,
---Snip---
>
> No, their initial statements WERE 1500 players, and I agree that the
> game is pretty good with 1500 max.
While 1500 people on a server may cause little or no hardware/bandwidth
issues it does, IMHO, drastically reduce the payability of the game when you
have only a given number of dungeons with a given number of things to
kill/camp. For example , a group of 6 in lower Guk has to camp 3 to 4 spawns
to stay entertained. That means 3 - 4 groups , 18 - 24 people ( or 3 lvl 49
necros with pet) is a sort of a "enjoyable" limit for Lower Guk. All of the
dungeons/zones may be physically capable of handing 50-70 people but the fun
is stripped from the game and players are forced into EXP poverty. Then
again over crowding in this way slows player progression and that does seem
more and more "a good thing" in Verant's eyes.
And I also remember someone from Verant saying 1500 was the server Max but
1200 would be the norm. Meaning that while the servers could handle 1500,
1200 would provide a much more enjoyable gaming environment. It seems they
have changed their minds.
>
> It was raised to 1800 because the new zones aren't online yet. Note
> they said that it will REMAIN 1800, even when Paineel, Air, The Hole,
> and all of Kunark are added.
>
Actually this means the "norm" has been raised from 1200 to 1800 in
anticipation of the new zones. It would appear that Verant is becoming very
adept at art of misdirection.
> >#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining
---Snip---
>
> Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
> Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
> thought that was a bit much.
>
Another case of " News Flash ! God/Dragon killed on -insert server name
here- Nerf at 1l"
> >#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes (even
> >if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the effect of
> >slowing player level advancement?
>
> ANY nerf slows player advancement, ANY enhancement speeds it. They
> have a lot more (real) nerfs than enhancements in the list. It
> appears that way because that's how it truly is.
>
> That said, they're not LOOKING to slow us down; the checks and
> balances they felt were necessary to preserve the game's integrity
> just seem to have had that effect.
I'm not so sure "checks and balances" is really accurate. For some reason I
associate "checks and balances" with a well thought out system with some
form of 'give and take' while Verant's system seems to take much more than
it gives and "nerf it" requires little or no thought. Even when it does
'give' something back to the players it seems to either something so trivial
or something that no one wanted in the first place "yet they proudly put
that little + next to it on their list" . For instance, with all the griping
about nerfs and class unbalance about the only thing "most" people seem to
agree on is that Mag/Necro pets seem to be incredibly powerful especially
when compared to actual player melee classes. So what did a recent patch do
in the face of all the bitching about class nerfs and pets stomping the crap
out of lvl 50 warriors ? They added focus items so that the 3 classes with
the most powerful pets in the game could summon their best pets more
consistently !?! *boggle*
Quantum Mechanic - We used have a problem with our "pick a card, any card"
trick but after we discovered the player could actually pick "any" card, the
solution became obvious.
>
> >I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this, or if I
> >do, they will be the usual round of PR. In the case that I am
> >proven wrong on this:
> >Thank you for your time,
>
> I'm not Verant, but the above is accurate.
Sam Schlansky
<38614A04...@globalnet.co.uk>:
(snip)
>Pulling a God to the zone line, is like pulling Lady Vox to the
>zone line. Totally and utterly amazing, and a massive abuse of
>game mechanics.
Yep.
>But, was this ever duplicated? That monk must have been VERY
>skilled at feign pulling and VERY VERY VERY lucky with his feigns.
>I think Verant did over react with the whole feign death thing,
That's MY point. The level of skill (and luck) required to pull that off is
really impressive, and it SHOULD be rewarded. I doubt there are a dozen monks
playing the entire game that could duplicate that feat.
>but hey, life goes on, and monks seem to have learned how to get
>on with the new way feign works.
I disagree with it, but oh well.
Sam Schlansky
<GNa84.147922$y45.3...@news4.giganews.com>:
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
>news:8EA485C0Cvi...@207.126.101.100...
>> xlar...@my-deja.com wrote in <83r17m$t12$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>> >Also, why is there no ability to move (one
>> >time only) a pre-exsisting character to that new server?
>>
>> Because there's no way to automatically do it. It would take a
>> human being. Everquest doesn't have a central name server, so
>> every transfer would have to be done manually, including
>> resolving name conflicts.
>
>What they should do is put up a webpage or even just an email
>address asking people if they want to switch to a new server about
>a week or so before the new server is set to go live. They take
>say 50 players from each level range 10-19, 20-29, etc. They just
>have to check THOSE names, as there are no new players (yet) on
>the new servers. Then when the patch goes live, those characters
>are just on the new server at some arbitrary starting point.
>Seems pretty simple to me. One of the reasons they say they wont
>do it is economy. Well, IMO, their economy is fucked already, and
>the new servers get fucked up eventually too, so what they could
>do is just cap the plat that carried over to like 1000 or
>something like that.
There's something to be said for that idea... you're right that name
conflicts wouldn't be a problem on a new server, I missed that part
of the post.
>I think the above is very doable, and would help out with
>overcrowding if they brought up more than one server at a time.
>The EQ playerbase has yet to peak, so the overcrowding is only
>going to get worse.
Of course, it'd STILL have to be manually done. In my (limited)
understanding, EQ runs a pretty standard database (SQL or something
similar) with some HEINOUSLY primative manipulation tools. It really
would be a serious task to move, say, 200 people from each existing
server to the new one. As in, a hell of a lot of work.
That's not to say that it wouldn't be worth it, but...
Sam Schlansky
<zlc84.127$B5....@news.more.net>:
>
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
>news:8EA485C0Cvi...@207.126.101.100...
>---Snip Snip----
>> >
>> >#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>>
>> A bug. They can't fix it, because the fix would give everybody a
>> lot of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
>>
>How do you come to the conclusion it would be "free XP" ? If the
>hell levels are actually a bug and each hell level is robbing the
>player of exp/levels then wouldn't the levels we receive from the
>fix simply be returning experience the hell/bug levels robbed us
>of in the first place ? If what you say is true then it seems to
>add weight to the idea that Verant is more than diligent at fixing
>bugs that allow players to advance yet seem very lethargic when it
>comes to fixing bugs that prevent players from advancing.
Hell levels don't rob you of experience, exactly. Your character's
experience is simply an integer value, like 72879878943 or something
like that. The difference is that level 45 takes X more experience
than normal to get through it. If the hell levels were fixed, you
would go up a couple of levels.
Of course that could be fixed CORRECTLY too... but... what is it
hurting? Hell levels add something to the game, if you ask me.
>> >#2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything
>> >officially
>
>---Snip----
>>
>> It was nerfed because an *item* (the pegasus feather cloak) when
>> clicked on really fast, could let you get to areas where you're
>> not supposed to be.
>>
>> It was nerfed and not fixed because they're overworked and
>> didn't want to allocate enough time to fix it right.
>>
>> It wasn't in the patch message because their community
>> communication is nonexistant.
>>
>*cheers* I believe you "hit the nail on the head" as the saying
>goes. I hope you are wrong though, it seems almost sinister that
>Verant would add yet another way for players to lose exp and one
>more way to slow their advance with a across the board nerf ,
>under the guise of fixing one item.
Oh, come now. After the first day, everybody knew how levitate was
changed. There ARE no stretches of lava in the game SO large that you
don't have time to find somewhere to sit down before the blinking
icon goes away. I doubt that many people actually DIED because of the
levitate nerf. Seriously annoyed yes, died no.
>> >#3)After all the posts from people who like to solo, why isn't
>> >this an option yet?
>
>---snip---
>>
>> Everquest is a group-oriented game. There's no way to allow real
>> soloing without removing class inter-dependence, which takes
>> away the whole point of unique classes in the first place.
>>
>I think that "many" (not all) people originally bought this game
>"because" it was group oriented (or because they had grown
>tired/frustrated of UO). I personally thought the whole group idea
>was great and the class inter-dependence was a awesome way to
>accomplish this. Sadly though, it seems that Verant has become
>focused on trying to force players into groups, with constant
>nerfs that fail to do what they were intended, instead of adding
>things to the game that might encourage grouping.
The real problem is that every class that's good at soloing also
makes a better group member. That's the REAL problem.
If enchanters were shitty soloers, they'd be mediocre groupmembers.
And don't even get me started on the "warrior" thing. Sure, warriors
are fine in groups... when the PLAYER is skilled and knows what he's
doing. In the same way, a skilled enchanter, necro, shaman, or
magician would be even MORE valuable to your group.
(snip)
>For example, one of the most creative ideas I ever seen the people
>over at OSI come up with (and good ideas from OSI seemed to be few
>and far between) was after years of fighting server lag caused by
>item hording. They fought this problem for years the same way
>Verant tackles all their problems now -nerf nerf nerf- and only
>seceded in doing the same thing as Verant , upsetting and angering
>their customers without solving the problem. Finally someone at
>OSI came up with what I thought was a really cool idea. They
>allowed players to install a sort of trash bin in their houses and
>rewarded them with points for destroying items in the trash bins.
>The players could collect points and the more items you destroyed
>the more points you collected and greater the item or service you
>could trade your points for. Some of the rewards were nice armor
>and weapons , certificates to change your hair color/style
>permanently , change your name permanently and the biggest reward
>I believe (requiring a huge amount of points) was a certificate
>that allowed you to give one of your items newbie properties (this
>was a very big deal in UO were PK"s and Corpse looting was a
>problem). Sorry this ran kind'a long , but I think it is an
>excellent example of how rewarding customers to solve problems may
>take a bit more imagination on the designers part but has a much
>better chance of success then repeated attempts to 'force' the
>customer down the path by nerfing them into submission.
I read Lum the Mad's site, where he talks about a lot of UO stuff,
and it seems to me that you're forgetting half of the "Clean up
Britannia" thingie. You see, in the second half, now items decay
inside of houses so you CAN'T hoarde.
They stopped hoarding, yes.... by saying "Y'all can't hoard no more,
aight?"
The trash can thing, while rather inspired, was just to stop the
massive amounts of people having a hissy fit... and it worked, kinda.
But not really... because that WAS a serious nerf in the end.
>> >#5)In regards to #4, Verants initial statements when I
>> >purchased the game last April were that a good server
>> >population was approximately 1200 players. Why was this upped
>> >recently to 1800+ in the face of overcrowding complaints? While
>> >the hardware may be able to handle 1800+ users,
>
>---Snip---
>>
>> No, their initial statements WERE 1500 players, and I agree that
>> the game is pretty good with 1500 max.
>
>While 1500 people on a server may cause little or no
>hardware/bandwidth issues it does, IMHO, drastically reduce the
>payability of the game when you have only a given number of
>dungeons with a given number of things to kill/camp. For example ,
>a group of 6 in lower Guk has to camp 3 to 4 spawns to stay
>entertained. That means 3 - 4 groups , 18 - 24 people ( or 3 lvl
>49 necros with pet) is a sort of a "enjoyable" limit for Lower
>Guk. All of the dungeons/zones may be physically capable of
>handing 50-70 people but the fun is stripped from the game and
>players are forced into EXP poverty. Then again over crowding in
>this way slows player progression and that does seem more and more
>"a good thing" in Verant's eyes.
>
>And I also remember someone from Verant saying 1500 was the server
>Max but 1200 would be the norm. Meaning that while the servers
>could handle 1500, 1200 would provide a much more enjoyable gaming
>environment. It seems they have changed their minds.
I honestly don't remember the 1200 figure being touted around during
final at all. I'll take your word on it.
Still, personally I say that 1500 is fairly comfortable. It IS,
however, on the very upper edge of comfortable... once you start
seeing 1600 or (as we now get every night) 1800, it's downright
claustrophobic.
Fuck, there were 75 people in OGGOK last night for crying out loud!
