Fungi Tunic Nerfed?
Eric Gunn
Month, does anyone know if this is true?
Also is it wearable by a Beastlord? The Eqprices.com listing did not
seem to indicate Beastlords could use it.
Dark Tyger
>I overheard a conversation about the Fungi Tunic Being nerfed this
>Month, does anyone know if this is true?
If it hasn't happened yet, all it is is a rumor. VI isn't known for
announcing in advance item nerfs.
>Also is it wearable by a Beastlord? The Eqprices.com listing did not
>seem to indicate Beastlords could use it.
Nope. Lotta pissed off BLs over that, but I say good. Too many people
give them to twink newbie characters for speed-soloing...
--
Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
Change "mindspring.com" to "knology.net" to email
=^..^=
"The reason people are more violently opposed to fur than leather
Is because it's easier to harass rich women than biker gangs..."
-Bumper sticker
Dream King
>I overheard a conversation about the Fungi Tunic Being nerfed this
>Month, does anyone know if this is true?
That rumor has been around ever since the tunic was put in.
>Also is it wearable by a Beastlord? The Eqprices.com listing did not
>seem to indicate Beastlords could use it.
At this time it is not wearable by the Vah Shir race.
David Navarro
>
> I overheard a conversation about the Fungi Tunic Being nerfed this
> Month, does anyone know if this is true?
I don't know, but it would be nice if they restored the effect to the
Robe of Living Fungus, to compensate. :)
--
"player tries to put the pin back in"
Faned
That's the full extent of the nerf. Before it was useable by "All" races,
and now it's not useable by the cats (only).
As there's no actual reason for the change, I expect it will be "fixed"
about the same time the first cat hits 60. The reasoning behind it is
obvious. Too bad that the true "racers" are all sitting in front of level
60 druids and aren't bothered a bit by the fungi tunic change. The
penalized people are the ones that don't want to PL, but would rather get a
boost while actually playing.
Wolfie
"Dark Tyger" wrote
> Eric Gunn wrote:
>
> >I overheard a conversation about the Fungi Tunic Being nerfed this
> >Month, does anyone know if this is true?
>
> If it hasn't happened yet, all it is is a rumor. VI isn't known for
> announcing in advance item nerfs.
>
> >Also is it wearable by a Beastlord? The Eqprices.com listing did not
> >seem to indicate Beastlords could use it.
>
> Nope. Lotta pissed off BLs over that, but I say good. Too many people
> give them to twink newbie characters for speed-soloing...
Which, I believe, is the nerf. They were marked as wearable
by BST before SoL came out, then removed at release. So
some people bought them to help leveling their new chars
and ended up "wasting" the pp. Not having a fungi myself
I'm not positive, but I seem to recall that being discussed.
Dan Harmon
"Faned" <fa...@wyld.wox.org> wrote in message
news:slrna1a6is...@wyld.wox.org...
> <eric...@execpc.com> wrote:
> As there's no actual reason for the change, I expect it will be "fixed"
> about the same time the first cat hits 60. The reasoning behind it is
> obvious. Too bad that the true "racers" are all sitting in front of level
> 60 druids and aren't bothered a bit by the fungi tunic change. The
> penalized people are the ones that don't want to PL, but would rather get
a
> boost while actually playing.
I would consider giving a FT to a newbie cat AS PLing.
Here's evidence to back up my statement: how much do they go for on your
server?
Sorry, you give something that valuable to a newbie, it's PLing. :p
Tim Smith
>I don't know, but it would be nice if they restored the effect to the
>Robe of Living Fungus, to compensate. :)
Haha. For those who weren't playing back then, here's a summary of
what he is referring to.
Originally, the Fungi Tunic and the Robe of the Living Fungus (and I
think a couple of other items) all had Fungal effects (I don't recall
if they had the same effect).
One day, everyone with a Robe of the Living Fungus noticed that the
effect was gone, and they complained about the unannounced nerf.
Verant's response: we have no idea what you are talking about, because
the Robe of the Living Fungus *NEVER* had any effect on it!
Player's response: oh yes it did!
Verant's response: you are all nuts. The designer of the item says he
never put an effect on it. There's no way we would put Fungal
Whatever on Robe of the Living Fungus...it would be totally
overpowering, and if by some weird glitch, one or two of you had that,
you should have known it was overpowering and a mistake and expected
it to go away (yeah...when every other item in the "Fungus" line had a
Fungal effect...players should be surprised that the Robe of the
Living Fungus has a Fungal effect). Anyway, we still don't believe
that it had an effect, but if it did, it was some weird data
corruption when we exported the item data, and won't be restored.
Player's response: you are stupid and/or lying.
Verant's response: (nothing)
--Tim Smith
Faned
Twinking, and then playing the game "as intended" just with more power.
Believe me, fungi tunic doesn't even come close to a dedicated PL, not even
close. And I have to say, it's the first time I've ever seen twinking
called PLing. Do you call a druid healing/thorning/snaring/rooting for a
level 5 "twinking"?
Fungi tunic results in level 50s with 10 days /played. Dedicated PL results
in level 50s with 40 *hours* /played (of which I've seen a few already, /who
all vah 50 60).
Matt Frisch
the ether:
A fungi is better than being PLd. A lot better.
Dream King
>A fungi is better than being PLd. A lot better.
In what way? I'd rather have a Druid PLing me. It all depends on how
you're defining 'better' I suppose. A fungi is good if you want to play
and max your skills each level. Druid is good if you want to level as
fast as possible.
Lannella / Busker
> close. And I have to say, it's the first time I've ever seen twinking
> called PLing.
Twinking is a form of PLing. It's just a matter of Passive PLing vs.
Aggressive PLing.
Anytime that a character gets help 'beyond reasonable measures', it's PLing.
That would include items well beyond their level's grasp (ie I, personally,
wouldn't consider banded on a lowbie to be twinking but a Fungi, yes),
uber-buffs, etc. It would not include grouping with (and not being
watchdogged by) someone a couple of levels higher.
There's not really much difference between an ongoing buff from a druid of,
say, 200 ac, and getting a constant 200 AC from twinked items, is there?
Dan Harmon
> Twinking, and then playing the game "as intended" just with more power.
> Believe me, fungi tunic doesn't even come close to a dedicated PL, not
even
> close. And I have to say, it's the first time I've ever seen twinking
> called PLing. Do you call a druid healing/thorning/snaring/rooting for a
> level 5 "twinking"?
>
> Fungi tunic results in level 50s with 10 days /played. Dedicated PL
results
> in level 50s with 40 *hours* /played (of which I've seen a few already,
/who
> all vah 50 60).
A character who is in their 50s with only 10 days /played can EASILY be
considered PLed, by whatever means. Ten days is nothing. It's just a drop
in the bucket compared to those who did it the "right way" (per Verant's
"Vision" <tm>). I got my enchanter up to 50 in less than 30 days, and that
was twinked.
TEN DAYS to get to 50 and you don't call that POWER-LEVELED???
No, you're right, giving a newbie a 50kp item (last I knew from my server,
but I don't keep up with stuff I'll never be able to afford) isn't as fast
as having a druid PL them to 40, and a shaman or cleric take over from
there. But hell yeah it's PLing anyway.
BTW, I have NOTHING against PLing and twinking as long as the twinky keeps
his skills up and knows his role in a group.
Eric Gunn
35 though things started to hit alort harder, and while it was still
good to have the tunic, at that level it didnt seems nearly as
helpfull.
Eric Gunn
and selling stuff. Now that I'm back it's fun but also hard to not be
rich, as soon as I build some funds I will be hitting up good old
faymart again
Just Jekke
Frisch) wrote:
>A fungi is better than being PLd. A lot better.
I've actually done both, so I can compare.
I started a cleric, played her to about level 12, then realized I
couldn't deal with the idea of playing cleric in pickup groups where
the enchanter wanted to pull because "if I don't get aggro, my pet
won't attack" and paid a druid friend to PL me to 24. Then, I played
in groups to 31, lost my regular group and played my rogue and cleric
together until she reached 35 so I could get rid of the damned spell
book.
The rogue, I twinked to the gills at level 6, soloed to 20, grouped
for a couple of levels to get my backstab up, soloed to 31, then
traded the fungal away.
Of the three methods, I found that PLing was fastest, but left you
least qualified to play afterwards. My cleric's 1hb was maxed, but all
of her casting skills sucked eggs. Even at 39, I can still
chain-fizzle with the best of em. I don't expect her to be fully "up
to speed" until level 50 or so.
