WHY ->!!THIS!!<- NEEDS TO HAPPEN

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<p><span style="color: #ffff00;">All particle effects do <b><i>NOT</i></b> stack (item-only modifications discluded)! :'[. This is categorized as "Items and Equipment" because fun spells for particle effects, as well as LoN loot cards, are items and equipment.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">I've acquired tens of Legends of Norrath loot cards and <b><i>NONE</i></b> of them stack with even my LVL 50 class fun spell effect, even with particle effect count per player turned to very high values in my options. There is <b><i>NO DISCLAIMER WHATSOEVER</i></b> rectifying this as a reasonable outcome, for <b><i>ANY</i></b> of the loot cards, and I truly feel it has detracted from the value had in trading for/purchasing a multitude of the LoN loot cards, especially when interfering with even my class fun spell.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">A moping Gnome,</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Sir Sorrowfullious Selirious Dar'Yanneous ;(</span></p>

[Noaani]

<p>So, I read your post, twice to make sure I didn't miss it, and I see no reason given as to why >!!THIS!!< needs to happen.</p><p>Could you maybe provide one?</p><p>Oh, any why would they even think to bother writing a dsiclaimer for a particle effect? more to the point, why would you write a post admitting that you actually looked for one?</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>So, I read your post, twice to make sure I didn't miss it, and I see no reason given as to why >!!THIS!!< needs to happen.</p><p>Could you maybe provide one?</p><p>Oh, any why would they even think to bother writing a dsiclaimer for a particle effect? more to the point, why would you write a post admitting that you actually looked for one?</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">LoN loot cards have great worth due to player ability to accomodate (the finder), and as such, need not be dishonored with performance not highlighted in any area, especially when interfering with prior in-game mechanics. If you don't understand logical rationale, then I can understand how, in your subjective idea of sensibility, the reason stated this 2nd time, wouldn't be acceptable to you.</span>

[Noaani]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>So, I read your post, twice to make sure I didn't miss it, and I see no reason given as to why >!!THIS!!< needs to happen.</p><p>Could you maybe provide one?</p><p>Oh, any why would they even think to bother writing a dsiclaimer for a particle effect? more to the point, why would you write a post admitting that you actually looked for one?</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">LoN loot cards have great worth due to player ability to accomodate (the finder), and as such, need not be dishonored with performance not highlighted in any area, especially when interfering with prior in-game mechanics. If you don't understand logical rationale, then I can understand how, in your subjective idea of sensibility, the reason stated this 2nd time, wouldn't be acceptable to you.</span></blockquote><p>Making it so all LoN cards showed their particle effects would interfer with current in game mechanics, as these effects do not stack. At any given time you are only able to have a single shape changing effect, retexturing effect and particle effect on you.</p><p>Why should LoN cards be an exception?</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Psh, how dare you turn things around and go from being subjective to "objective" (insofar as was discernible on your end). Point being, that isn't the way game mechanics should work, as it was never stated even class fun spells had to be sacrificed to use LoN loot cards. It also isn't true at all that only one effect is allowed to be active, as 2 are active for a 2-5 second phasing time, then only 1 particle effect becomes the primary. It is perfectly possible and their is no rational reasoning against such implementation.</span></p>

[Ep]

i actually very much like this, non stacking ability.i can turn off my diamond rod "snowflake" effect by casting my blue eyes.i mean, do you just want to be the one w/ the most particle count?

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Auron@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>i actually very much like this, non stacking ability.i can turn off my diamond rod "snowflake" effect by casting my blue eyes.i mean, do you just want to be the one w/ the most particle count?</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Why wouldn't you want both of those effects to work? Even still, if your diamond rod's effect is an activatable, you can always cancel via right-click and cancel in the maintained effects box. Thing is, having Cloak of Di'Zok + Cloak of Chains ghostly forms combines to form gold, and on top of that I have Vision of the Deep and the Oathbreaker Halo, as well as my Shadowknight's Hand of Lucan. I just am not seeing the full potential of my toon for no other reason aside from this oversight which is particle/retexturing effect limitation. And also, keep in mind shapeshifts <b><i>very often</i></b> stack with particle effects and pretty much always so with retexturization. Nonetheless, this needs to be reformed for consistency, and in a way that allows greater variety and functionality for in-game elements, LoN loot cards and fun spells included. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/c30b4198e0907b23b8246bdd52aa1c3c.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">(P.S. Combining Vision of Fury with Vision of the Deep to get purple eyes, to match the Dark Rhino-Hide Summoning Drum, would be most pleasing. n_n )</span></p>