You know, the cool new place to camp because all the dungeons were
full and the outside guards now have insane magic resist and hit for
120? Well, now Oggok is full too.
>> It was raised to 1800 because the new zones aren't online yet.
>> Note they said that it will REMAIN 1800, even when Paineel, Air,
>> The Hole, and all of Kunark are added.
>>
>Actually this means the "norm" has been raised from 1200 to 1800
>in anticipation of the new zones. It would appear that Verant is
>becoming very adept at art of misdirection.
Sure fooled me.
>> >#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post
>> >complaining
>
>---Snip---
>>
>> Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
>> Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn.
>> He thought that was a bit much.
>>
>Another case of " News Flash ! God/Dragon killed on -insert
>server name here- Nerf at 1l"
The general idea was that dragons and gods were supposed to be
*impossible* to kill. They were supposed to be something to be
feared, not...
"/guildsay Yo! SolB crashed an hour ago... lets go take down naggy! I
called dibs on the CoF last week in hate, and Phackyoo called dibs on
the naggy scale, he needs his armor already... damn mithril is
getting lame... oh yeah, no unguilded allowed this time dammit"
...as it is now. And that's a shame, because dragons and gods AREN'T
scary any more. Every time Verant makes them harder, the seriously
elite guilds like FoH on Veeshan think up a new strategy and take
them down without even breathing hard.
Of course, Verant is watching exactly how they do it each and every
time. Come next patch...
A neverending circle.
>> >#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes
>> >(even if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the
>> >effect of slowing player level advancement?
>>
>> ANY nerf slows player advancement, ANY enhancement speeds it.
>> They have a lot more (real) nerfs than enhancements in the list.
>> It appears that way because that's how it truly is.
>>
>> That said, they're not LOOKING to slow us down; the checks and
>> balances they felt were necessary to preserve the game's
>> integrity just seem to have had that effect.
>
>I'm not so sure "checks and balances" is really accurate. For some
>reason I associate "checks and balances" with a well thought out
>system with some form of 'give and take' while Verant's system
>seems to take much more than it gives and "nerf it" requires
>little or no thought. Even when it does 'give' something back to
>the players it seems to either something so trivial or something
>that no one wanted in the first place "yet they proudly put that
>little + next to it on their list" .
In many cases, it seems like changes are thought up at a "tuning
meeting" on tuesday, patched in on Test on thursday, and patched in
on live servers on wednesday. Quality assurance is simply non-
existant.
1) Fear received little to no testing whatsoever. When introduced it
was too easy (candyland), now it's too hard along with the ridiculous
entire-zone cazic death touch.
2) Hate received some testing (from the FoH guild mentioned above).
I'm *sure* that FoH reported every little tiny miniscule problem with
the zone... and yet it still has MAJOR pathing problems that lead to
people doing things like zoning in, moving to a corner of the room,
and /quit'ing out to avoid bugged aggro mobs.
3) Kedge was their little baby for a month or two there. It was
finally going to be itemized and the bugs would be gone! Well, it WAS
itemized (rather nicely, too)... but the bugs remain. If you train
out of Kedge, the mobs stay there FOREVER.
4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago. Paw2
was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the strain on
35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty than it was
BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a gazillion enchanters,
mobs that hit WAY too hard for their level, and absolutely excretable
loot.
5) How about Kedge? Here's another zone tuned for 35 to 45
characters, the golden child to take the strain off solB and lower
guk. For the first week or two it was crowded, then everybody got
their tainted battleworn morningstars and realized that the zone was
far too dangerous to actually FIGHT in for experience. Can a level 35
group take an enraged dread wolf? How about two and a decaying
commander along for the ride? No way.
I can go on.
That said... for the big changes they really do have the integrity of
their game at heart. Whatever else you can say about Brad, he DOES
have a clear vision of what Everquest should be. You may not agree
with that vision, I may not agree with that vision-- but it
nonetheless IS a pure vision.
>For instance, with all the
>griping about nerfs and class unbalance about the only thing
>"most" people seem to agree on is that Mag/Necro pets seem to be
>incredibly powerful especially when compared to actual player
>melee classes. So what did a recent patch do in the face of all
>the bitching about class nerfs and pets stomping the crap out of
>lvl 50 warriors ? They added focus items so that the 3 classes
>with the most powerful pets in the game could summon their best
>pets more consistently !?! *boggle*
Yeah, that weirded me out too.
Adar
>
> In many cases, it seems like changes are thought up at a "tuning
> meeting" on tuesday, patched in on Test on thursday, and patched in
> on live servers on wednesday. Quality assurance is simply non-
> existant.
>
> 1) Fear received little to no testing whatsoever. When introduced it
> was too easy (candyland), now it's too hard along with the ridiculous
> entire-zone cazic death touch.
The touch, I actually agree with, in theory (that is, if it only worked once
he was pulled and not at random periods when some scareling aggroed some
other scareling aggroed some other scareling x57...) An actual zone safe
point is long overdue, though.
>
> 2) Hate received some testing (from the FoH guild mentioned above).
> I'm *sure* that FoH reported every little tiny miniscule problem with
> the zone... and yet it still has MAJOR pathing problems that lead to
> people doing things like zoning in, moving to a corner of the room,
> and /quit'ing out to avoid bugged aggro mobs.
>
That's the other problem. It's a *zone*, people: make the fucking zone point
reasonably safe, for God's sake...
> 3) Kedge was their little baby for a month or two there. It was
> finally going to be itemized and the bugs would be gone! Well, it WAS
> itemized (rather nicely, too)... but the bugs remain. If you train
> out of Kedge, the mobs stay there FOREVER.
>
Kedge could have the best pathing in the world and it still wouldn't have
over 25 people. Let's face it, most of us just hate underwater fighting;
plus it's a lot like a plane in that you can't just log out at the zone
point- you have to exit, which means that in an RL emergency, you're fucked.
That and swirlspines, the crown jewel of the zone, are now way too hard to
get- if they're even there anymore.
> 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago. Paw2
> was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the strain on
> 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty than it was
> BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a gazillion enchanters,
> mobs that hit WAY too hard for their level, and absolutely excretable
> loot.
>
You know, I'm curious. This zone was *extensively* playtested and tuned on
Test, from what I heard (but then again, I also heard that ykeshas were
being nerfed *shrug*.) I can understand the loot slipping through the
cracks, because the items are somewhat decent for an untwinked (such as most
players on Test) L30 or so character who has to get everything himself (also
Test). But how did the enchanters and 76 damage a shot 30'th level mobs get
through???
(I'm not even talking about what happened after I posted that review. I got
a reply from Brad, something like the third in six months, arguing to give
the zone another shot. There were probably a dozen separate people flaming
different parts of it, and another dozen topics on class boards dedicated
solely to arguing about how cool the zone actually was and how it would
prove to be a great XP zone, how using tactics would be great, blah blah
blah.
What happened? Six people a night in the zone, all for Summon Corpse. Hell,
even the pre-bridge spawn points aren't camped much anymore. Was I just so
off the wall everyone thought I was insane, or is there somewhat of a
fundamental problem here?)
> 5) How about Kedge? Here's another zone tuned for 35 to 45
> characters, the golden child to take the strain off solB and lower
> guk. For the first week or two it was crowded, then everybody got
> their tainted battleworn morningstars and realized that the zone was
> far too dangerous to actually FIGHT in for experience. Can a level 35
> group take an enraged dread wolf? How about two and a decaying
> commander along for the ride? No way.
>
You mean Kith, I assume...and that's not actually the problem, IMO. Kith is
fine, it's just that, sadly, it can't be both a crossing point and a high
level area at the same time. The crossing point (rightly) won, so I'd say
this is more of a 'hell, 12 people away from Sol B is better than none' type
of deal.
> I can go on.
>
> That said... for the big changes they really do have the integrity of
> their game at heart. Whatever else you can say about Brad, he DOES
> have a clear vision of what Everquest should be. You may not agree
> with that vision, I may not agree with that vision-- but it
> nonetheless IS a pure vision.
>
Yeah. It's also the single most irritating thing about this game; there's a
vision behind it, it just doesn't match reality in a lot of places.
(That said, I like Brad's vision a LOT more than I like Richard 'Let's make
Ebay an integral part of our game' Garriot's...)
> >For instance, with all the
> >griping about nerfs and class unbalance about the only thing
> >"most" people seem to agree on is that Mag/Necro pets seem to be
> >incredibly powerful especially when compared to actual player
> >melee classes. So what did a recent patch do in the face of all
> >the bitching about class nerfs and pets stomping the crap out of
> >lvl 50 warriors ? They added focus items so that the 3 classes
> >with the most powerful pets in the game could summon their best
> >pets more consistently !?! *boggle*
>
> Yeah, that weirded me out too.
>
No kidding :P
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
Rich Stark
David Gaines <daveg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3861...@news.iglou.com...
> I'm not Verant, but I do know Verant has responded to some of
> these...Verants explanations:
<snip>
> >#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining about
> >how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the change was
> >made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't have full
> >stats on this and am going by what I have personally seen on this NG).
> >Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
> >appear not happy.
> >
> Verant: Because it let monks do something incredibly powerful without
much
> fear of failure. So powerful that it became unbalancing.
> Me: I agree, a Monk was just too much a necessary component of high level
> groups. I was hearing too much of "I'm not going to such and such zone
> without a monk to pull", or "With a monk, you can hold that room with only
x
> people, but you need 3 full groups without a monk".
<snip>
<snip>
> >#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post complaining about
> >how feign death worked or that there was a problem until the change was
> >made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't have full
> >stats on this and am going by what I have personally seen on this NG).
> >Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
> >appear not happy.
> >
> Verant: Because it let monks do something incredibly powerful without
much
> fear of failure. So powerful that it became unbalancing.
> Me: I agree, a Monk was just too much a necessary component of high level
> groups. I was hearing too much of "I'm not going to such and such zone
> without a monk to pull", or "With a monk, you can hold that room with only
x
> people, but you need 3 full groups without a monk".
<snip>
Here's my question for you. Assuming your premise is correct on this being
the reason feign was changed, which is a better solution to the problem?
a) Come up with a solution that fixes the problems without severely
damaging the class involved, or at the least make up for the nerf with a
*real* enhancement instead of hanging an entire class out to dry.
b) Silently make a change that fundamentally altered the way an entire
class works and is viewed. Lie to the players with a truly devious MOTD
(and let's not debate that, Verant admited after the fact that MOTD was not
worded properly) ONLY after the outcry reached monumental proportions.
Refuse, to this day, to publically give the true reason the skill was
changed, even though we can all guess.
Uh, and no, "game balance" isn't an answer, it's a patronizing cop-out; when
you piss away 8 months of a player's work, you owe them more than that for
$9.89 a month.
The solution that was silently implemented was, quite simply, a rotten one
in a lot of monk's views (and mine as well). You can work around it by
simply using two chars and /q, which everyone does now (or just use a good
enchanter), so you've effectively accomplished nothing. On the downside,
however, it was horrid PR for Verant (by showing us exactly how they view
the players and exactly how little they know about their own game), it
causes ungodly trains in zones where one's about enough to do you in, and
left an entire class who, right or wrong, was the "puller class." There
were plenty of other ways to have fixed this, the simplest being that Verant
has code implemented to make mobs not mem blur on a feign death attempt
(spiders in lower guk near the bedroom, the various bugs in Solusek B,
etc.).
I can't remember where I posed this question originally, but a few weeks ago
we were told that the sudden realization hit Verant that the shaman alchemy
skill could not work as implemented. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the
same people that have made "game balancing" changes to the shaman class are
so clueless about the class? Or that this was suddenly news, even though
every single shaman you had ever met knew it, and the shaman websites and
boards all had discussions about it? Does that tell you something about how
well those people know the game, and how closely they pay attention?