The rogue was much easier to slipstream back into grouping. Only
backstab was atrophied, but dropping 75 practice points and about 1200
plat into it maxed me back out. Of course, this may be a
melee-vs-caster thing.
What I found to be the BEST method was playing the two characters (at
level 39 and 34) together.
--Jekke
=====================
Playing on Torvonilous
Qiin Dred (Iksar Necromancer, 55)
Moulin Khmer (Dark Elf Rogue, 50)
Sheava Ebonrezzor (Dark Elf Cleric, 39)
Greebeux Goodkitty (Iksar Warrior, 27)
Persona (Dark Elf Enchanter, 5)
Kaziganthi
"Just Jekke" <Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pjce1ukhabp18mlg3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:59:42 GMT, matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com (Matt
> Frisch) wrote:
>
> >A fungi is better than being PLd. A lot better.
>
> I've actually done both, so I can compare.
>
> I started a cleric, played her to about level 12, then realized I
> couldn't deal with the idea of playing cleric in pickup groups where
> the enchanter wanted to pull because "if I don't get aggro, my pet
> won't attack" and paid a druid friend to PL me to 24. Then, I played
> in groups to 31, lost my regular group and played my rogue and cleric
> together until she reached 35 so I could get rid of the damned spell
> book.
>
> The rogue, I twinked to the gills at level 6, soloed to 20, grouped
> for a couple of levels to get my backstab up, soloed to 31, then
> traded the fungal away.
>
> Of the three methods, I found that PLing was fastest, but left you
> least qualified to play afterwards. My cleric's 1hb was maxed, but all
> of her casting skills sucked eggs. Even at 39, I can still
> chain-fizzle with the best of em. I don't expect her to be fully "up
> to speed" until level 50 or so.
>
> The rogue was much easier to slipstream back into grouping. Only
> backstab was atrophied, but dropping 75 practice points and about 1200
> plat into it maxed me back out. Of course, this may be a
> melee-vs-caster thing.
It just depends on the methods used. I PL my alts quite a bit. I just use my
druid for melees (and casters up until a certain point) and the skills keep
up. I haven't had any skill atrophies, and with casters, I just took a
couple days off to macro cast to skill up with it. And too, with my warrior,
I had neglected 1hb for lack of a 1hb weapon, so during a camp I brought a
CoT and within about 5 hours (and no point inserts) I had about 200 in 1hb.
If you stagger out the lvling a tad (but still keep at an elevated rate) the
skills don't lack.
Wolfie
"Just Jekke" wrote
> Of the three methods, I found that PLing was fastest, but left you
> least qualified to play afterwards. My cleric's 1hb was maxed, but all
> of her casting skills sucked eggs. Even at 39, I can still
> chain-fizzle with the best of em. I don't expect her to be fully "up
> to speed" until level 50 or so.
It's not that difficult to max casting skill outside of a group or hunt
situation. Simply find an isolated spot -- the zone wall between the
EC tunnel and Freeport is ideal if EC is your auction zone -- and
chain-cast spells until they max. A macro to do that is very simple:
/target <self>
/pause 40, /cast 1 (level 1 dd)
/pause 30, /cast 2 (level 1 heal)
/pause 30, /cast 3 (True North)
/pause 30, /cast 4 (level 1 buff)
You may have to mess with the /pause commands, but that raises
Evocation, Alteration, Divination, and Abjuration and only costs 39
mana. Simply casting Summon Food and Summon Water every time
you play will max out Conjuration eventually.
You can do that and /auction anything you have to sell at the same
time. It has the added bonus of usually having an enchanter around
to give you a Clarity so you can do this pretty much non-stop. Since
I find selling items mind-numbingly boring anyway, this at least gave
me something to do until my skills hit maximum. Now I've got to
find some other way to pass the time, which probably explains why
by bank has about 5k worth of items in it while I've only got about 1kpp
in the bank.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
Fungis don't go linkdead.
Fungis don't go OOM
Fungis don't sometimes do 50% of the damage and take the kill
Fungis have no faction issues
The fungi is on your timetable, you are not subject to its whims.
You don't have to suck up to the fungi or beg it to help you
Fungis are never 20 zones away and already in a group.
Do not taunt happy fun fungi.
Dream King
Well half of those deal with getting the PLer to come help you. I was
going under the assumption that that wasn't an issue.
If you don't have a willing Druid to PL you then yeah, the fungi is
better. Overall though I don't consider it the most effective way to PL.
It's a nice way to solo but it's not powerleveling in my book. At least
not once you get past level 15 or whatever.
A lot of those are even't an issue. Most Druids wont go OOM by simply
casting regen and thorns and tossing the occassional heal. As long as
the PLee hits the mob for 1, the damage shield can do 99% of the damage
for all it cares. Faction issues? With the old world and three
expansions, there's always alternative spots to level if faction is an
issue.
Jeff Lindholm
Also I PL'ed a warrior to 50 in 3 days played time with a druid and had all
skills maxed. (It was an Iksar warrior not sure if that matters at all).
Weapon skills did not start maxing until after 20, then I just switched
between weapons. I used the fastest weapons with no worry about damage for
obvious reasons. After level 30 or so the druid would cast drones from the
bracer. I never went OOM, never even close. A friend showed me ShowEQ and
with that it could have been faster most likely. (that should draw some
flames)
And no I did not sell the warrior :) - I did play both acounts however.
(That means, usually, that the druid did not go LD unless I was going LD).
"Dream King" <morp...@cent.com> wrote in message
news:3c4c355b....@news.supernews.com...
Lokari
>The penalized people are the ones that don't want to PL, but
>would rather get a boost while actually playing.
Twinks *are* powerlevelers.
--
Lokari
>Twinking, and then playing the game "as intended" just with more power.
Twinking, by definition, is *not* playing the game as intended.
>I have to say, it's the first time I've ever seen twinking
>called PLing. Do you call a druid healing/thorning/snaring/rooting
>for a level 5 "twinking"?
All twinking is power leveling, but not all power leveling is
twinking.
--
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>fa...@wyld.wox.org (Faned) wrote:
>
>>Twinking, and then playing the game "as intended" just with more power.
>
>Twinking, by definition, is *not* playing the game as intended.
According to Lokari.
According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game. Infact,
they have MANY mechanisms to block twinking if that was their intent.
-- Sang.
Lokari
>According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game.
I trust you can provide references?
--
Valien
>
>I trust you can provide references?
Guilty by "inclusion"
8 Characters per account per server
No level restrictions on 99% of the gear in the game. Even the items
that do not process till 45 (eg Singing Steel Armor), can be worn by a
level 1for AC and Stat bonuses.
Many of the "Best" items in the game are not "No Drop"
I am not against "twinking". I do it all the time. Verant could stop
it quite easily if they wanted to. My guess is that "twinking alts" is
allowed in order to keep people playing longer.
Cheers
Lokari
>Guilty by "inclusion"
Inference is not the same as "according to".
>8 Characters per account per server
I recall seeing that explained by them. In my dim memory, they
observed that they had no idea there were going to be so many servers,
and so allowed 8 so that people would be able to try a large variety
of race/class combos.
>Many of the "Best" items in the game are not "No Drop"
Which could easily be attributed to their stated desire for a robust
player driven economy.
>I am not against "twinking".
I used to be. I'm not now.
--
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com (Sang K. Choe) wrote:
>
>>According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game.
>
>I trust you can provide references?
It was brought up when someone (like you) complained about twinking
(specifically when the trivial loot code was first introduced and
later rehashed). The basic stand (by Abashi I think, not the new guy)
was that twinking is within the vision for both roleplaying reasons
(ie., your character inherited the items) and the fact that it
provides a way for people who already leveled to high level a way to
experience the game again with different classes.
If that isn't an indicator here's another: Try and equip the Club of
the Ice Ocean on your level 1 warrior.
You can't. That club has a built in code that keeps anyone under
level 51 from equiping it.
Code to block twinking exists without the use of No Drop tag. If VI
wanted twinking out of the game completely, they can simply turn on
that tag.
-- Sang.
Philippe Steindl
: According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game. Infact,
: they have MANY mechanisms to block twinking if that was their intent.
And I really don't see peoples issues here. The game is as hard as you want
it to be. If you feel like soloing Venril Sathir naked as a level 1, then
do it. If you feel like killing a level 1 mob equipping a Palladius Axe
of Slaughter, so be it. If you enjoy it. I enjoy twinking a real lot, I
liek zooming through elvels, soloing things, which I could not without.