[Sylvana]

for now, i dont mind them not stacking, as i prefer to not be lag incarnate moving through EFP, place is laggy as is.But it would be a nice feature, but yeeesh, the lag could soon add up from having to render all the particles.

[thajo]

I'd give up Mr. Yellow Text because they don't really have any interest (or have sure made it seem that way) in making all the LoN particle fx stack.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=421745" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=421745</a>I started that thread months ago and it got a load of views and zero replies.  Atleast illusion forms stack with particle effects/fun spells but yeah, particles I don't see ever stacking.  Which I think its silly I can't have a Halo and shimmering fists but, oh well.  Just thought i'd let you know to save your time cause it wont happen lol.

[knightba]

<p> A gnome shadowknight complaining that he can't look pretty enough. How fitting.</p>

[Rainmare]

the constant explosion of snowflakes happens when you equip the item. it never goes away, it's constant, and the only way to get rid of it is to throw up another illusion.I'm perfectly fine with the way it is now. and frankly, I wish that LoN items were only for LoN and not for anything in game. it's aggravating that the people that get these neat illusions and mounts and such just because they are willing to spend another 50 bucks on packs.

[Noaani]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Psh, how dare you turn things around and go from being subjective to "objective" (insofar as was discernible on your end). Point being, that isn't the way game mechanics should work, as it was never stated even class fun spells had to be sacrificed to use LoN loot cards. It also isn't true at all that only one effect is allowed to be active, as 2 are active for a 2-5 second phasing time, then only 1 particle effect becomes the primary. It is perfectly possible and their is no rational reasoning against such implementation.</span></p></blockquote><p>I'll try this again.</p><p>Particle effects have always had a limit of one per character at a time. This is as much about client/server stability as it is about anything else, and will never change without an upgrading to the minimum system requirements this game runs on. The 'phasing time' you are talking about is due to some particle effects having an ending animation, so when another particle effect is put on a player, this animation is triggered, and the particle effect has effectivly ended.</p><p>Now, once again, you can have a single particle effect on you at any given time (limited due to system performance), a single shape changing effect (limited because we only have 1 shape...) and a single texture effect (limited because we only have a single skin to have a texture applied).</p><p>LoN cards are not, and never will be, an exception to any of these rules. There has been posts in the past from SoE employees about it, and the above is a basic rundown of what was said.</p><p>Any exceptions to the above rules work towards less visual effects, not more. There are also a small number of equippable items that have their own particle effects (mythical epic weapons as an example), but then some equippale items (mark of the awakened) have particle effects that are applied to the wearer, not the item.</p><p>I ask again, why should LoN cards be an exception to a rule that has been in place since the day this game launched?</p><p>Oh, and if you reply, attempt to do so without psuedo personal attacks.</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<p><cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>the constant explosion of snowflakes happens when you equip the item. it never goes away, it's constant, and the only way to get rid of it is to throw up another illusion.I'm perfectly fine with the way it is now. and frankly, I wish that LoN items were only for LoN and not for anything in game. it's aggravating that the people that get these neat illusions and mounts and such just because they are willing to spend another 50 bucks on packs.</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Your preference and claim to the want of segregating LoN items from that of in-game environments in EverQuest II is simply subjective. More than 90% of my acquired LoN merchandise has been through providing platinum. Wisdom with presumption is naught, but only generalization made absent of gumption.</span></p><p><cite></cite></p><p><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Psh, how dare you turn things around and go from being subjective to "objective" (insofar as was discernible on your end). Point being, that isn't the way game mechanics should work, as it was never stated even class fun spells had to be sacrificed to use LoN loot cards. It also isn't true at all that only one effect is allowed to be active, as 2 are active for a 2-5 second phasing time, then only 1 particle effect becomes the primary. It is perfectly possible and their is no rational reasoning against such implementation.</span></p></blockquote><p>I'll try this again.</p><p>Particle effects have always had a limit of one per character at a time. This is as much about client/server stability as it is about anything else, and will never change without an upgrading to the minimum system requirements this game runs on. The 'phasing time' you are talking about is due to some particle effects having an ending animation, so when another particle effect is put on a player, this animation is triggered, and the particle effect has effectivly ended.</p><p>Now, once again, you can have a single particle effect on you at any given time (limited due to system performance), a single shape changing effect (limited because we only have 1 shape...) and a single texture effect (limited because we only have a single skin to have a texture applied).</p><p>LoN cards are not, and never will be, an exception to any of these rules. There has been posts in the past from SoE employees about it, and the above is a basic rundown of what was said.</p><p>Any exceptions to the above rules work towards less visual effects, not more. There are also a small number of equippable items that have their own particle effects (mythical epic weapons as an example), but then some equippale items (mark of the awakened) have particle effects that are applied to the wearer, not the item.</p><p>I ask again, why should LoN cards be an exception to a rule that has been in place since the day this game launched?</p><p>Oh, and if you reply, attempt to do so without psuedo personal attacks.</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I do feel myself aware that you've misinterpreted my jesting for some vain attempt at rhetorically besting. Nonetheless, your idea of what developers consider "the rules" that LoN goods ought not invade upon seems to be without relevance, as it seems that only in your memory's impressions of the past you did parlay, as toward substance your replies await with delay, absent of citation that would actually hold sway.</span>