And most importantly, doesn't it tell you something about their
qualifications to even make "game balancing" changes?
If that line of thought intrigues you, ask a monk who's played since the
game went commercial about the great "instill doubt" debacle. It's a good
story with the same moral. If you need a more recent example, ask yourself
why it took 3 attempts to get 'summon corpse' to work.
Was feign-pulling somehow game-imbalancing? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly
the Innoruk example cited earlier in this thread is an example of "um, yeah,
that's not good." But then again you could count on one hand the number of
players who could pull that off. Feign pulling was not 100%, caused more
monk deaths than you might realize (try splitting a room of 2+ casters
sometime), and was seen by monks as the counter-point balance to being very
replacable as a tank (low hps, no *real* taunt, excessively random and
unmodified damage rolls (1 point flying kicks at level 50), etc.).
(One quick aside ... for those of you who feel feign was imbalancing, I hope
you don't play an enchanter -- because if the ability to split a spawn via
feign was considered a problem by the developers, you better believe the
ability to do effectively the same thing with enchanter spells is next on
the chopping block.)
The thing is, whether you feel like the skill was imbalancing or not, that's
not really the issue here. The issue is how you respond to it, and how
Verant did respond to it, after 9 months of players using it. This nerf in
particular, as a monk myself, left me personally with 3 strong impressions
of Verant, which I imagine most recipients of a sodo-nerf feel:
1) Verant, in general, goes for the quickest solution to a problem instead
of the best solution to a problem.
2) Verant, in general, nerfs first, asks questions later.
3) Verant, as is typical of MUD administrators everywhere, makes
development decisions hastily and without thinking about the effects on the
entire bell curve instead of just the snippet on the end that's causing the
concern.
4) Verant's priorities are skewed the wrong way. Specifically, how do you
justify any of these changes when the same bugs are still in the game that
were in the game the day it hit the shelves?
(Yes, Brad, we all know bug fixing and class balancing are two different
programming teams, but maybe they all should be on the bug fixing team.
Priorities.)
There will always be people angry when their classes are tweaked and
torqued. Sometimes those tweaks and torques are neccesary to preserve what
the producer's feel is in the best interest of a game's longevity and
integrity, like it or not. But there are ways of going about doing so that
can greatly alleviate the problems that arise in the aftermath. The
complete lack of effort in this regard by this company and the patronizing
way they deal with these issues after-the-fact goes a long way in showing
you how they truly feel about the players.
My 2pp,
- Chai (E-Marr)
PS: If you are really into questioning along these lines, maybe you should
ask yourself why Abashi is neccesary, honestly; or more to the point, why is
it that Brad, John and GZ were the only people who ever answered the
player's question and interacted with them? Might be suprised at what you
come up with as an answer.
George Ruof
>Have to disagree here. 1500 positively SUCKS if over two thirds seem to
>be camping or hunting what YOU are hunting.
12 sucks if half are camping or hunting what you are hunting. Less
people is not going to stop the really good spots from being busy.
--
George Ruof
gr...@pacificnet.net
Shortest Barbarian On The Block
Innoruk and other gods aren't fooled by FD?
>You are supposed to fight TO Inno, not selectively pull him out of all the
>rest.
>Same with the dungeons, FD was being used to only pull one target.
>--
>Dorian Brytestar
>Lvl 41 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
>Povar
>"Brian" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:hd726so3em3qpoero...@4ax.com...
>: On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:48:12 GMT, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam
>: Schlansky) wrote:
>:
>: >Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
>: >Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
>: >thought that was a bit much.
>:
>: SInce I have never been on a plane breakin (and probably never will
>: be) could someone explain how and why this is bad?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<i>There are some things you can't share without
ending up liking each other, and knocking out a
twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them.</i>
-- J.K. Rowlings
Quantum Mechanic
> >---Snip Snip----
> >> >
> >> >#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
> >>
> >> A bug. They can't fix it, because the fix would give everybody a
> >> lot of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
> >>
> >How do you come to the conclusion it would be "free XP" ? If the
> >hell levels are actually a bug and each hell level is robbing the
> >player of exp/levels then wouldn't the levels we receive from the
> >fix simply be returning experience the hell/bug levels robbed us
> >of in the first place
> Hell levels don't rob you of experience, exactly. Your character's
> experience is simply an integer value, like 72879878943 or something
> like that. The difference is that level 45 takes X more experience
> than normal to get through it. If the hell levels were fixed, you
> would go up a couple of levels.
I realize XP has a numeric value. But if at the end of say lvl 35 I had
acquired enough EXP to be lvl 37 but due to this bug I was still a kill from
36, then the bug had robbed me of a level. If it does this at lvl 30, 35, 40
and 45 (and 31, 36, 41 and 46 are double exp loss on death bug ?) by the
time you hit lvl 46 you should actually be level 50. Now if this really is
a bug the point I am trying to make is this - If that same bug had caused
those same levels to take 1/2 the exp of normal levels to get through
(heaven levels ? heh) , Verant would have fixed it before anyone even knew
it was there. However since the bug hinders advancement it appears Verant
shrugged it's mighty shoulders and thought "eh, no one is bitching, leave it
in". Of course no one was bitching because by the time people realized what
was going on these levels had actually acquired a place in the game (as the
"heaven ?" levels would have had there ever been such a thing).
BTW, are you sure hell levels are/was a bug ? I seem to remember reading ,
possibly in the manual I don't remember, that Verant refers to these levels
as "Hardship levels" and their purpose was something to do with the
characters facing hardship for some assinine reason. Oh and it also
mentioned how these levels were a + "ohh, another Inhancement" because they
allowed the lower INT races (ahh, they did it out of their love of us Trolls
and Ogres) the extra time needed to prevent our skills from falling far
behind our level.
>
> Of course that could be fixed CORRECTLY too... but... what is it
> hurting? Hell levels add something to the game, if you ask me.
>
Personally, after dieing 5 times in level 45 (twice to a zone crash in SolB
, once to some Zone bug that set me in the lava under the world when I zoned
out of SolB) I think Hell Levels or Hardship levels are something I would
not have missed had they never been in the game. You are right though they
do add something, aggravation.
> >> >#2)Why was Levitate nerfed? I have yet to see anything
> >---Snip----
> >>
> >> It was nerfed and not fixed because they're overworked and
> >> didn't want to allocate enough time to fix it right.
> >>
> >> It wasn't in the patch message because their community
> >> communication is nonexistant.
> >>
> >> ---Snip---
>
> Oh, come now. After the first day, everybody knew how levitate was
> changed. There ARE no stretches of lava in the game SO large that you
> don't have time to find somewhere to sit down before the blinking
> icon goes away. I doubt that many people actually DIED because of the
> levitate nerf. Seriously annoyed yes, died no.
>
By sinister I don't mean GZ and Brad meet in some abandon cellar during a
full moon to discuss new and vile ways to kill unsuspecting players with new
enhancements. Well, actually I may have pictured them that way for a while
after I went splat and my guts were all over S Karana "/ooc WTF ? You can't
cast Lev over Lev now? " was answered " /ooc Umm, no you dumb ass L00z3r".
> >> >#3)After all the posts from people who like to solo, why isn't
> >> >this an option yet?
> >
> >---snip---
>
> The real problem is that every class that's good at soloing also
> makes a better group member. That's the REAL problem.
>
>
> If enchanters were shitty soloers, they'd be mediocre groupmembers.
>
> And don't even get me started on the "warrior" thing. Sure, warriors
> are fine in groups... when the PLAYER is skilled and knows what he's
> doing. In the same way, a skilled enchanter, necro, shaman, or
> magician would be even MORE valuable to your group.
>
A really good Tank is hard to replace, a mediocre Tank you can take or leave
and Tank that don't know how to play is just dangerous IMHO. I have only
been in one group that had no tank yet still kicked major ass and that was a
group of 4 level 49 and 50 necros and myself. Just the five of us destroyed
LG that night , well,, I say "we" in a group of 4 Necros I found my Shaman
to be all but useless 90% of the time except for the occasional heal on a
pet or the Necros. I have found that there isn't a single buff a Shaman can
cast on a high lvl necro's pet that is of any use except "maybe" regen but I
can't see any really noticeable results from that.
>
> (snip)
> >problem). Sorry this ran kind'a long , but I think it is an
> >excellent example of how rewarding customers to solve problems may
> >take a bit more imagination on the designers part but has a much
> >better chance of success then repeated attempts to 'force' the
> >customer down the path by nerfing them into submission.
>
> I read Lum the Mad's site, where he talks about a lot of UO stuff,
> and it seems to me that you're forgetting half of the "Clean up
> Britannia" thingie. You see, in the second half, now items decay
> inside of houses so you CAN'T hoarde.
>
Actually, item decay in houses was a bug (well , OSI told us it was a bug)
that went without being fixed for so long (maybe like hell levels ?) that it
eventually just became part of the game. Or maybe they accelerated the decay
after I quit UO I can't say. Either way, the trash bin / reward idea was an
example of a better way to solve problems. If OSI later nerfed it with a
decay patch to "force" people to use it more , it changes nothing.. the
initial idea was a good one even if OSI's next idea screwed it up (sounds
like something they would do).
> They stopped hoarding, yes.... by saying "Y'all can't hoard no more,
> aight?"
>
> The trash can thing, while rather inspired, was just to stop the
> massive amounts of people having a hissy fit... and it worked, kinda.
> But not really... because that WAS a serious nerf in the end.
>
Again, it was a good idea, an excellent approach to solving a problem even
if they did manage to screw it up later (or plan it that way, who knows).
> >---Snip---
>
> Fuck, there were 75 people in OGGOK last night for crying out loud!
> You know, the cool new place to camp because all the dungeons were
> full and the outside guards now have insane magic resist and hit for
> 120? Well, now Oggok is full too.
>
I petitioned once to find out if Freeport had been itemized, never got a
answer. Being a Troll I figured it should only be natural that I consider
Freeport , Qeynos and the other goody goody towns as nothing more than high
lvl dungeons... guess Verant don't see it that way though. (I did get a LJ
Vest off a guard inside the gates *surprised* but I didn't consider going
deeper into Freeport dungeon worth the risk without knowing if it was
itemized).
>>>
---Snip---
> >> >#6)Why was feign death changed? I never saw one post
> >> >complaining
> >
> >---Snip---
> >>
> >> Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
> >> Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn.
> >> He thought that was a bit much.
> >>
> >Another case of " News Flash ! God/Dragon killed on -insert
> >server name here- Nerf at 1l"
>
> The general idea was that dragons and gods were supposed to be
> *impossible* to kill. They were supposed to be something to be
> feared, not...
>
If Gods/Dragons where never intended to be killed then why itemize them ?
And when they decided that Invis was somehow being used unfairly to kill
dragons they didn't nerf invis, they made dragons able to see invis so why
nerf FD ? Seems they could have just made Dragons/Gods see through FD like
they do Invis.
BTW, I was under the belief that FD was nerfed because Brad watched 6 necros
sic pets on Nag then FD . Supposedly these 6 necro's brought Nag down with
FD and Pets ... Your account of what happened sounds more realistic but who
knows... either way, it seems fixing the Dragon/God would be a more
reasonable solution then nerfing FD. At their current rate, if these elite
guilds keep killing dragons/gods it won't be long before it takes a full
group of lvl 50s to bring down a moss snake in Nek forrest.
Hmm, I'm going to snip that part up there and use it in another post I
think, this kill dragon = nerf idea has humorous possibilities.
> "/guildsay Yo! SolB crashed an hour ago... lets go take down naggy! I
> >
> > ----Snip---
> >
> 1) Fear received little to no testing whatsoever. When introduced it
> was too easy (candyland), now it's too hard along with the ridiculous
> entire-zone cazic death touch.