And the game is FAR from being ended in 4 days, me wondering where my money
went. What is all those Antitwinking whiner people's point? People getting
*their* items easier than they got them? Take a break from the game if such
a thing upsets you. I also never saw a guy with uber stuff emptying my hunting
grounds without me being able to find an alternative. Just being upset because
somebody got something cooler than you and is 50 levels lower? You start
early being grumpy old men.
Lokari
>>>According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game.
>>I trust you can provide references?
>It was brought up when someone (like you) complained about twinking
I am not complaining about twinking. I am stating observations about
twinking.
>The basic stand (by Abashi I think, not the new guy)
>was that twinking is within the vision for both roleplaying reasons
>(ie., your character inherited the items)
I've seen that defense by people defending their own twinking,
certainly.
>and the fact that it
>provides a way for people who already leveled to high level a way to
>experience the game again with different classes.
To counter your "remembered" but unreferenced statement by Abashi,
here's one that *has* a reference, by one of the original game
designers. Perhaps you've heard of him - Brad McQuaid.
"Twinking: This is a tough one, and in my mind there’s still no ‘easy’
solution to the twinking problem. One wants a player driven economy
and one wants to encourage replayability… but then one also doesn’t
want to see a bunch of level 5 characters running around in level 60
gear. Some people advocate significant item decay or hard level
limits, but these either don’t address the problem completely, or
introduce other, worse problems. In any case, in 20/20 hindsight I’d
have devoted a lot more time and energy into solving, or at least
addressing, this problem."
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/news/sdetail414.html?story=414
Key quotes, so you don't overlook them:
"one also doesn’t want to see a bunch of level 5 characters running
around in level 60 gear."
" I’d have devoted a lot more time and energy into solving, or at
least addressing, this **problem**." [emphasis added]
--
jaZZmanian Devil
> What is all those Antitwinking whiner people's point? People getting
> *their* items easier than they got them? Take a break from the game if such
> a thing upsets you.
Wish I remember who the quote here came from, but one of my favorites
ran along these lines......
[paraphrased]
'Everyone complains about twinking...... until they can do it
themselves.'
Certainly proved true in my case.
--
jaZZ md
*******
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
- - Frank Zappa
A Shelton
> Sang K. Choe <sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote:
> : According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game. Infact,
> : they have MANY mechanisms to block twinking if that was their intent.
> And I really don't see peoples issues here. The game is as hard as you want
Twinkies join parties, thus it can effect people.
> it to be. If you feel like soloing Venril Sathir naked as a level 1, then
> do it. If you feel like killing a level 1 mob equipping a Palladius Axe
> of Slaughter, so be it. If you enjoy it. I enjoy twinking a real lot, I
> liek zooming through elvels, soloing things, which I could not without.
A large proportion of my in game deaths have been twink induced. Some
character with ridiculous gear is in such a hurry to level that they
do crazy things. A lot of these people also don't seem to bother actually
learning how to play their new class. After all, they're just doing it
for fun.
On the other hand getting to play beside a true EQ veteran can be
extremely interesting. Like all these things it balances out, but it
does have some effect on the game world.
> And the game is FAR from being ended in 4 days, me wondering where my money
> went. What is all those Antitwinking whiner people's point? People getting
> *their* items easier than they got them? Take a break from the game if such
> a thing upsets you. I also never saw a guy with uber stuff emptying my hunting
> grounds without me being able to find an alternative. Just being upset because
> somebody got something cooler than you and is 50 levels lower? You start
> early being grumpy old men.
I don't really care too much. A person who's fun to play with is good fun
whether twinked or not. And I imagine when i'm that level the temptation
to give a leg up to any other character I play would be hard to resist.
That said I have run through EC and Nro and seen all the hunting spots
within my level taken up either with twinks or power-levellers....And
the hard core of both these species are not interested in working with
other gamers.
--
--------------+ (Goddamn windows shareware & clueless IT jerks).
Apparently I'm insane, but I'm one of the happy kinds. (dilbert)
Also responsible for the Anime Meta-Review page (600+ reviews).
http://www.serc.rmit.edu.au/~ashelton/anime/
jaZZmanian Devil
> A large proportion of my in game deaths have been twink induced.
No, all of your in game deaths were your fault. If you died, you were in
the wrong place at the wrong time, not being alert enough, etc. Blaming
others (or even more rediculously, their gear) for your deaths puts you
firmly in the "would you like some cheese with that?" camp.
> I don't really care too much. A person who's fun to play with is good fun
> whether twinked or not.
However, in the converse, if the person is *not* fun to play with or a
poor player (assuming that they have gear you have "judged" as being
twink gear) then the assumption is that it's because they are a twink.
Not because they just might be an asshole, or a poor player no matter
what they were wearing. It must be the fault of the twink gear, eh? Your
logic is astounding.
> And I imagine when i'm that level the temptation
> to give a leg up to any other character I play would be hard to resist.
What level is your main again? Just curious. And yes, it *will* be hard
to resist, and if you're like 99% of the players, you will twink them,
at least moderately, to give them a leg up through the same old "rats
and bats" zones that you've already fought your way through to earn
coppers rather than plat.
'Everybody complains about twinking until they're able to do it.'
--
jaZZ md
- - - -
"As a confirmed melancholic, I can testify that the best and maybe only
antidote for melancholia is action. However, like most melancholics, I
suffer also from sloth. "
-- Edward Abbey
Just Jekke
wrote:
> What is all those Antitwinking whiner people's point?
Jealously, primarily, followed closely by willful ignorance. Unless a
player is buying their twink gear off of EBay or being given it as a
gift, at some point, they earned it in-game through their own play.
The anti-twinking attitude comes primarily from those who can not
afford to twink and who choose to ignore the fact that several
characters are avatars of the same player. Asking whether a particular
toon earned an item is framing the question wrong.
I try not to let the anti-twinking people bother me. They'll either
get to a point in the game where they start twinking themselves or
eventually give up.
--Jekke
=====================
Playing on Torvonilous
Qiin Dred (Iksar Necromancer, 55)
Moulin Khmer (Dark Elf Rogue, 51)
Just Jekke
<ashe...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>> it to be. If you feel like soloing Venril Sathir naked as a level 1, then
>> do it. If you feel like killing a level 1 mob equipping a Palladius Axe
>> of Slaughter, so be it. If you enjoy it. I enjoy twinking a real lot, I
>> liek zooming through elvels, soloing things, which I could not without.
>
>A large proportion of my in game deaths have been twink induced. Some
>character with ridiculous gear is in such a hurry to level that they
>do crazy things. A lot of these people also don't seem to bother actually
>learning how to play their new class. After all, they're just doing it
>for fun.
This has not been my experience at all. Most of my in-game deaths have
come from overpulls by experienced players who are equipped within
their range level. Following that would be raid-related deaths, nearly
always as the result of a TPW. Then my own stupidity. Then link death.
Then trains. Then miscommunication about AFK. Then invisibility or SoW
dropping at a bad time. Twinks doing stupid things is the
Polysorbate-80 of character death.
My experience also doesn't line up with yours in terms of relative
levels of knowledge. Most twinks are played by people who have already
gotten to the 50+ game with one or more characters. They've seen these
classes played all the way to the endgame. They know the game and have
been through it at least once. I started a rogue because I admired two
players who had gotten rogues to level 55 and 60 respectively. While
playing my enchanter twink, I will have access to advice from two of
the best enchanters in the game because they will be grouped with me,
playing their warrior twink and beastlord twink.
I shudder to remember how many people I got killed because I didn't
know how to play this game with my first warrior. I was still learning
to play. He himself died more than 100 times on his way to level 27.
My new, twinked warrior has seen less than a half dozen characters die
in her groups and only once was it my fault (zone aggro in LOIO.)
Bammers
I missed the original post. How was the fungi tunic nerfed?
"Just Jekke" <Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5ku1u4bvl1lqbbmv...@4ax.com...
Just Jekke
wrote:
>Key quotes, so you don't overlook them:
>
>"one also doesn’t want to see a bunch of level 5 characters running
>around in level 60 gear."
>
>" I’d have devoted a lot more time and energy into solving, or at
>least addressing, this **problem**." [emphasis added]
I think Brad's done a great job with EQ, but I think he's way out of
touch here.
If I had to spend weeks working my way up through bats, rats, spiders,
wolves, skeletons, zombies, orcs, and all the other critters newbies
get to fight, I would never start a new character. If I didn't have
something to do with the equipment that drops when my necromancer
groups, I would never play him. If it weren't for the ability to
twink, I would have lost interest in this game when I discovered how
non-essential my high-level necromancer was. Within my immediate
circle of friends, more than half have found starting twinks to
breathe new life into the game when the guild-oriented game became too
melodramatic.