>
They could do a lot towards making that 1800 people a server more tolerable
if they would make PoH, PoF, KK and Paw2 a bit more desirable so that a part
of the 1800 would actually be in those zones instead of still cramming into
LG , SolB . I realize that PoH , PoF were not intended for casual use, but
do we really need more than one zone that takes days or hours of planning
before you can go in ?
---Snip---
>
> 3) Kedge was their little baby for a month or two there. It was
> finally going to be itemized and the bugs would be gone! Well, it WAS
> itemized (rather nicely, too)... but the bugs remain. If you train
> out of Kedge, the mobs stay there FOREVER.
>
No one on Tribunal goes to KK anymore but it really isn't due to pathing
bugs (Tribunal is an extremely Druid rich server , I can not remember the
last time a group I was in left the dungeon via the zone) it is the
aggravation of spending a hour getting a group then 30 minutes into the camp
someone has to leave. In the other zones when someone leaves your group a
few /ooc's will usually get a replacement since there are people just
setting at the zone hoping to find a group or 30-40 other people in the
dungeon so you have a pool to draw from. In KK however there is no one else
there, if someone leaves /tell or /guildsay is the only way you will find a
replacement. Even then, if you get someone they are 2 zones away at best so
your setting on your thumbs 20 minutes waiting for them. Unless they have
some form of EB someone has to meet them at the zone ,,, it goes on and on
and on,, KK is a pain and will remain mostly vacant for 1000 reasons other
than just pathing problems IMHO. I think two things would help it a great
deal (1) kill the constant stam drain when you stop swimming around or
fighting so you don't require a bard to do it (yes shaman/druids and others
can refresh stam but it is a constant drain and aggravation) (2) add a dry
side to the dungeon (like Lower guk live and dead side) so there will always
be people in the zone from which to make groups with.
> 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago. Paw2
> was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the strain on
> 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty than it was
> BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a gazillion enchanters,
> mobs that hit WAY too hard for their level, and absolutely excretable
> loot.
Paw2 is a joke I think, maybe Brad has a sense of humor and the next patch
message will have something like "From the big kidders at Verant : April
Fools !" because so far everyone I know, myself included, have left Paw2
thinking "You have got to be kidding"..
> 5) How about Kedge? Here's another zone tuned for 35 to 45
> characters, the golden child to take the strain off solB and lower
> guk. For the first week or two it was crowded, then everybody got
> their tainted battleworn morningstars and realized that the zone was
> far too dangerous to actually FIGHT in for experience. Can a level 35
> group take an enraged dread wolf? How about two and a decaying
> commander along for the ride? No way.
>
Being a Shaman I was pretty happy about Kith at first (nice +wisdom mace in
there) but no one ever wants to camp it because the Undead only come out at
night.
You have to have a fairly good group for the reasons you list above but at
the same time a good group can clean all the undead out and are left
spending half their time in that zone (day time) setting on their thumbs
waiting for night to roll around again.
> I can go on.
Do go on. I think I am reaching the point were ranting about EQ or reading
rants about EQ is the only pleasure I get from the game anymore.
Quantum Mechanic - We are changing the name and the box design. From this
point on we will call it EverCamp. The picture on the box will depict a
group Trolls standing over a spawn point, weapons poised ready to strike a
not yet spawned creature. The Trolls will also have Ebay logo's on their
backs.
John Henders
>Of course, it'd STILL have to be manually done. In my (limited)
>understanding, EQ runs a pretty standard database (SQL or something
>similar) with some HEINOUSLY primative manipulation tools. It really
>would be a serious task to move, say, 200 people from each existing
>server to the new one. As in, a hell of a lot of work.
On their web site recently they were adverising for a sysadmin with
Solaris experience and an Oracle database administrator. Draw your own
conclusions on what platform they run from that. :)
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Alasdair Allan
> 3) Kedge was their little baby for a month or two there. It was
> finally going to be itemized and the bugs would be gone! Well, it WAS
> itemized (rather nicely, too)... but the bugs remain. If you train
> out of Kedge, the mobs stay there FOREVER.
No, the problem is that Verant don't implement Fishbone Earrings as a
trivial level 35 quest. Not their style - you need to fuck around for every
little thing...
BTW, I would *never* want to go to Kedge without my Fishbone Earring despite
Enduring Breath - its simply no substitute.
> 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago. Paw2
> was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the strain on
> 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty than it was
> BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a gazillion enchanters,
> mobs that hit WAY too hard for their level, and absolutely excretable
> loot.
Exactly as we said it would be, Sam.
I tried the second day, with my then lvl 30 Paladin, having scouted it with
my 50 Shaman. I spent an hour there and made *ok* experience pulling little
singles to the alcove in the open area by the first double doors. Pulled
blues and avoided greens and noticed one red that i scouted around.
Then walking along to pull, one of the spots that had been spawning *FUCKING
GREENS* spawned a bright red Necro and bright red Enchanter. Lolololol.
What a fucking design - absolutely unplayable - dead Ed and walk back from
Arena.
Where the fuck are all the apologists now?
--
Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |England - Country where Marx developed
x-st...@null.net | the basis of Communism
X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scotland - Country where Smith developed
http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ | the basis of Capitalism
Morgan
> > hurting? Hell levels add something to the game, if you ask me.
>
> Personally, after dieing 5 times in level 45 (twice to a zone crash in SolB
> , once to some Zone bug that set me in the lava under the world when I zoned
> out of SolB) I think Hell Levels or Hardship levels are something I would
> not have missed had they never been in the game. You are right though they
> do add something, aggravation.
The "best" experience curve would probably be a smooth exponential.
The experience curve in EQ is a strange step function with a giant
leap every five levels. I suspect that they picked values for levels
one through five, multiplied them by some factor to get 6 through 10,
etc, and then tweaked the multipliers until they were happy with them.
The fact that the amount of experience required for each level is not
a monotonic function seems to have slipped through. Maybe they thought
that pushing through periodic "hardship levels" was more palatable to
people than a generally slower advancement rate.
If they were to retune the experience curve, they could basically do
one of two things:
They could change the meaning of the experience numbers without changing
people's experience totals. If they just smoothed it out, some people
would gain levels and some people would lose levels. To keep from having
a revolt, they would probably have to make sure nobody lost levels.
Alternatively, they could make a one time pass of the database and convert
everyone's experience numbers to the new scheme. So, if you were 2 bubbles
into level 27 before the change, you would still be 2 bubbles into 27.
Only the hidden experience number would be changed.
> > 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago. Paw2
> > was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the strain on
> > 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty than it was
> > BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a gazillion enchanters,
> > mobs that hit WAY too hard for their level, and absolutely excretable
> > loot.
>
> Paw2 is a joke I think, maybe Brad has a sense of humor and the next patch
> message will have something like "From the big kidders at Verant : April
> Fools !" because so far everyone I know, myself included, have left Paw2
> thinking "You have got to be kidding"..
I don't know. I was in there with a group and we got amazing experience
and respectable loot. A friend of mine went up three levels there just
last week. :)
> > 5) How about Kedge? Here's another zone tuned for 35 to 45
> > characters, the golden child to take the strain off solB and lower
> > guk. For the first week or two it was crowded, then everybody got
> > their tainted battleworn morningstars and realized that the zone was
> > far too dangerous to actually FIGHT in for experience. Can a level 35
> > group take an enraged dread wolf? How about two and a decaying
> > commander along for the ride? No way.
> >
>
> Being a Shaman I was pretty happy about Kith at first (nice +wisdom mace in
> there) but no one ever wants to camp it because the Undead only come out at
> night.
> You have to have a fairly good group for the reasons you list above but at
> the same time a good group can clean all the undead out and are left
> spending half their time in that zone (day time) setting on their thumbs
> waiting for night to roll around again.
During the day, you can head out to hunt the shadowed men, griffins and
hill giants in West Commonlands. If I hadn't already hunted Kithicor to
death, I would still see that as a viable option.
--
Morgan
Sam Schlansky
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
>news:8EA4BE14Avi...@207.126.101.100...
>> >---Snip Snip----
>> >> >
>> >> >#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>> >>
>> >> A bug. They can't fix it, because the fix would give
>> >> everybody a lot of free XP and we'd all get like four levels.
>> >>
>> >How do you come to the conclusion it would be "free XP" ? If
>> >the hell levels are actually a bug and each hell level is
>> >robbing the player of exp/levels then wouldn't the levels we
>> >receive from the fix simply be returning experience the
>> >hell/bug levels robbed us of in the first place
>> --------Snip-------
>> Hell levels don't rob you of experience, exactly. Your
>> character's experience is simply an integer value, like
>> 72879878943 or something like that. The difference is that level
>> 45 takes X more experience than normal to get through it. If the
>> hell levels were fixed, you would go up a couple of levels.
>
>I realize XP has a numeric value. But if at the end of say lvl 35
>I had acquired enough EXP to be lvl 37 but due to this bug I was
>still a kill from 36, then the bug had robbed me of a level.
OK. If you look at it that way then yes, it robbed you of a level.
>If it
>does this at lvl 30, 35, 40 and 45 (and 31, 36, 41 and 46 are
>double exp loss on death bug ?) by the time you hit lvl 46 you
>should actually be level 50. Now if this really is a bug the
>point I am trying to make is this - If that same bug had caused
>those same levels to take 1/2 the exp of normal levels to get
>through (heaven levels ? heh) , Verant would have fixed it before
>anyone even knew it was there. However since the bug hinders
>advancement it appears Verant shrugged it's mighty shoulders and
>thought "eh, no one is bitching, leave it in". Of course no one
>was bitching because by the time people realized what was going on
>these levels had actually acquired a place in the game (as the
>"heaven ?" levels would have had there ever been such a thing).
I don't think Verant actually knew about hell levels until fairly
recently. They don't have that many 30+ players.
>BTW, are you sure hell levels are/was a bug ? I seem to remember
>reading , possibly in the manual I don't remember, that Verant
>refers to these levels as "Hardship levels" and their purpose was
>something to do with the characters facing hardship for some
>assinine reason. Oh and it also mentioned how these levels were a
>+ "ohh, another Inhancement" because they allowed the lower INT
>races (ahh, they did it out of their love of us Trolls and Ogres)
>the extra time needed to prevent our skills from falling far
>behind our level.
Yeah. They're a bug.
>> Of course that could be fixed CORRECTLY too... but... what is it
>> hurting? Hell levels add something to the game, if you ask me.
>>
>Personally, after dieing 5 times in level 45 (twice to a zone
>crash in SolB , once to some Zone bug that set me in the lava
>under the world when I zoned out of SolB) I think Hell Levels or
>Hardship levels are something I would not have missed had they
>never been in the game. You are right though they do add
>something, aggravation.
Well.... I dunno. I think they're a neat flavor. Sure, I would have
preferred for them NOT to be in the game, but it isn't worthwhile to
remove em.
(snip)
>> Oh, come now. After the first day, everybody knew how levitate
>> was changed. There ARE no stretches of lava in the game SO large
>> that you don't have time to find somewhere to sit down before
>> the blinking icon goes away. I doubt that many people actually
>> DIED because of the levitate nerf. Seriously annoyed yes, died
>> no.
>>
>By sinister I don't mean GZ and Brad meet in some abandon cellar
>during a full moon to discuss new and vile ways to kill
>unsuspecting players with new enhancements. Well, actually I may
>have pictured them that way for a while after I went splat and my
>guts were all over S Karana "/ooc WTF ? You can't cast Lev over
>Lev now? " was answered " /ooc Umm, no you dumb ass L00z3r".
You actually died in SKarana because of it? Where? There aren't many
places TO fall from, except maybe the aviak towers.