If Brad had spent more time fixing this "problem," I think most of us
would have grown tired of this game by now and moved on to other
pursuits.
LarryLard
news:JVIT7.12030$681.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>
> I missed the original post. How was the fungi tunic nerfed?
Either VAH or BST, and possibly both, removed from the list of races/classes
able to use it.
--
Larry Lard. Replies to group please.
Dan Harmon
> twink, I would have lost interest in this game when I discovered how
> non-essential my high-level necromancer was. Within my immediate
If you think that about your necro you're hanging out with the wrong people.
I'd kill to have a high level necro or two in my guild.
Just Jekke
wrote:
Unfortunately, a "high level necro" seems to mean 57+ for all
practical purposes. Until you've got New Summon Corpse, you're just a
"50+ other."
TwoHead
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:57:31 GMT, Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Key quotes, so you don't overlook them:
> >
> >"one also doesn’t want to see a bunch of level 5 characters running
> >around in level 60 gear."
> >
> >" I’d have devoted a lot more time and energy into solving, or at
> >least addressing, this **problem**." [emphasis added]
>
> I think Brad's done a great job with EQ, but I think he's way out of
> touch here.
That means he is out of touch with your perspective, not necessarily
that "vision" thing. In fact the comments quoted sound a lot like the
old Brad before all this exploded into what it is today, back when he
used to have visions. Sony's vision might agree with you completely and
also add in an online store where you can bill FBSSs and the latest uber
gear directly to your account, but Brad used to talk about a RP game.
If your goal is to attract the most customers and make the most money
from them you may well be right, but if your goal is to build a great RP
game then you have to be ready to sacrifice a few numbers from your
expectations. All the talk about a "vision" seemed to have more to do
with the game itself than the bottom line.
>
> If I had to spend weeks working my way up through bats, rats, spiders,
> wolves, skeletons, zombies, orcs, and all the other critters newbies
> get to fight, I would never start a new character. If I didn't have
> something to do with the equipment that drops when my necromancer
> groups, I would never play him. If it weren't for the ability to
> twink, I would have lost interest in this game when I discovered how
> non-essential my high-level necromancer was. Within my immediate
> circle of friends, more than half have found starting twinks to
> breathe new life into the game when the guild-oriented game became too
> melodramatic.
>
Maybe you have been twinking too long and don't realize it, but you
really can lvl a brand new char to 10 in just a few short hours of play
in many newbie areas if you have played the game before. I recently
started two new chars, one is obscenely twinked by my standards in order
to keep pace with what my friends dropped on their chars, the other
completely untwinked. The untwinked one is one lvl less and has about
half the time /played. I also found that the joy of a piece of netted
found on a froggy is about the same as finding a Seb tunic on a bigger
froggy if you can really use a piece of netted at the time <G>. Joy is
what it should be about, that's why its called gaming.
> If Brad had spent more time fixing this "problem," I think most of us
> would have grown tired of this game by now and moved on to other
> pursuits.
>
And someday, someone will be smart enough to realize that that is a good
thing. Don't try to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to
have the highest subscriber base. Be honest up front that your game is
harsh compared to games that allow such absurd changes to game play and
the customers you do have will stay with you because of a true sense of
accomplishment rather than constantly be waiting for something better to
come along.
th
Sean Kennedy
news:st2t1u4ub11nr6cqi...@4ax.com:
Actually, according to Brad, it's one of the things
he would change about EQ if he could go back and do
it again. That is, he'd make twinking harder.
Lokari
>I think Brad's done a great job with EQ, but I think he's way out of
>touch here.
That's as may be, but has nothing to do with the point. Sang stated
that "According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game",
and I showed that to be incorrect, that's all.
--
Lokari
>> What is all those Antitwinking whiner people's point?
>Jealously, primarily
[...]
>The anti-twinking attitude comes primarily from those who can not
>afford to twink
That is the theory that gets put forward the most, but I can't say I
agree with it, at least not in all cases.
Some of the very old timers here may recall that I was extremely
anti-twinking when I first arrived in the group (to the extent that I
ended up in a kill file or two).
I assure you that I was quite capable of twinking the living hell out
of any of my new characters. As one of the few tailors on my server
able to make backpacks then, I had at level 20 gear comparable to what
most level 40s had at the time, and 12,000 plat in the bank as well.
But I was still anti-twink.
My reason was a strong desire to play the game *as intended*, not to
try to work every loophole to my advantage. It had nothing to do with
jealousy or ability to twink.
So, just so you know not to paint all anti-twinks with the same brush.
--
Lokari
>> I missed the original post. How was the fungi tunic nerfed?
>Either VAH or BST, and possibly both, removed from the list of races/classes
>able to use it.
And was that done before, or after, SoL was actually released?
--
Lokari
>A large proportion of my in game deaths have been twink induced.
Most of mine have been directly attributable to playing with a close
friend, and we egg each other on to ever greater heights of stupidity
until something comes along and slaps us silly.
And a sizeable number have been caused by the arrival of a barbarian
in a dungeon zone.
--
Dan Harmon
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:17:58 GMT, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Just Jekke" <Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b3mu1ucjngrbtbrog...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> twink, I would have lost interest in this game when I discovered how
> >> non-essential my high-level necromancer was. Within my immediate
> >
> >If you think that about your necro you're hanging out with the wrong
people.
> >I'd kill to have a high level necro or two in my guild.
>
> Unfortunately, a "high level necro" seems to mean 57+ for all
> practical purposes. Until you've got New Summon Corpse, you're just a
> "50+ other."
Not for my guild. We're not uber, we like to hunt stuff like Velks, Kael
Arena area when we have enough people (unfortunately we average low 40s),
starting to do Sebilis. Next month Fear for the first time in our guild's
life (6/22/01). In all those places you'd be more than welcome. It's a
shame you're not on Zeb. :)
Just Jekke
>Just Jekke wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:57:31 GMT, Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Key quotes, so you don't overlook them:
>> >
>> >"one also doesn’t want to see a bunch of level 5 characters running
>> >around in level 60 gear."
>> >
>> >" I’d have devoted a lot more time and energy into solving, or at
>> >least addressing, this **problem**." [emphasis added]
>>
>> I think Brad's done a great job with EQ, but I think he's way out of
>> touch here.
>
>That means he is out of touch with your perspective, not necessarily
>that "vision" thing. In fact the comments quoted sound a lot like the
>old Brad before all this exploded into what it is today, back when he
>used to have visions. Sony's vision might agree with you completely and
>also add in an online store where you can bill FBSSs and the latest uber
>gear directly to your account, but Brad used to talk about a RP game.
Well, that's a separate issue. EverQuest has never been very good as a
RPG--maybe better than anything else out there, but still really bad.
It's not structured like a RPG. Static spawns and static quests make
for a VERY limited RPG.
As a philosophical point, I believe that a simulation like a video
game should either be a faithful representation of what it's
simulating or else allow you to do things that you wouldn't be able to
do without it. In neither one of these is EQ a successful RPG. You are
greatly limited in the flexibility or dynamic content. The advantage
that most video RPGs has--the ability to play alone--is lost in
EverQuest to a large extent. If you want to play with your friends for
most of the game, you need more people, not less.
Also, there is no game benefit to most RP actions and often a very
real penalty. If I want to RP my rogue as a good and loyal member of
the rogue's guild, I can kiss my epic goodbye (no pp'ing the GLs for
me.) If I want to play my Iksar as distrustful of mammals and
preferring the company of my own kind, I would never get to group with
a cleric, an enchanter, or even a rogue. RPing cripples your ability
to advance in the game.
A good OLRPG should at the very least (1) reward role playing and make
it harder to advance if you don't RP, (2) be dynamic and flexible, and
(3) facilitate one or more aspect of RLRPGs. EverQuest does none of
these things. As an RPG, it would have been far less playable than it
is now.
LarryLard
news:plav1ugc4j8sdg7j2...@4ax.com...
Yes =)
I would be more specific but I don't know.
Dan Harmon
Sounds like you're pretty much echoing everything else Brad said in the
recent article at www.allakhazam.com.
He knows they didn't do it all right, but he feels it's still a killer
game...it's the game they envisioned when they first got the idea.
Faned
It was never meant to be an RPG. Brad and company got "MUD" and "RPG"
confused. It's a great game, but it's not an RPG and never was.