(snip)
>> And don't even get me started on the "warrior" thing. Sure,
>> warriors are fine in groups... when the PLAYER is skilled and
>> knows what he's doing. In the same way, a skilled enchanter,
>> necro, shaman, or magician would be even MORE valuable to your
>> group.
>>
>A really good Tank is hard to replace, a mediocre Tank you can
>take or leave and Tank that don't know how to play is just
>dangerous IMHO. I have only been in one group that had no tank yet
>still kicked major ass and that was a group of 4 level 49 and 50
>necros and myself. Just the five of us destroyed LG that night ,
>well,, I say "we" in a group of 4 Necros I found my Shaman to be
>all but useless 90% of the time except for the occasional heal on
>a pet or the Necros. I have found that there isn't a single buff a
>Shaman can cast on a high lvl necro's pet that is of any use
>except "maybe" regen but I can't see any really noticeable results
>from that.
Err, alacrity.
>> (snip)
>
>> >problem). Sorry this ran kind'a long , but I think it is an
>> >excellent example of how rewarding customers to solve problems
>> >may take a bit more imagination on the designers part but has a
>> >much better chance of success then repeated attempts to 'force'
>> >the customer down the path by nerfing them into submission.
>>
>> I read Lum the Mad's site, where he talks about a lot of UO
>> stuff, and it seems to me that you're forgetting half of the
>> "Clean up Britannia" thingie. You see, in the second half, now
>> items decay inside of houses so you CAN'T hoarde.
>>
>Actually, item decay in houses was a bug (well , OSI told us it
>was a bug) that went without being fixed for so long (maybe like
>hell levels ?) that it eventually just became part of the game. Or
>maybe they accelerated the decay after I quit UO I can't say.
As I understand it, item decay in houses was in for a week or two, a
LONG time ago... then it was a bug. However, as it was added *now*
it's a feature.
>Either way, the trash bin / reward idea was an example of a
>better way to solve problems. If OSI later nerfed it with a decay
>patch to "force" people to use it more , it changes nothing.. the
>initial idea was a good one even if OSI's next idea screwed it up
>(sounds like something they would do).
No, the trash bin/reward thing was only in for a week. They wanted
players to trash all of their hoarded stuff during that week, and
then they removed the reward bins.
>> They stopped hoarding, yes.... by saying "Y'all can't hoard no
>> more, aight?"
>>
>> The trash can thing, while rather inspired, was just to stop the
>> massive amounts of people having a hissy fit... and it worked,
>> kinda. But not really... because that WAS a serious nerf in the
>> end.
>
>Again, it was a good idea, an excellent approach to solving a
>problem even if they did manage to screw it up later (or plan it
>that way, who knows).
I think so too. It stopped a lot of bitching. Not ALL of it, but a
lot.
>> >---Snip---
>>
>> Fuck, there were 75 people in OGGOK last night for crying out
>> loud! You know, the cool new place to camp because all the
>> dungeons were full and the outside guards now have insane magic
>> resist and hit for 120? Well, now Oggok is full too.
>>
>I petitioned once to find out if Freeport had been itemized, never
>got a answer. Being a Troll I figured it should only be natural
>that I consider Freeport , Qeynos and the other goody goody towns
>as nothing more than high lvl dungeons... guess Verant don't see
>it that way though. (I did get a LJ Vest off a guard inside the
>gates *surprised* but I didn't consider going deeper into Freeport
>dungeon worth the risk without knowing if it was itemized).
Someone handed the LJ vest to good ol' Sheg, thats all. :)
No, the guards aren't itemized. Unless you count Sir Lucan, anyway.
(snip)
>> The general idea was that dragons and gods were supposed to be
>> *impossible* to kill. They were supposed to be something to be
>> feared, not...
>>
>If Gods/Dragons where never intended to be killed then why itemize
>them ?
Oh, you know what I mean. They were supposed to be a SERIOUS
challenge, the kind of thing where you tried ten times in a row
before succeeding.
>And when they decided that Invis was somehow being used
>unfairly to kill dragons they didn't nerf invis, they made dragons
>able to see invis
That wasn't it at all. Invis was being used to easily do corpse
recovery.
>so why nerf FD ? Seems they could have just
>made Dragons/Gods see through FD like they do Invis.
>
>BTW, I was under the belief that FD was nerfed because Brad
>watched 6 necros sic pets on Nag then FD . Supposedly these 6
>necro's brought Nag down with FD and Pets ... Your account of what
>happened sounds more realistic but who knows... either way, it
>seems fixing the Dragon/God would be a more reasonable solution
>then nerfing FD. At their current rate, if these elite guilds keep
>killing dragons/gods it won't be long before it takes a full group
>of lvl 50s to bring down a moss snake in Nek forrest.
Nah... moss snakes aren't SUPPOSED to be impossible to kill. But
dragons will keep getting harder and harder, and the planes will keep
getter harder and harder... and there's just no end to it, because
the harder they get the more PEOPLE we'll bring in to fight them.
(snip)
>> 1) Fear received little to no testing whatsoever. When
>> introduced it was too easy (candyland), now it's too hard along
>> with the ridiculous entire-zone cazic death touch.
>
>They could do a lot towards making that 1800 people a server more
>tolerable if they would make PoH, PoF, KK and Paw2 a bit more
>desirable so that a part of the 1800 would actually be in those
>zones instead of still cramming into LG , SolB . I realize that
>PoH , PoF were not intended for casual use, but do we really need
>more than one zone that takes days or hours of planning before you
>can go in ?
Yeah, I've got to agree with you there. PoF and PoH, as they're
currently implemented and thought of, are NOT supposed to be
replacements for overcrowded gukbottom and soldungb. Which is a
shame.
For stamina drain, try the enchanters' "augmentation" spell. It works
*beautifully*. No more stamina drain with it on, period.
Idea number 2 isn't all bad either. A dry side with enough room for
maybe three groups (with three itemized mobs) is a great idea, just
as a place to regroup and to keep the dungeon full.
>> 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago.
>> Paw2 was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the
>> strain on 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty
>> than it was BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a
>> gazillion enchanters, mobs that hit WAY too hard for their
>> level, and absolutely excretable loot.
>
>Paw2 is a joke I think, maybe Brad has a sense of humor and the
>next patch message will have something like "From the big kidders
>at Verant : April Fools !" because so far everyone I know, myself
>included, have left Paw2 thinking "You have got to be kidding"..
What can I say, I'm like nostradamus.
>> 5) How about Kedge? Here's another zone tuned for 35 to 45
>> characters, the golden child to take the strain off solB and
>> lower guk. For the first week or two it was crowded, then
>> everybody got their tainted battleworn morningstars and realized
>> that the zone was far too dangerous to actually FIGHT in for
>> experience. Can a level 35 group take an enraged dread wolf? How
>> about two and a decaying commander along for the ride? No way.
>>
>
>Being a Shaman I was pretty happy about Kith at first (nice
>+wisdom mace in there) but no one ever wants to camp it because
>the Undead only come out at night.
>You have to have a fairly good group for the reasons you list
>above but at the same time a good group can clean all the undead
>out and are left spending half their time in that zone (day time)
>setting on their thumbs waiting for night to roll around again.
Sorry yeah, I meant Kith, not kedge.
The night/day thing is just absolutely *necessary*, since that zone
must be travelled through. There's no way to get around it.
>> I can go on.
>
>Do go on. I think I am reaching the point were ranting about EQ or
>reading rants about EQ is the only pleasure I get from the game
>anymore.
You too?
Sam Schlansky
<01bf4d41$0bf3c000$c40201c0@dell40>:
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote
>> 3) Kedge was their little baby for a month or two there. It was
>> finally going to be itemized and the bugs would be gone! Well,
>> it WAS itemized (rather nicely, too)... but the bugs remain. If
>> you train out of Kedge, the mobs stay there FOREVER.
>
>No, the problem is that Verant don't implement Fishbone Earrings
>as a trivial level 35 quest. Not their style - you need to fuck
>around for every little thing...
>
>BTW, I would *never* want to go to Kedge without my Fishbone
>Earring despite Enduring Breath - its simply no substitute.
You can get a rebreather for around 6000 plat from any experienced
tinkerer these days.
Of course, all of these tinkerers only work for their guild, so
you're left trying for a fishbone again.
>> 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago.
>> Paw2 was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the
>> strain on 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty
>> than it was BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a
>> gazillion enchanters, mobs that hit WAY too hard for their
>> level, and absolutely excretable loot.
>
>Exactly as we said it would be, Sam.
>
>I tried the second day, with my then lvl 30 Paladin, having
>scouted it with my 50 Shaman. I spent an hour there and made *ok*
>experience pulling little singles to the alcove in the open area
>by the first double doors. Pulled blues and avoided greens and
>noticed one red that i scouted around.
>
>Then walking along to pull, one of the spots that had been
>spawning *FUCKING GREENS* spawned a bright red Necro and bright
>red Enchanter. Lolololol. What a fucking design - absolutely
>unplayable - dead Ed and walk back from Arena.
Yup.
>Where the fuck are all the apologists now?
I'm sure they'll chime in.
Adar
> postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk (Alasdair Allan) wrote in
> <01bf4d41$0bf3c000$c40201c0@dell40>:
>
> >Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote
> >> finally going to be itemized and the bugs would be gone! Well,
> >> it WAS itemized (rather nicely, too)... but the bugs remain. If
> >> you train out of Kedge, the mobs stay there FOREVER.
> >
> >as a trivial level 35 quest. Not their style - you need to fuck
> >around for every little thing...
> >
> >BTW, I would *never* want to go to Kedge without my Fishbone
> >Earring despite Enduring Breath - its simply no substitute.
>
> You can get a rebreather for around 6000 plat from any experienced
> tinkerer these days.
>
> Of course, all of these tinkerers only work for their guild, so
> you're left trying for a fishbone again.
Rebreathers and fishbones aren't important by themselves, per se: it's
'everyone has to have 5-6K plat to spare' requirement to hunt in a zone that
boggles the mind.
That's not even that bad, though; it's the 30 minute per person leaving or
coming thing that's the problem.
>
> >> 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago.
> >> Paw2 was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the
> >> strain on 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty
> >> than it was BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a
> >> gazillion enchanters, mobs that hit WAY too hard for their
> >> level, and absolutely excretable loot.
> >
> >Exactly as we said it would be, Sam.
> >
> >I tried the second day, with my then lvl 30 Paladin, having
> >scouted it with my 50 Shaman. I spent an hour there and made *ok*
> >experience pulling little singles to the alcove in the open area
> >by the first double doors. Pulled blues and avoided greens and
> >noticed one red that i scouted around.
> >
> >Then walking along to pull, one of the spots that had been
> >spawning *FUCKING GREENS* spawned a bright red Necro and bright
> >red Enchanter. Lolololol. What a fucking design - absolutely
> >unplayable - dead Ed and walk back from Arena.
>
> Yup.
>
> >Where the fuck are all the apologists now?
>
> I'm sure they'll chime in.
>
I hope one will. I *really* do.
Actually, I hope Brad is reading this thread. It's too late for Paw2, but
whatever else you say about Verant, they're not dumb- they do learn from
their mistakes, just not all the time.
So Brad, when Paineel, or the Hole, or whichever one of them the dungeon is,
comes up, would you please *consider* not filling it with swarms of
erudite-looking casters that drop nothing?
Smoka
single if you know what you are doing.
Smoka Silvertree
31st Level Ranger
Doop Daring
23rd Level Warrior
Fennin Ro
Dorian Brytestar
FD pulling was bragged about so much, it got noticed.
--
Dorian Brytestar
Lvl 41 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
Povar
news:19991223042712...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
: So the entire class was changed? Wouldn't it have been more apt to make it so
: Innoruk and other gods aren't fooled by FD?
:
:
:
: >rest.
: >Same with the dungeons, FD was being used to only pull one target.
: >--
: >Dorian Brytestar
: >Lvl 41 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
: >Povar
: >"Brian" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
: >news:hd726so3em3qpoero...@4ax.com...
: >: Schlansky) wrote:
: >:
: >: >Feign death was changed because Brad watched one monk feign pull
: >: >Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
: >: >thought that was a bit much.
: >: SInce I have never been on a plane breakin (and probably never will
Dorian Brytestar
that as well. Or it has a chance to get resisted, or something. No idea really, I
haven't got a character with those spells.
--
Dorian Brytestar
Lvl 41 High Elf Cleric of Tunare
Povar
news:hdv46scm5tb3s2uf8...@4ax.com...
: And what of mez or harmony? that keeps the mobs nice enough to pull a
: single if you know what you are doing.
: On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:22:25 -0500, Timothy J Parker
: <tjpa...@4321ameritech.net> wrote:
:
: >Dorian Brytestar wrote:
: >>
: >> FD was not just used against Inno, it was used everywhere to only pull one
creature
Morgan
> <tjpa...@4321ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >Dorian Brytestar wrote:
> >>
> >> FD was not just used against Inno, it was used everywhere to only pull one creature
> >> out of many. FD pulling was bragged about as being the ultimate pulling technique.
> >> I guess they didn't want people to selectively "pick" out their targets and ignore
> >> others.
> >
> >I believe they call this "cherry picking." Pulling the mob with the best loot
> >and not fighting your way to him first. Tneir idea of no reward without risk.
Smoka wrote:
>
> And what of mez or harmony? that keeps the mobs nice enough to pull a
> single if you know what you are doing.
Mesmerization is resistable. The odds of getting all of Innoruk's court
to sit dumbly by while you pull Innoruk are slim at best. It also has a
very small area of effect, so it really only works if the creatures in
question are quite close together. It's perfect for targeting a group
mate who is being mobbed by blues and greens. I would not use it for
pulling unless you could actually handle the whole group if they all
resisted.
--
Morgan
Xymarra, High Elf Enchanter on E'Ci
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>In <8EA4B5DDDvi...@207.126.101.100> s...@deletethis.operation3d.com (Sam Schlansky) writes:
>
>>Of course, it'd STILL have to be manually done. In my (limited)
>>understanding, EQ runs a pretty standard database (SQL or something
>>similar) with some HEINOUSLY primative manipulation tools. It really
>>would be a serious task to move, say, 200 people from each existing
>>server to the new one. As in, a hell of a lot of work.
>
>On their web site recently they were adverising for a sysadmin with
>Solaris experience and an Oracle database administrator. Draw your own
>conclusions on what platform they run from that. :)
Regardless of platform and database, let's assume they are using an
SQL database engine. Let's also assume that each server's character
information is stored in seperate tables (or even seperate
databases--don't really matter).
Yes, it's trivial to write SQL commands to merge two tables (or export
from one database and import to another). The problem will be
collision resolution.
It wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that each character's name is
used as a primary key in the table of characters. If two characters
have the same name, you now have a collision (can't have duplicate
primary keys in an SQL table ya know...).
How do you resolve these collisions? Automated tools are notoriously
bad at doing this--usually they just take the entry and dump it
somewhere. In pretty much every case, you would need some DBA to come
along and manually determine how to resolve the conflict. Unless
database technology jumped a few hurdles while I wasn't paying
attention...
As someone who tried to write a system to automate collision
resolution for database replication, I can tell you right now, it was
painful.
-- Sang.
Gann0n
s...@deletethis.operation3d.com says...
> The general idea was that dragons and gods were supposed to be
> *impossible* to kill. They were supposed to be something to be
> feared, not...
>
> "/guildsay Yo! SolB crashed an hour ago... lets go take down naggy! I
> called dibs on the CoF last week in hate, and Phackyoo called dibs on
> the naggy scale, he needs his armor already... damn mithril is
> getting lame... oh yeah, no unguilded allowed this time dammit"
>
> ...as it is now. And that's a shame, because dragons and gods AREN'T
> scary any more. Every time Verant makes them harder, the seriously
> elite guilds like FoH on Veeshan think up a new strategy and take
> them down without even breathing hard.
>
> Of course, Verant is watching exactly how they do it each and every
> time. Come next patch...
>
> A neverending circle.
>
>
I have a question on this..
Then WHY does Verant put near-God Weapons/items on the Dragons/Gods?
stuff like Bladestorm(2handed Sword. dmg 30.. about high 60s per hit? + a
700(??????)dmg AE proc..)
and the Red "go from level 1 to 30 in 24hrs" Fang (summons a 40ish level
Necro Pet)
...If they(Verant) don't want them(Dragons/Gods) to be killed, why bother
putting items on them?
--
Pharisee Gethsemani
27th Human Necro
Rallos Zek
Rahab
15th Wood Elf Warrior
Quellious
Itomic
>>change was made (NG readers: Please correct me if I am wrong, I
>>don't have full stats on this and am going by what I have
>>personally seen on this NG). Monks were apparently fine with how
>>it worked and happy. Now they appear not happy.
>
>Innoruuk to the zone-in point in Hate through a partial spawn. He
>thought that was a bit much.
>
Because Brad "thought" it was a bit much.
Whenever Brad "thinks" alot of people get screwed over.
Sweeping changes shouldn't be made by him alone.
When changing a current class, he at least owes them to right to
transfer their exp to another class if they so desire.
Itomic
>>Do go on. I think I am reaching the point were ranting about EQ or
>>reading rants about EQ is the only pleasure I get from the game
>>anymore.
>
>You too?
>
>Sam
hah! me 3 :)
Sang K. Choe
>And what of mez or harmony? that keeps the mobs nice enough to pull a
>single if you know what you are doing.
Mez and harmony have their limitations.
Harmony is outdoors only and often the aggro range of critters is
greater than the range of harmony (consequently, you can't get close
enough to cast it without them jumping you--which makes harmony
useless).
Mez can be resisted and if it breaks, I believe it's like charm, an
ultra-taunt.
These limitations make the spells less open to abuse of game
mechanics.
-- Sang.
rubernek
enduring breath shouldnt be much of a problem. To be on the safe side you
can always pick up not the rebreathers, the charged things (sorry its late I
dont remember what they are called) for 600pp or so. The problem is when
your loot MOBs suicide themselves from whatever zone glitch Verant couldnt
bother fixing in the last xx months. I went there once with a team of two
40+ groups, and was so discouraged when after a good tough fight, Phinigel
suicided himself with I dont know 100hps left I doubt I will ever return.
P.S. GMs did not witness this so even if all of us sent in screenshots we
were SOL. Oh they didnt see someone named Myhairycunt pop into the zone
shouting "Anyone for a good time" throughout the night so they wouldnt do
anything about that. Oh they have no way of pulling down the MOB who died at
the top of the tree unlootable. Oh a GM fears me during a GM event that
causes me to fall under the earth but dont you dare give us a direct tell
use the petition button. Oh they couldn't verify that I died to a LD death
in Innothule even though all 30 people in the zone got disconnected at once,
so they couldnt res.. Oh I am digressing.
Adar <ad...@spamaway.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:83tmqq$ee5$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
> news:8EA57A286vi...@207.126.101.100...
> > postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk (Alasdair Allan) wrote in
> > <01bf4d41$0bf3c000$c40201c0@dell40>:
> >
> > >Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote
> > >> 3) Kedge was their little baby for a month or two there. It was
> > >> finally going to be itemized and the bugs would be gone! Well,
> > >> it WAS itemized (rather nicely, too)... but the bugs remain. If
> > >> you train out of Kedge, the mobs stay there FOREVER.
> > >
> > >No, the problem is that Verant don't implement Fishbone Earrings
> > >as a trivial level 35 quest. Not their style - you need to fuck
> > >around for every little thing...
> > >
> > >BTW, I would *never* want to go to Kedge without my Fishbone
> > >Earring despite Enduring Breath - its simply no substitute.
> >
> > You can get a rebreather for around 6000 plat from any experienced
> > tinkerer these days.
> >
> > Of course, all of these tinkerers only work for their guild, so
> > you're left trying for a fishbone again.
>
> Rebreathers and fishbones aren't important by themselves, per se: it's
> 'everyone has to have 5-6K plat to spare' requirement to hunt in a zone
that
> boggles the mind.
>
> That's not even that bad, though; it's the 30 minute per person leaving or
> coming thing that's the problem.
>
> >
> > >> 4) Remember Paw2? Paw2 was introduced just a week or two ago.
> > >> Paw2 was their golden child, the dungeon that would remove the
> > >> strain on 35 to 45 players, period. Now, it's even more empty
> > >> than it was BEFORE the changeover... because Paw2 has a
> > >> gazillion enchanters, mobs that hit WAY too hard for their
> > >> level, and absolutely excretable loot.
> > >
Dan Bongard
>Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up in
>the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer service and
>answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I don't care - I just
>want thruthful ones). Anyways....
>#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
Because you call them "Hell Levels".
>#2)Why was Levitate nerfed?
Verant answered that already -- because you could reach areas
you weren't supposed to be able to reach.
>#3) After all the posts from people who like to solo, why
> isn't this an option yet?
It is an option. When people invite you into a group, just don't
click on the "accept" button. :) If you are asking why soloing
is harder than grouping -- ever wonder why the United States
has an army, instead of just one guy with one gun? That's a
hint, by the way.
> There is no need to "buff up" monsters to accomplish this,
> just make them move in packs.
That way the soloing folks can get pounded on by 5 slightly
less tough monsters instead of one tougher one? Great idea --
that way we can have more trains, more lag, and soloing
won't be any easier.
Second hint: anything that is easy for one person to defeat
will be a cakewalk for a group.
Incidentally, #3 is yet another question Verant has already
answered.
>#4) After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why
> was only one server added?
Because the servers aren't very overcrowded.
> Also, why is there no ability to move (one time only) a
> pre-exsisting character to that new server?
Yet another question Verant has already answered. Short
answer: because it would solve nothing while simultaneously
creating huge problems and wasting a lot of Verant's staff
resources.
>#6)Why was feign death changed?
Verant's answer: because monks were exploiting it.
>Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
>appear not happy.
Of course they were happy with how it worked. If I had a
way to pull the toughest monsters from the bottom of a
dungeon so I could fight them at the zone for virtually
no personal risk, I'd be happy too.
>#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes
> (even if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the
> effect of slowing player level advancement?
Why does it appear that way? I'd imagine a certain degree of
paranoia on your part is the primary reason. Incidentally,
Verant has also answered "question" #7, too.
> I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this
You've already gotten answers to most of them. If you spent
as much time listening to Verant's explanations as you do
bitching that they aren't providing explanations, you'd
probably know what the explanations were. :)
-- Dan
Royal
Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:84bj59$jpb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> xlar...@my-deja.com writes:
>>#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>Because you call them "Hell Levels".
I suspect the real answer here is a bit more complicated than that. If I
had to place a guess (and that's really my only option in the absence of
hard data), that guess would be that Hell Levels are a consequence of
whatever algorithm is used to determine that amount of xp off of any given
kill at any given level by any given class/race combo.
> >#2)Why was Levitate nerfed?
>Verant answered that already -- because you could reach areas
>you weren't supposed to be able to reach.
True enough, as far as it goes. Mutiple-casting Levitate could in fact get
you into places where Verant didn't think you ought to be. That, though,
doesn't explain why Lev was "nerfed" as opposed to "fixed". Forbidding a
re-casting of Lev while the effect is still operational severely reduces the
utility of the spell; fixing it so that the second cast on an
already-affected target doesn't cause an additional vertical rise solves the
problem without seriously negatively impacting spell functionality. Tougher
to code, though, without question.