That does not mean you can't roleplay. But you can roleplay in Quake if you
really want to.
Faned
After. My fungi said VAH and BST on the day before the Luclin zones opened
as a guildmate was reading the back of the box he had just picked up that
day over chat.
Lokari
>>And was that done before, or after, SoL was actually released?
>After. My fungi said VAH and BST on the day before the Luclin zones opened
>as a guildmate was reading the back of the box he had just picked up that
>day over chat.
You know you just lost the debate with this bit of twisting.
--
Dan Harmon
"Faned" <fa...@wyld.wox.org> wrote in message
news:slrna21j3g...@wyld.wox.org...
> <deha...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Just Jekke" <Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:bs002uc6148asdj1s...@4ax.com...
> >
> >Sounds like you're pretty much echoing everything else Brad said in the
> >recent article at www.allakhazam.com.
> >
> >He knows they didn't do it all right, but he feels it's still a killer
> >game...it's the game they envisioned when they first got the idea.
>
> It was never meant to be an RPG. Brad and company got "MUD" and "RPG"
> confused. It's a great game, but it's not an RPG and never was.
Ah, good point, sorry. Yeah, EQ was billed as RPG and that was stupid. But
billing it as an online MUD wouldn't have made any sense to the vast
majority of EQ players. :)
Faned
I answered the question as asked. Perhaps you would like to rephrase.
Lokari
With a client/server system such as SoL, it cannot be said to have
been released until *both* sides are active and available. Insofar as
the Luclin zones were not yet opened, then SoL was not yet released.
--
Faned
Released = open?
Wonder how said friend was reading a box for something that hadn't been
released yet. Neat trick, that. I guess we'll have to assume he's psychic
or some such.
Even better, Luclin *still* hasn't been released yet I guess, since I have
other guildmates that are still unable to go out and buy it in their
countries, and according to your criteria that means we must all be playing
a figment of our collective imaginations. :)
Lokari
>Wonder how said friend was reading a box for something that hadn't been
>released yet. Neat trick, that. I guess we'll have to assume he's psychic
>or some such.
Was your friend with the spiffy SoL box able to go to SoL? I rest my
case.
--
Faned
My friend with the spiffy SoL box *still* isn't able to go to SoL.
What was your point again?
Lokari
>What was your point again?
That the effort you put into arguing semantics increases in inverse
proportion to how well your other debate attempts work.
--
Faned
I've argued no semantics beyond responding to others' semantics-based
arguments. I had, I saw, I held a fungi with BST and VAH listed. It was
changed. That is simply the end of the discussion when trying to decide
whether something was changed or not. I saw it. Feel free to continue to
try and convince me that nothing was changed. I'll continue to smile in
puzzlement at how someone could possibly say that with a straight face. :)
jaZZmanian Devil
Lokari's First Law of Usenet Debate: "The effort a poster puts into
arguing semantics increases in inverse proportion to the effectiveness
of the poster's attempts to prove their original point."
I'm claiming the copyrights on this because I documented it here first.
Pay up, S0XXuRz.
--
jaZZ md
- - - -
"I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his
house."
-- Zsa Zsa Gabor
Lokari
>Lokari's First Law of Usenet Debate: "The effort a poster puts into
>arguing semantics increases in inverse proportion to the effectiveness
>of the poster's attempts to prove their original point."
>I'm claiming the copyrights on this because I documented it here first.
>Pay up, S0XXuRz.
Copyright granted, as you stated it more clearly than I.
--
Dream King
I'm a bit perplexed as well. You could look at your Fungi Tunic just
fine before Luclin came out whether you were in SoL or not and see who
it was wearble by. Whether you were able to go to SoL or not isn't
relevant. Unless I am totally missing something.
Dan Harmon
"Dream King" <morp...@cent.com> wrote in message
news:3c565620....@news.supernews.com...
> I'm a bit perplexed as well. You could look at your Fungi Tunic just
> fine before Luclin came out whether you were in SoL or not and see who
> it was wearble by. Whether you were able to go to SoL or not isn't
> relevant. Unless I am totally missing something.
Don't bother trying, they're both ticked at each other and have completely
missed where they both got confused. :)
Remington Stone
}On 18 Dec 2001 21:39:30 +1100, A Shelton wrote:
}>A large proportion of my in game deaths have been twink induced.
}come from overpulls by experienced players who are equipped within
}their range level. Following that would be raid-related deaths, nearly
}always as the result of a TPW. Then my own stupidity. Then link death.
}Then trains. Then miscommunication about AFK. Then invisibility or SoW
}dropping at a bad time. Twinks doing stupid things is the
}Polysorbate-80 of character death.
Heh, I find the order to be different, but the principle the same.
(a) my own stupidity
(b) raid-related
(c) you feel yourself becoming visible
(d) link death
(e) overpulls
I can't think of a death that was stupid-twink related or related to afk
miscommunication... Unless you count my own stupid twinks dying, but they
usually at least manage not to take anyone else along with them. And
that's just category (a) again. :)
Hm, actually, I've had a couple deaths due to healer being distracted
for just that crucial 2 seconds between chanter getting aggro and too late
to start the heal. That could be construed as AFKness, I suppose, but
it's a stretch.
[52 Illusionist] Zinphandel Chianti <Knights of IGF> (Gnome) Ayonae Ro
Kuhlinayn
<Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote:
>Jealously, primarily
Not at all. Using the Fungi Tunic as an example, I COULD afford one
if I wanted, but I dont feel it is any more appropriate for my level
than the Cobalt Gauntlets or Idol of the Thorned I have in the bank.
>followed closely by willful ignorance. Unless a
>player is buying their twink gear off of EBay or being given it as a
>gift, at some point, they earned it in-game through their own play.
Yes, the PLAYER earned them, the character did not.
>The anti-twinking attitude comes primarily from those who can not
>afford to twink and who choose to ignore the fact that several
>characters are avatars of the same player. Asking whether a particular
>toon earned an item is framing the question wrong.
For some of us there is a distinction between the 2. Just like to
some people this game is a game no different than playing Mrs. PacMan
while others of us treat it as a different world where each character
has different sets of rules. Would a young Paladin for instance
accept a gift from an evil 50+ Necromancer? I think not, yet players
often use a necro to farm items for thier other toons. Some of us
dont agree with the min/max mentality.
>I try not to let the anti-twinking people bother me. They'll either
>get to a point in the game where they start twinking themselves or
>eventually give up.
Sadly you are right. Most people, like most in the Real World, lack
any sort of spine. I am an avid anti-twinkingPL and it never ceases
to amaze me how many people who were right there with me in that
mindset eventually turn to twinkers themselves, most commonly for 1 of
2 reasons. They either hate selling so much that they go with the
"Well, I have a Velium Etched Stone Mace, Crystal Chitin Shield,
Gauntlets of the Black, etc.... I guess I will just start a Cleric."
or after getting to fight with Dragons and Giants and all sorts of
interesting creatures, they consider the killing of Orc Pawns and
Black Bears to be too tedious so they make it so they can get thru
those levels safer and find a friend to PL them.
15 months on my main (only for the most part as I RARELY play any
alts, none are even double digit) and I still have no desire to twink
despite having over 30k in the bank at one point. At level 35 I would
buy MUCH better than I have on or I could simply wear the Cobalt and
Idol, but I am a believer in not having equipment that is overpowering
for your level. To make yourself ultra powerful for your level takes
out a large part of the challenge. The trip to 60 is a journey, not a
race.
Kharlkuhlinayn
Steel Warrior of the 35th Season
Morell Thule
Remove the 69 to Reply Direct
Kuhlinayn
>found on a froggy is about the same as finding a Seb tunic on a bigger
>froggy if you can really use a piece of netted at the time
Agreed. Although I dont have the ability to twink on FV like I could
if I was of that ilk on MT, it is indeed a joy to loot a Rusty 2H when
you dont have a 2HS to work your skills with=)
sanjian
> If Brad had spent more time fixing this "problem," I think most of us
> would have grown tired of this game by now and moved on to other
> pursuits.
Fixing the problem does not necessarily mean eliminating twinking. It may
just mean keeping it to a reasonable level as a whole. If they really
wanted to end twinking, then simply making all loot no drop would accomplish
that goal.
Here's A Question of Balance (with apologies to the Moody Blues). The
economy on the Raith allows me to purchase Deepwater armour at about the
same level that I should be questing Ro armour. Does this ability to buy
armour above my level (based on the level needed to reasonably be able to
quest it) count as twinking, even indirectly?