>>#3) After all the posts from people who like to solo, why
>> isn't this an option yet?
> It is an option. When people invite you into a group, just don't
>click on the "accept" button. :) If you are asking why soloing
>is harder than grouping -- ever wonder why the United States
>has an army, instead of just one guy with one gun? That's a
>hint, by the way.
Maybe I have a skewed definition of "soloing". I'd used that word in the
past to mean "playing the game without a group". The solution that you've
presented here I would have called "observing" the game, not playing it.
>> There is no need to "buff up" monsters to accomplish this,
>> just make them move in packs.
>That way the soloing folks can get pounded on by 5 slightly
>less tough monsters instead of one tougher one? Great idea --
>that way we can have more trains, more lag, and soloing
>won't be any easier.
>Second hint: anything that is easy for one person to defeat
>will be a cakewalk for a group.
>Incidentally, #3 is yet another question Verant has already
>answered.
Agreed. Making the monsters move in packs looks like it will cause a lot
more problems than it solves, and given the scarcity of effective crowd
control in the game, could easily be the killing blow for soloing as a
concept.
Anything that is easy for one person to defeat will be a cakewalk for a
group to defeat -- Given that the soloist and the members of the group are
all approximately equal in level. Groups can engage mobs that are higher in
level than any individual member of the group, and defeat it while incurring
less downtime than the soloist.
> >#4) After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why
> > was only one server added?
>Because the servers aren't very overcrowded.
And here I thought was the one point on EQ that was pretty universally
agreed upon. The servers are overcrowded for any practical purpose, even if
an artifically applied formula says that everything is wonderful. The fact
is that even though there are underutilized zones, there are also reasons
why those zones are underutilized, and why players hence move into crowded
zones.
>> Also, why is there no ability to move (one time only) a
>> pre-exsisting character to that new server?
>Yet another question Verant has already answered. Short
>answer: because it would solve nothing while simultaneously
>creating huge problems and wasting a lot of Verant's staff
>resources.
True enough, Verant has answered this. Server hopping could cause some
problems, no argument here.
>>#6)Why was feign death changed?
>Verant's answer: because monks were exploiting it.
Well, that's Verant's answer to an awful lot of questions, and only rarely
is the word "exploit" used correctly as a justification for a nerf. Feign
Death has existed since Beta; it's not new, it's not a surprise, it's not
that Verant just now found about it. Calling feign-pulling an exploit,
implying that it's something of the same caliber as safe zones, strikes a
bad chord. It's analogous to giving every monster over 35th level a second
save against Ice Comet, because wizards are "exploiting" it to cause large
quanities of damage to Nagafen.
>>Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
>>appear not happy.
>Of course they were happy with how it worked. If I had a
>way to pull the toughest monsters from the bottom of a
>dungeon so I could fight them at the zone for virtually
>no personal risk, I'd be happy too.
Then happy you should be, because you too could have feign-pulled, had you
played a monk, or to a lesser extent, a necro or SK. I've never played a
monk myself, so I can't testify to the realistic possibility of pulling the
toughest monsters from the bottom of a dungeon to fight them at the zone
line. That said, there's an important detail to which I feel insufficient
attention was paid: Monks were happy. Monks are now not happy. This isn't
in dispute. Restate it: Customers were happy. Customers are now not
happy. Once again, never played a monk, so I won't say that all monks are
unhappy with this, but I have yet to hear from a monk that was dancing with
joy over having Feign Death "enhanced".
>>#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes
>> (even if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the
>> effect of slowing player level advancement?
>Why does it appear that way? I'd imagine a certain degree of
>paranoia on your part is the primary reason. Incidentally,
>Verant has also answered "question" #7, too.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm wrong. The reason I think
they're all out to get is because they *are* all out to get me :)
Seriously, there have been a couple of changes that appeared aimed
specifically at slowing progession. I give you the DoT/kiting nerf as the
premier example.
> > I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this
> You've already gotten answers to most of them. If you spent
>as much time listening to Verant's explanations as you do
>bitching that they aren't providing explanations, you'd
>probably know what the explanations were. :)
Again, I'm willing to go along with saying that Verant has posted answers to
several things, but I don't know that I'd call them explanations. I don't
recall Verant ever explaining, in any public place, the reason why Levitate
was nerfed, although I do remember them saying that it was.
John Henders
>Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:84bj59$jpb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >#2)Why was Levitate nerfed?
> >Verant answered that already -- because you could reach areas
>>you weren't supposed to be able to reach.
>True enough, as far as it goes. Mutiple-casting Levitate could in fact get
>you into places where Verant didn't think you ought to be. That, though,
>doesn't explain why Lev was "nerfed" as opposed to "fixed". Forbidding a
>re-casting of Lev while the effect is still operational severely reduces the
>utility of the spell; fixing it so that the second cast on an
>already-affected target doesn't cause an additional vertical rise solves the
>problem without seriously negatively impacting spell functionality. Tougher
>to code, though, without question.
As Sam already posted, it was only possible to levitate to places you
weren't supposed to go with the pegasus cloak, as it has no recast time.
It was impossible to do with the spell as it has a long enough recast
time that it wouldn't lift you any higher. Thus, as Sam also wrote, the
real answer is the spell was nerfed because Verant has a shoestring
budget for maintenance and can't be bothered keeping enough programmers
on staff to fix bugs the right way. Sort of penny wise/pound foolish you
might say.
xlar...@my-deja.com
me on this NG before but *never* to this extent. You seem to be brown
nosing verant...anyway here are my responses to your responses:
In article <84bj59$jpb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
> xlar...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >Please feel free to add/correct to this list. I'm putting this up in
> >the *hope* that maybe Verant will do some *real* customer service and
> >answer truthfully (If I don't like the answers, I don't care - I just
> >want thruthful ones). Anyways....
>
> >#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>
> Because you call them "Hell Levels".
Lot of thought in your answer I see. Definately didn't answer the
question.
>
> >#2)Why was Levitate nerfed?
>
> Verant answered that already -- because you could reach areas
> you weren't supposed to be able to reach.
No, they haven't answered it. I still haven't even seen so much as a
patch message stating it was done (albeit a moot point now but
acknowledgement would still be nice).
>
> >#3) After all the posts from people who like to solo, why
> > isn't this an option yet?
>
> It is an option. When people invite you into a group, just don't
> click on the "accept" button. :) If you are asking why soloing
> is harder than grouping -- ever wonder why the United States
> has an army, instead of just one guy with one gun? That's a
> hint, by the way.
Wellll...the army is real...this is a game. Waiter..reality check,
please.
>
> > There is no need to "buff up" monsters to accomplish this,
> > just make them move in packs.
>
> That way the soloing folks can get pounded on by 5 slightly
> less tough monsters instead of one tougher one? Great idea --
> that way we can have more trains, more lag, and soloing
> won't be any easier.
>
> Second hint: anything that is easy for one person to defeat
> will be a cakewalk for a group.
Ok. Admittly I really left this one open for attack. I may not know how
to word what I'd like to see, but I do know that soloing *should* be an
option (perhaps an experience penalty imposed on monsters that are
'soloable'? )
>
> Incidentally, #3 is yet another question Verant has already
> answered.
>
> >#4) After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why
> > was only one server added?
>
> Because the servers aren't very overcrowded.
Ok...one small question to this response....WHAT FUCKING DRUGS ARE YOU
ON?
>
> > Also, why is there no ability to move (one time only) a
> > pre-exsisting character to that new server?
>
> Yet another question Verant has already answered. Short
> answer: because it would solve nothing while simultaneously
> creating huge problems and wasting a lot of Verant's staff
> resources.
A logistical problem but the *only* way to solve server overcrowding.
Unless they can come up with something to entice people to drop the
characters they've spent 6 months on and start over on a new server.
>
> >#6)Why was feign death changed?
>
> Verant's answer: because monks were exploiting it.
>
Verant needs to learn how to actually 'fix' things. You don't fix
something by dimishing it. When the government figured 80mph was too
fast, did they make automakers lower the engine power? NO. They lowered
the speed limit. To fix monks pulling really high level stuff (like
Innoruk (sp)) they could have *easily* made the mob immune to feign
death.
> >Monks were apparently fine with how it worked and happy. Now they
> >appear not happy.
>
> Of course they were happy with how it worked. If I had a
> way to pull the toughest monsters from the bottom of a
> dungeon so I could fight them at the zone for virtually
> no personal risk, I'd be happy too.
Well, their fix screwed the monks over for pulling anything over lvl35.
Why does verant make the game harder for the majority because of a
powergaming minority? (if people want to make level 50 in 24hrs..so
what..let everyone enjoy the game in the way they see fit...)
>
> >#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes
> > (even if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the
> > effect of slowing player level advancement?
>
> Why does it appear that way? I'd imagine a certain degree of
> paranoia on your part is the primary reason. Incidentally,
> Verant has also answered "question" #7, too.
No...not paranoia on my part. I've read the lists. Perhaps you should
read them too.
>
> > I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this
>
> You've already gotten answers to most of them. If you spent
> as much time listening to Verant's explanations as you do
> bitching that they aren't providing explanations, you'd
> probably know what the explanations were. :)
No, we haven't. What we've gotten is a bunch of PR bull each and
everytime Brad or Gordon open their mouths. I want real answers. I may
not like them all, but I want them.
>
> -- Dan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sammy Gordon
ITs sorta like going to the doctor to have a cat that was super glued
to your face by accident removed and the doctor tells you that there
is not cat on your face....
Olaf
Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:84bj59$jpb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> xlar...@my-deja.com writes
> >#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>
> Because you call them "Hell Levels".
Are you insinuating that 30, 35, etc, dont take MASSIVE amounts of time to
get through, as opposed to levels near those (ie. 30 takes far longer to get
through than 29 or 31)? If so, you are wrong.
>
> >#2)Why was Levitate nerfed?
>
> Verant answered that already -- because you could reach areas
> you weren't supposed to be able to reach.
With an ITEM. They took the easy road and cause big time inconveniences,
best case, to a lot of people. Sort of like lots of their other 'fixes'
>
> >#3) After all the posts from people who like to solo, why
> > isn't this an option yet?
>
> It is an option. When people invite you into a group, just don't
> click on the "accept" button. :) If you are asking why soloing
> is harder than grouping -- ever wonder why the United States
> has an army, instead of just one guy with one gun? That's a
> hint, by the way.
Even though your analogy is bad, I have to admit I laughed out loud.
>
> >#4) After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why
> > was only one server added?
>
> Because the servers aren't very overcrowded.
WRONG. The servers are EXTRMELY overcrowded at certain times of the day and
at certain level ranges. I can tell you that on Tribunal, at lvl 34 with my
Ranger it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to casually play the game and make progress
between the hours of 6p-12a CST.
>
> > Also, why is there no ability to move (one time only) a
> > pre-exsisting character to that new server?
>
> Yet another question Verant has already answered. Short
> answer: because it would solve nothing while simultaneously
> creating huge problems and wasting a lot of Verant's staff
> resources.
More accurate answer: they are too lazy, and dont see any profit behind it.
I laid out an extremely feasible plan to allow migration of older chars to
new (read, not yet public) servers. It would require some manpower, but it
wouldnt be that hard.
>
> >#7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes
> > (even if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the
> > effect of slowing player level advancement?
>
> Why does it appear that way? I'd imagine a certain degree of
> paranoia on your part is the primary reason. Incidentally,
> Verant has also answered "question" #7, too.
Most changes ARE to prevent people from leveling too quickly or easily.
They may be legitimate game imbalances or bugs, but most of the fixes have
the net effect of making the game harder/more tedious.