--
--
san...@widomaker.com
Order of the Mallet
--
Goodbye to the bewildered yestersday.
This feelign that gushes out.
Let's make a regrowing flower blossom.
Memories are always a sweet place to run away.
But let it go to live for tomorrow.
The time for celebration will come, with both hands extended.
Both hands raised.
--Megumi Hayashibara, Sakura Saku
sanjian
> Just Jekke <Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I think Brad's done a great job with EQ, but I think he's way out of
> >touch here.
>
> that "According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game",
> and I showed that to be incorrect, that's all.
Actually, I think you just showed that the vision is muddy. Sang does have
a point, in that Verant could have easily made twinking outright impossible,
but didn't. That alone shows that some degree of twinking was consistant
with the vision. OTOH, the level of twinking that allows a level 1 to be
running around with Mistmoore Drums and Thurgadin's Amour isn't consistant
with the vision (or so I would guess).
sanjian
news:a070en$iiq$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> Just Jekke said:
> }On 18 Dec 2001 21:39:30 +1100, A Shelton wrote:
> }>A large proportion of my in game deaths have been twink induced.
> }This has not been my experience at all. Most of my in-game deaths have
> }come from overpulls by experienced players who are equipped within
> }their range level. Following that would be raid-related deaths, nearly
> }always as the result of a TPW. Then my own stupidity. Then link death.
> }Then trains. Then miscommunication about AFK. Then invisibility or SoW
> }dropping at a bad time. Twinks doing stupid things is the
> }Polysorbate-80 of character death.
>
> Heh, I find the order to be different, but the principle the same.
>
> (a) my own stupidity
If you count "oh crap... forgot I had Chords of Dissonance up" or "Sorry,
Lashun Novashire, I didn't really mean to attack you. I'll just sit here
and let you kill me now, so I don't take a faction hit" as "my own
stupidity," then I feel your pain.
Kuhlinayn
wrote:
>Here's A Question of Balance (with apologies to the Moody Blues). The
>economy on the Raith allows me to purchase Deepwater armour at about the
>same level that I should be questing Ro armour. Does this ability to buy
>armour above my level (based on the level needed to reasonably be able to
>quest it) count as twinking, even indirectly?
I dont know that I would say it is twinking (and I am anti-twink) but
I can tell you that since level 30ish range I have had a pair of
Cobalt Gauntlets in the bank along with an Idol of the Thorned waiting
for me to reach what I deem an appropriate level for my using them.
I do not simply agree with being ultra powerful, to the point of
having items that I shouldnt be using. Decrease the Risk and you
trivialize the reward.
My Cobalt Gaunts have an effect that is usable at 45. To me, 10
levels below that (current level) is not appropriate to be wearing.
When I hit about 42 or 43 I will start wearing them I suspect, but in
that range I will be able to start camping some of the places that
Cobalt drops as well.
sanjian
news:0pfn2u4jh80hb4kuk...@4ax.com...
> Yn erthygl <8BMW7.26131$K36.8...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>, sgrifenws
> "sanjian" <san...@widomaker.com>:
>
> >"Just Jekke" <Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b3mu1ucjngrbtbrog...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:57:31 GMT, Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> If Brad had spent more time fixing this "problem," I think most of us
> >> would have grown tired of this game by now and moved on to other
> >> pursuits.
> >
> >Fixing the problem does not necessarily mean eliminating twinking. It
may
> >just mean keeping it to a reasonable level as a whole. If they really
> >wanted to end twinking, then simply making all loot no drop would
accomplish
> >that goal.
> >
> either...
True, but either
1) it could be fixed by allowing no drop items to be sold, then be eaten by
the vendor.
2) Well, if you could sell the loot you got of mobs, that would trivialze
the challenge of the game, now wouldn't it? I mean, what you guys expect to
get both money and xp from mobs? Geeze, back when EQ was first released,
Innoruk and Cazic walked from zone to zone death touching every toon they
saw, and we liked it that way.
> >Here's A Question of Balance (with apologies to the Moody Blues). The
> >economy on the Raith allows me to purchase Deepwater armour at about the
> >same level that I should be questing Ro armour. Does this ability to buy
> >armour above my level (based on the level needed to reasonably be able to
> >quest it) count as twinking, even indirectly?
>
> Question aside, the reality is that this is why twinking isn't really
> a problem, even though a number of the uneducated and narrow-minded
> see it as such.
<shrug> The fact that some are twinked doesn't keep me from getting gear.
They play their way, I'll play mine.
Lokari
>Actually, I think you just showed that the vision is muddy. Sang does have
>a point, in that Verant could have easily made twinking outright impossible,
>but didn't. That alone shows that some degree of twinking was consistant
>with the vision.
I think Verant was probably aware of the possibility of twinking, but
didn't realize how severe it would be until it was already happening.
At that point, they really couldn't have done much to prohibit it
without major changes to the game mechanics - never a good idea after
releasing a successful product.
--
Lokari
>If they really wanted to end twinking, then simply making all loot
>no drop would accomplish that goal.
At the expense of totally wrecking the economy, as nothing could be
sold. Obviously, not much of a solution.
--
Lokari
>Twinking is <not> a problem (as is evidenced by the fact that Verant
>has made no move to stop it)
I think a more accurate conclusion from the available information is
that they considered any fix to the problem to be worse than the
problem itself.
--
murdocj
> sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com (Sang K. Choe) wrote:
>
> >According to VI, twinking is within the "vision" of the game.
>
> I trust you can provide references?
There are certainly items in the game that don't make sense except for
twinking purposes. For example, there are items that provide a small
amount of hit points and mana. I twinked my enchanter with bracers
that provide 10hp / 10mana. Such items are utterly useless after the
first few levels, but also are certainly unobtainable in the first few
levels without twinking.
I suppose you could say that Verant is simply being sloppy or didn't
think it through, but I prefer the simplest hypothesis: Verant
expected such things to be used, exactly the way players use them.
dstep
wrote:
>"Just Jekke" <Jekke...@from-nyc.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:b3mu1ucjngrbtbrog...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:57:31 GMT, Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> If Brad had spent more time fixing this "problem," I think most of us
>> would have grown tired of this game by now and moved on to other
>> pursuits.
>
>Fixing the problem does not necessarily mean eliminating twinking. It may
>just mean keeping it to a reasonable level as a whole. If they really
>wanted to end twinking, then simply making all loot no drop would accomplish
>that goal.
Actually that would just totally limit a free trade economy while
people would still twink to their hearts content, it would just be a
little harder to set the twinking up.
To see this in action, group in icewell keep at fairly high level
killing the dwarves who drop excellent armor sometime. Everyone in
your group will have twinks logged out there to loot the no drop armor
;)
The way to partially eliminate twinking is of course the way its been
done in muds since the 1980's (and perhaps earlier):
"that item is too powerful for you to wear"
there, problem solved. I always thought it was funny that games like
EQ took so much from muds (EQ took the diku mud emotes verbatim for
example) in basic design and such yet forgot about the mud things like
that which have been proved to work very well over time. Brad McQuaid
et al. always said they did not want to do that because it might be
possible for X level of player to be in a group legitimately and
actually get X level of item and not be able to wear it. That was kind
of a copout since the muds had already solved that problem also by
giving a pretty wide safety range on who could wear the item.
Anarchy online, which I've often thought is really a pretty poor game,
handles the problem quite well with a twist on the "too powerful for
you to wear" thing. You need certain minimal stats in several areas to
wear armor and the higher level the armor (quality level) the higher
those stats need to be. So you might be level 32 and be able to wear
quality 38 armor with some stat implants and such.. but it won't go
much beyond that. They already fixed one way in which you could wear
armor that was quite a bit beyond your range also. Because of this
stat thing in AO you see people auctioning armor A LOT since there is
just so much armor that a person will get or outgrow which they will
then sell to lower level people who can make the stats.
Email: dstephenathomedotcom
Find the @ and the . if you really need to.
sanjian
> Yn erthygl <AbQW7.26643$K36.8...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>, sgrifenws
> "sanjian" <san...@widomaker.com>:
> >1) it could be fixed by allowing no drop items to be sold, then be eaten
by
> >the vendor.
> >
> I'm not talking about selling to vendors, I'm talking about selling to
> each other. Frankly, if I have to go out and get every piece of
> friggin armor I wear as opposed to buy it from someone else, I'd
> simply go play a different game. Besides that, the only money you
> would ever have is the paltry sum that a mob dropped when you killed
> it.
> Twinking is <not> a problem (as is evidenced by the fact that Verant
> has made no move to stop it), so what would be the point in keeping
> people from doing it, other than pissy newbies whining because some
> other new character has better shit than him? <Farming> is the
> problem, although I don't see that as being as much of a problem as
> some people would want the world to believe.
Then I think we're on the same page, I'm just being mor e of a smart ass
about it.
Dan Harmon
> Yn erthygl <rqmn2u00gtknqas6k...@4ax.com>, sgrifenws
> Lokari <lokari@_nospam_lokari.net>:
Circular argument.
Kuhlinayn
wrote:
>Question aside, the reality is that this is why twinking isn't really
>a problem, even though a number of the uneducated and narrow-minded
>see it as such.
So I need to be a PhD and completely open to everything? Or is it
that some of us dont have a problem doing things without being handed
things on a silver platter? Or that we can accept that if we have 2
characters that can never interact with each other, which would not
even KNOW of each other then they would not be handing over items or
cash to each other?
Kuhlinayn
wrote:
>Twinking is <not> a problem (as is evidenced by the fact that Verant
Honestly, as much as I detest the practice, I dont think they CAN stop
it and still have a viable player economy which IS part of the Vision.
I read yesterday (message is history) one person who stated that
because they havent stopped the mechanics that allow twinking, that it
proves that it is indeed PART of Verants "Vision". I disagree.
Verant's Vision was a healthy player economy where everything that is
obtained is not simply purchased from vendors or looted. The
mechanics that allow this part of the Vision are what makes Twinking
possible, the simple act of trading.
>so what would be the point in keeping
>people from doing it, other than pissy newbies whining because some
>other new character has better shit than him?
This arguement is so pathetic. And so worn. While I dont disagree
that MOST of the people out there do twink or will be twinkers to some
degree and that there are indeed many who are envious of what someone
else has, the fact is that not everyone who is against twinking feels
that way because they have equipment envy. I have the means to twink
well my Cleric but dont because I dont agree with it and find it to
cheapen the game, at least for me.
><Farming> is the
>problem, although I don't see that as being as much of a problem as
>some people would want the world to believe.
I think that a lot of it comes down to the nature of the farm so to
speak. On a low level scale, is there anything wrong with me sitting
in the Gorge of King Xxorb doing the Lords for their gems and cash and
PBB's? Not at all. There is noone in that zone probably 90% of the
time.
Now is there anything wrong with it if there is a person or persons
who want the camp and are of a level that could get experience for it?
IMO yes. Farming items is not a bad thing if it is not done at the
expense of others.
Kuhlinayn
>
>>Actually, I think you just showed that the vision is muddy. Sang does have
>>a point, in that Verant could have easily made twinking outright impossible,
>>but didn't. That alone shows that some degree of twinking was consistant
>>with the vision.
OK, now I know who to attribute the comment to in another reply (which
I would have known had I read all THEN replied=>).
Your last line doesnt hold with me. Because players exploit an aspect
of game mechanics that allow players to buy, sell and trade in a
player driven economy does not mean that Verant had any intention of
having those same items transferred to characters on the same account
or that those same items might be bestowed on those for whom they are
well overpowering and to a degree alter game balance.
Kuhlinayn
>There are certainly items in the game that don't make sense except for
>twinking purposes. For example, there are items that provide a small
>amount of hit points and mana. I twinked my enchanter with bracers
>that provide 10hp / 10mana. Such items are utterly useless after the
>first few levels, but also are certainly unobtainable in the first few
>levels without twinking.
I disagree. Players who are of the appropriate Level to obtain items,
say some of the low level items like you speak of that drop off of the
Evil Eyes in the Gorge certainly have rings that are better than +5
HPs. But there is no reason why they couldnt sell them to low level
characters for a couple gold or silver. just like the merchant give
you.
Because you would not use certain items that drop off a said mob
because you would naturally have better does not mean that it was
Verants intention that you GIVE them to anyone.
John Burton
don't, but get the hell out of my face,
> it's my $10/mo, and my characters."
> Please go do a google search on this subject so we don't have to hash
> over all the same old shit yet one more time, including the brainless
> argument from some moron insisting that everyone twinking their own
> characters were godless cheaters, but it was different if someone else
> gave you something.
I always wondered why verant don't put a "win game" button on the login
screen. When you press it it debits your credit card £100 and transfers
your character to a special server. Call it a "powergamers" server or
something
to make the twinks thing they are special and it automatically makes you
level 60 and gives you lots of stuff.
Then everyone would be happy.
Just Jekke
wrote:
>On 27 Dec 2001 20:16:00 -0800, mur...@hotmail.com (murdocj) wrote:
>
>>There are certainly items in the game that don't make sense except for
>>twinking purposes. For example, there are items that provide a small
>>amount of hit points and mana. I twinked my enchanter with bracers
>>that provide 10hp / 10mana. Such items are utterly useless after the
>>first few levels, but also are certainly unobtainable in the first few
>>levels without twinking.
>
>I disagree. Players who are of the appropriate Level to obtain items,
>say some of the low level items like you speak of that drop off of the
>Evil Eyes in the Gorge certainly have rings that are better than +5
>HPs. But there is no reason why they couldnt sell them to low level
>characters for a couple gold or silver. just like the merchant give
>you.
This totally ignores the return on investment. If my character is
level 30ish, the amount of time it takes to *run* to a place where
people buy and sell isn't even worth what I'm going to get for an item
like that, not to mention the time required to actually sell them.
Personally, I don't enjoy buying and selling at all. Until the items
get into the kiloplat range, it's just not worth the time. Even when I
was on my first character, slaughtering dervs and there was a *market*
for derv rings, it wasn't worth the time.
--Jekke
=====================
Playing on Torvonilous
Qiin Dred (Iksar Necromancer, 55)
Moulin Khmer (Dark Elf Rogue, 51)
Sheava Ebonrezzor (Dark Elf Cleric, 39)
Greebeux Goodkitty (Iksar Warrior, 28)
Persona (Dark Elf Enchanter, 9)
Dan Harmon
> Personally, I don't enjoy buying and selling at all. Until the items
> get into the kiloplat range, it's just not worth the time. Even when I
> was on my first character, slaughtering dervs and there was a *market*
> for derv rings, it wasn't worth the time.
Someone gave me a derv ring when my cleric was hunting in BB over by the
crossroads. I was thrilled to get it, even though I didn't know what DEX
was for (and how useless it is for clerics).
It's apropos of nothing, just a fond memory of something that happened 2.5
years ago. :)
Faned
>"sanjian" <san...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, I think you just showed that the vision is muddy. Sang does have
>>>a point, in that Verant could have easily made twinking outright impossible,
>>>but didn't. That alone shows that some degree of twinking was consistant
>>>with the vision.
>
>OK, now I know who to attribute the comment to in another reply (which
>I would have known had I read all THEN replied=>).
>
>Your last line doesnt hold with me. Because players exploit an aspect
>of game mechanics that allow players to buy, sell and trade in a
>player driven economy does not mean that Verant had any intention of
>having those same items transferred to characters on the same account
>or that those same items might be bestowed on those for whom they are
>well overpowering and to a degree alter game balance.
Verant has the ability to put level-limits on items. Which makes your
argument above basically meaningless.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>I do not simply agree with being ultra powerful, to the point of
>having items that I shouldnt be using. Decrease the Risk and you
>trivialize the reward.
>
>My Cobalt Gaunts have an effect that is usable at 45. To me, 10
>levels below that (current level) is not appropriate to be wearing.
Why?
Cobalt Gaunts are ridiculously easy to obtain these days. They cost
about 1 to 2k at most. At level 35, it's definately possible to
gather together that much money to buy a pair. They are also AC25
which means you aren't getting any better AC armor for a while.
BTW, don't for a moment think twinking will make someone "ultra
powerful". The game is too level centric for that to happen.
>When I hit about 42 or 43 I will start wearing them I suspect, but in
>that range I will be able to start camping some of the places that
>Cobalt drops as well.
At 42/43? I doubt it.
Cobalt boots are off the Drolvgar Captain in Karnor. He's a level 48
mob and surround with mobs that will con white to red to you.
As a level 42/43 tank, you won't be tanking much in Karnor.
Cobalt arms are from Seb, random off any of the froggies. They will
be similar leveled to the captain and many will be 50+.
Cobalt bracers and helm are off reets. These are level 55 frogs in
Seb mixed in with level 57 golems and level 55 shrooms.
Cobalt legs are off VS and BP off Trakanon.