>
> > I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this
>
> You've already gotten answers to most of them. If you spent
> as much time listening to Verant's explanations as you do
> bitching that they aren't providing explanations, you'd
> probably know what the explanations were. :)
The bottomline is that despite a vision that Verant and/or Brad McQuaid may
or may not have for the game, they make their changes based on what they
feel will make them the most money in the long run.
olaf
Dan Bongard
>>>#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>>Because you call them "Hell Levels".
> I suspect the real answer here is a bit more complicated than that.
I think you missed my point -- "Hell Levels" is the name given
to whatever levels a given person has trouble with. The phrase
"Hell Level" has no objective meaning.
>>> #2)Why was Levitate nerfed?
>> Verant answered that already -- because you could reach areas
>> you weren't supposed to be able to reach.
> True enough, as far as it goes. Mutiple-casting Levitate could
> in fact get you into places where Verant didn't think you ought
> to be. That, though, doesn't explain why Lev was "nerfed" as
> opposed to "fixed".
Nerfs are fixes.
> Forbidding a re-casting of Lev while the effect is still
> operational severely reduces the utility of the spell
Not really. The spell lasts long enough to get you across
pretty much any zone in the game.
>>>#3) After all the posts from people who like to solo, why
>>> isn't this an option yet?
>> It is an option. When people invite you into a group, just don't
>> click on the "accept" button. :) If you are asking why soloing
>> is harder than grouping -- ever wonder why the United States
>> has an army, instead of just one guy with one gun? That's a
>> hint, by the way.
> Maybe I have a skewed definition of "soloing". I'd used that
> word in the past to mean "playing the game without a group".
> The solution that you've presented here I would have called
> "observing" the game, not playing it.
I've no idea what your point is here; mine is that anything
that can be killed by one person can be killed more easily
by a team. Making the game easy for soloers makes it a
cakewalk for teams, unless you specifically put in code to
screw teams (which would be insane, given that this is a
multiplayer game).
>>>#4) After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why
>>> was only one server added?
>> Because the servers aren't very overcrowded.
> And here I thought was the one point on EQ that was pretty
> universally agreed upon.
You were wrong. Please remember that the opinions of the
residents of this newsgroup bear little resemblance to reality.
> The servers are overcrowded for any practical purpose
No, Greater Faydark and Crushbone are overcrowded for any
practical purpose. This problem goes away if you actually
remember that the game is "EverQuest", not "Ever-Stand-Around-
In-the-same-zone-your-whole-career".
>>> #6)Why was feign death changed?
>> Verant's answer: because monks were exploiting it.
> Well, that's Verant's answer to an awful lot of questions
That is Verant's answer when they nerf something that was being
exploited. Kiting was a past example of this.
> and only rarely is the word "exploit" used correctly as a
> justification for a nerf.
Since Verant defines what constitutes an exploit, their opinion
is the only one that matters when determining if something is
an exploit.
> Feign Death has existed since Beta;
So what? Unless you are arguing that something that has been
abusive for a REALLY LONG TIME is less worthy of nerfing than
something which has only been abusive recently, the length
of time Feign Death has been around is irrelevant.
> it's not new, it's not a surprise it's not that Verant just
> now found about it.
It appears that they only recently discovered the extent to
which monks were abusing Feign Death. Regardless, however,
Verant (like any software firm) does not have infinite
resources, and thus cannot be expected to instantly address
evey game balance problem. It may well be that they knew
how abusive the skill was long ago, and simply had higher-
priority changes to make, first.
> Calling feign-pulling an exploit, implying that it's
> something of the same caliber as safe zones, strikes a
> bad chord.
Tough. Feign Death was meant as a last-resort death-avoidance
skill. Most monks chose to use it as a "pull the tough monsters
next to the zone at virtually no risk" skill. That's an
exploit, plain and simple.
> It's analogous to giving every monster over 35th level a
> second save against Ice Comet, because wizards are
> "exploiting" it to cause large quanities of damage to Nagafen.
That's a remarkably stupid example. Ice Comet is a direct-damage
spell -- doing direct damage is its primary effect. Feign
Death is NOT a monster-pulling skill; using it to pull monsters
is an exploit.
> That said, there's an important detail to which I feel
> insufficient attention was paid: Monks were happy. Monks
> are now not happy.
Wrong. SOME monks are now not happy. Three words: so fucking what.
Back in the 80's I had a guy in my AD&D campaign who was
happy with his +5 Vorpal Sword, and unhappy when I wouldn't
let him have it anymore. He quit the campaign; I wasn't sorry
to see him go.
"I should get to be abusive and exploitive because it makes me
happy" is NOT a valid argument.
> Restate it: Customers were happy. Customers are now not happy.
So they should quit, because they aren't getting their favorite
exploit back.
> Once again, never played a monk, so I won't say that all monks
> are unhappy with this, but I have yet to hear from a monk that
> was dancing with joy over having Feign Death "enhanced".
Those are the two options? "Unhappy" or "dancing with joy"?
>>> #7)Why, despite your lists, does it appear that most changes
>>> (even if you say they are enhancements) appear to have the
>>> effect of slowing player level advancement?
>> Why does it appear that way? I'd imagine a certain degree of
>> paranoia on your part is the primary reason. Incidentally,
>> Verant has also answered "question" #7, too.
> Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Of course not. You are wrong because you think most changes
slow level advancement despite the fact that they don't. You
are paranoid because you think Verant is lying to cover up.
> Seriously, there have been a couple of changes that appeared
> aimed specifically at slowing progession. I give you the
> DoT/kiting nerf as the premier example.
The kiting nerf. DoTs were enhanced -- they do more damage now
than they did before. That aside, Verant's reason for the
change was simple; people aren't supposed to be able to solo
red creatures. With kiting, you can solo red creatures. Thus,
the reduction in kiting effectiveness.
But still, let's assume you could call that an attempt to
"limit level advancement". Fine. That's one example. Now
you need to provide enough examples to constitute 50% or
more of the total enhancements made to date -- please note
that the claim, above, is that MOST changes make level
advancement slower.
>>> I doubt that I will get any answers from Verant on this
>> You've already gotten answers to most of them. If you spent
>> as much time listening to Verant's explanations as you do
>> bitching that they aren't providing explanations, you'd
>> probably know what the explanations were. :)
> Again, I'm willing to go along with saying that Verant has
> posted answers to several things, but I don't know that I'd
> call them explanations.
People asked questions; Verant answered and stated their
reasons. That's an explanation.
-- Dan
Sang K. Choe
>"Royal" <cors...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> writes:
>> Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>> xlar...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>>>>#1)Why are there Hell Levels?
>
>>>Because you call them "Hell Levels".
>
>> I suspect the real answer here is a bit more complicated than that.
>
>I think you missed my point -- "Hell Levels" is the name given
>to whatever levels a given person has trouble with. The phrase
>"Hell Level" has no objective meaning.
Nonsense.
Either you've never gotten far enough in the game or you're being
intentionally deceptive. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that
at level 40, it takes a ridiculously more number of the same critters
killed than at level 41.
Unless you want to argue that it didn't take me nearly 3 times as long
(and as many) critters to get from 40 to 41 as it did to go from 41 to
42.
>>>> #2)Why was Levitate nerfed?
>
>>> Verant answered that already -- because you could reach areas
>>> you weren't supposed to be able to reach.
>
>> True enough, as far as it goes. Mutiple-casting Levitate could
>> in fact get you into places where Verant didn't think you ought
>> to be. That, though, doesn't explain why Lev was "nerfed" as
>> opposed to "fixed".
>
>Nerfs are fixes.
Again, nonsense.
In the case of Levitate, it's at best a miserable hack. At worse,
it's fixing one bug with another bug.
>> Forbidding a re-casting of Lev while the effect is still
>> operational severely reduces the utility of the spell
>
>Not really. The spell lasts long enough to get you across
>pretty much any zone in the game.
Again, nonsense.
Ever hunt in OOT? Ever tried to go to various islands in OOT?
Levitate makes a huge difference in this place. The fact that they
broke levitate makes hunting in OOT juat that much bigger pain in the
butt.
>>>>#4) After all the complaints about server overcrowding, why
>>>> was only one server added?
>
>>> Because the servers aren't very overcrowded.
>
>> And here I thought was the one point on EQ that was pretty
>> universally agreed upon.
>
>You were wrong. Please remember that the opinions of the
>residents of this newsgroup bear little resemblance to reality.
Fine, the servers themselves aren't crowded. Various zones however,
are.
The problem is still in Verant's lap. The reason why various zones
are crowded is because many of the uncrowded zones are pretty much
broken.
>> The servers are overcrowded for any practical purpose
>
>No, Greater Faydark and Crushbone are overcrowded for any
>practical purpose.
S Karana, W Karana, N Karana, Oasis, E Common, W Common, Unrest,
Mistmoore, Lesser Faydark, Misty Thicket, Lake Rathe, Everfrost, LGuk,
BlackBurrow, etc...
Not crowded zones:
Perma, Nejena, Kedge, New Paw, Kithicor, U Guk...can't really tell if
SolA/B are crowded on my server since I don't really know how many
people can really be in those places yet.
>This problem goes away if you actually
>remember that the game is "EverQuest", not "Ever-Stand-Around-
>In-the-same-zone-your-whole-career".
What freaking quest? Those that require you to sit and stare at a
single spawn point waiting for some specific named mob to spawn?
If you mean, go to various zones and explore--great! That took all of
a week. Now what?
Tell me, exactly how long have you played this game and what level are
you characters? Because some of your comments seems to indicate that
you're really not very high in level...
>>>> #6)Why was feign death changed?
>
>>> Verant's answer: because monks were exploiting it.
>
>> Well, that's Verant's answer to an awful lot of questions
>
>That is Verant's answer when they nerf something that was being
>exploited. Kiting was a past example of this.
No, that's Verant's answer when they realize they've introduced an
aspect into the game that they never bother to fully play test
correctly. Infact, given the some of the horribly obvious exploits
and bugs that some how managed to get through to live servers, I
honestly believe Verant has no real play testing group--if they did
things like Alchemy, Kiting, Manastones, etc... would never have made
it through to the live servers.
>> and only rarely is the word "exploit" used correctly as a
>> justification for a nerf.
>
>Since Verant defines what constitutes an exploit, their opinion
>is the only one that matters when determining if something is
>an exploit.
Yep.
But it would be nice if they did some meaningful play testing up front
so as to not change this definition several months after the "exploit"
have been introduced, don'tcha think?
>> Feign Death has existed since Beta;
>
>So what? Unless you are arguing that something that has been
>abusive for a REALLY LONG TIME is less worthy of nerfing than
>something which has only been abusive recently, the length
>of time Feign Death has been around is irrelevant.
No, it means the they should have determine this was an exploit a long
time ago. Relying on your paying customers to do play testing for
you, is a Bad Thing (tm).
>> Seriously, there have been a couple of changes that appeared
>> aimed specifically at slowing progession. I give you the
>> DoT/kiting nerf as the premier example.
>
>The kiting nerf. DoTs were enhanced -- they do more damage now
>than they did before. That aside, Verant's reason for the
>change was simple; people aren't supposed to be able to solo
>red creatures. With kiting, you can solo red creatures. Thus,
>the reduction in kiting effectiveness.
Yep, completely agree with Verant's view on this one. However,
exactly how long did it take them to figure out this was possible?
Exactly at what point did someone realize: Hey, players with
increased running speed + critters with decreased running speed +
damage over time spell = Player can kill pretty much anything in the
game.
Because this is probably the most obvious tatic to anyone that's
played the game for more than a couple of weeks.
Is there any sort of formal play testing process in place at Verant?
I'm just curious since some of the things that get through just
doesn't seem to indicate that there is.
-- Sang.