Quit worrying about twinking. Twinking was never as serious a problem
as many would have you think. It's only a problem to those who let it
bother them. In most cases, even the most outrageously twinked
character was nothing more than just funny (from the sheer silliness
of the items in question) than anything else: Level 20 warrior in
full cobalt dualing a pair of SoDs and using a Cowl of Mortality. Now
*THAT* is twinking to the extreme.
-- Sang.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>True, but either
>
>1) it could be fixed by allowing no drop items to be sold, then be eaten by
>the vendor.
EQ economny is based around the concept of selling to other players,
not to vendors. No drop will remove this from game *AND* making
camping a freaking nightmare since every single person that wants
something now has to camp for it.
Anyone who remembers the days of the JBoots camp will know that making
desirable things no drop will result in far more problems than
anything else.
-- Sang.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
The correct solution is already available and implemented at least for
a very limited set of items: Minimum level requirement to equip.
They have simply chosen not to implement this "solution" for the vast
majority of items. Why? Probably because they, like most folks
consider twinking as a non-issue.
-- Sang.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>...OTOH, the level of twinking that allows a level 1 to be
>running around with Mistmoore Drums and Thurgadin's Amour isn't consistant
>with the vision (or so I would guess).
They've already made it so such things can't happen (well with Kael
armor anyways, don't know too much about Thurg armor since those
little shitheads want to beat on me more than give me the quest).
There's a minimum level required to get the quest for Kael armor.
Even multiquesting, can't be done without all of the characters being
at least level 50 (or maybe 51).
Quest givers will simply eat the items otherwise.
Basically, the almight "Vision" has taken into account outrageous
twinking and blocked it for the most part (ok, so full cobalt + pair
of SoDs are still possible on a level 1) with a few exceptions.
-- Sang.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
Nonsense.
They've had three expansions since they realized the "twinking
problem" (as some of you think it is). They could have simply marked
all the new items with the flag that forces a minimum level
requirement to equip.
There would be no "nerf" involved and given the mudiflation (along
with the overall increase in mob strength), that would have been the
perfect "solution" to twinking.
Infact, had they done this it would have given some worth to the old
world stuff (since it would be the only twinkable items left). So
instead of SSoY selling for 600pp in EC, it might still be worth a few
thousand to someone with money and a twinkie they want to outfit.
But VI chose not to do this.
Based on this one can conclude either VI is terminally myopic in that
they still didn't see the "twinking problem" even with Luclin or as
far as VI is concerned there is no "twinking problem" in the game.
As much of a critic as I am of VI's inability to see past their noses,
I'm pretty sure it's a case of the latter than the former.
-- Sang.
TwoHead
Or one could consider a third possibility. Despite the benefits to the
game, enduring the mass exodus of gimps as well as the deluge of whining
from them would have been less than cost effective. So rather than
redefine the system in order to create a game with a more direct
relationship between risk and reward, between accomplishment and access
to equipment, they catered to the vocal inept in homage to the bottom
line. If you ignore the fact that VI is a business entity whose primary
goal is profit your logic would work quite well, but of course its also
ignorant of that one overriding fact.
th
Valien
>relationship between risk and reward, between accomplishment and access
>to equipment
There already exists a "direct relationship...between accomplishment
and access to equipment".
Every "Fungi Tunic" being worn by a low level twink was aquired by
higher level characters taking a risk and reaping that reward (ie
killing the mob and looting the item)
All of the "Uber Items" in the game were aquired by people strong
enough to claim them. What they do with those items is up to them. We
all pay our monthly fee, and we all have a right to play the way we
want as long as it doesn't violate any rules or policies.
Cheers
<------(--o
Valien Stillwater
Monk of the 39th Drunken Bout
Bearer of the Purple Headband of the Silent Fist Clan
Bearer of the Red Sash of the Ashen Order
Innoruuk
o--)------>
"Anything more than a metric butt-load of mobs is a bardic pull."
- - Arolpin Lorespinner
Valien
>desirable things no drop will result in far more problems than
>anything else.
The JBoots camp has moved to the Ancient Cyclops camp. The "No Drop"
ring just adds a few steps to the JBoots "camp". They simply moved the
problems to a new location hehehehe
Then there was the "Rubucite Wars" before the addition of Class Armor
Quests.
murdocj
If I sell a level 20 item to someone for a silver or two, essentially
I'm twinking that person, the same as if I sold a high level item for
a plat or two. And personally I would be embarrassed to wring a
silver or a gold out of a true newbie... if I'm going to give them a
nice item for essentially nothing, I'd just as soon give it to them,
and have both of us feel good.
What we're still left with is that Verant has put items in the game
that are only useful to low level players, but only obtainable by high
level players. Either they are being careless, or they at least
silently encourage twinking.
Sang K. Choe
>>Anyone who remembers the days of the JBoots camp will know that making
>>desirable things no drop will result in far more problems than
>>anything else.
>
>The JBoots camp has moved to the Ancient Cyclops camp.
There's a difference between the AC camp vs. the original JBoots camp.
AC, at least the SRo one is a random spawn on a random spawn table in
pretty much the whole zone. The Nejena one was a rare drop off a
semi-rare static spawn.
>The "No Drop"
>ring just adds a few steps to the JBoots "camp". They simply moved the
>problems to a new location hehehehe
They moved it and alievated it a bit. They added a static spawn for
those that wanted a static spawn and also a random spawn for those
"lucky" ones that happened to be in the right place at the right time.
-- Sang.
Sang K. Choe
>Or one could consider a third possibility. Despite the benefits to the
>game, enduring the mass exodus of gimps as well as the deluge of whining
>from them would have been less than cost effective. So rather than
>redefine the system in order to create a game with a more direct
>relationship between risk and reward, between accomplishment and access
>to equipment, they catered to the vocal inept in homage to the bottom
>line.
This is where you're wrong since adding the no twink option would not
have caused any significant impact on their player base. Infact, I
would argue that it would have given a bit more life to the game.
The biggest problem right now with EQ is the fact that the mudiflation
is too much, too fast. The no twinkie option would have slowed down
the mudiflation to some degree.
>If you ignore the fact that VI is a business entity whose primary
>goal is profit your logic would work quite well, but of course its also
>ignorant of that one overriding fact.
You assume that adding the no twinkie option would have hurt their
player base. I doubt it.
-- Sang.
Kuhlinayn
wrote:
>It's far from pathetic, and it's so worn because it's the truth, but
>people like you with concrete heads seem incapable of understanding it
>or admitting it. Only a complete fool would think otherwise.
>Where's that leave you?
Just what am I supposed to be admitting Biz? That I will soon be
assimilated (now theres a word I rarely use... and surely havent
spelled correctly) and will twink like everyone else?
Dont get me wrong, on the point that probably a vast majority of those
who whine about twinking being jealous, you are likely correct. As
evidenced by the number of people who shout in EC "Does anyone have
anything they can give me?"
>I've heard time and time again from people who say "I used to feel that way until
>I got high enough to twink my lower level characters, now I see what
>other people are talking about." That alone is enough for me to figure
>it out.
So because others conform that means that all will? I dont think so.
I have been playing nearly 16 months, and have decent armor and
weapons on my main, as well as having hit 32k in the bank a little
over a month ago. I also have a 7th level Cleric alt who has not seen
one red cent of it and never will. Why? Because she can earn her own
money and has. By level 5 she had managed to purchase a complete suit
of Banded, have all her spells for her level and still had 85pp left
in the bank. She started just like my main did, with nothing, and
earned everything she has. COULD I have given her a few things that
would have been nice? Sure. Could I have simply tossed a couple Kp
her way so she could buy some nice items? Sure. Did/Will I? Never.
She doesnt even know Kharl exists, and Kharl doesnt know she exists.
Kharl is a merchant/fletcher/warrior who will likely have more money
than any of my alts. Kharl could EASILY make life cake for her and
any others I started, but why should he? He made the money, he worked
for it, he earned it. They didnt.
>Please go do a google search on this subject so we don't have to hash
>over all the same old shit yet one more time, including the brainless
>argument from some moron insisting that everyone twinking their own
>characters were godless cheaters, but it was different if someone else
>gave you something.
Sorry, I make no distinction between twinking yourself or strangers or
friends. My feelings are the same. Whether you gave your own 5th
level monk an FBSS, a Stranger Monk and FBSS or a friends newbie monk
an FBSS, the fact is you still twinked someone with an FBSS. WHO it
was is irrelevant to me.
And why re-hash it out? You are always welcome to let it pass, but
somehow I dont think you can do that. I have seen you for too long.