[thajo]

It's in the coding.  I'd rather them figure out how to make the Sash of Volcanic Throne and Wicked wand of Malice stack before they make a halo and glowing eyes stack tbh.  Fix the real stack issues before the fluff ones.ps. Hey Yellow Text.  If you fly a sokoar real fast while on a mount you can actually see yourself flying your mount itself for a second or so.  You have the most eloquent delivery but its filled with utter nonsense.

[Noaani]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite> <blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I do feel myself aware that you've misinterpreted my jesting for some vain attempt at rhetorically besting. Nonetheless, your idea of what developers consider "the rules" that LoN goods ought not invade upon seems to be without relevance, as it seems that only in your memory's impressions of the past you did parlay, as toward substance your replies await with delay, absent of citation that would actually hold sway.</span></blockquote><p>Why would I bother looking up a post from an ex SoE employee simply so you can then point out that it was posted by an ex employee and thus no longer relavent?</p><p>Oh, and calling them "rules" was probably a bad on my part, technical restrictions would be a better term.</p><p>Rules can and often are broken, technical restrictions are only overcome with an increase in technology (upping the minimum required spec).</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite> <blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I do feel myself aware that you've misinterpreted my jesting for some vain attempt at rhetorically besting. Nonetheless, your idea of what developers consider "the rules" that LoN goods ought not invade upon seems to be without relevance, as it seems that only in your memory's impressions of the past you did parlay, as toward substance your replies await with delay, absent of citation that would actually hold sway.</span></blockquote><p>Why would I bother looking up a post from an ex SoE employee simply so you can then point out that it was posted by an ex employee and thus no longer relavent?</p><p>Oh, and calling them "rules" was probably a bad on my part, technical restrictions would be a better term.</p><p>Rules can and often are broken, technical restrictions are only overcome with an increase in technology (upping the minimum required spec).</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">You've developed a preconceived notion on terms of my regard for relevancy and standing had by those whose situations beckoned their change in direction, to the point that their current position they'd depose. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/47941865eb7bbc2a777305b46cc059a2.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span>

[Noaani]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">You've developed a preconceived notion on terms of my regard for relevancy and standing had by those whose situations beckoned their change in direction, to the point that their current position they'd depose. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/47941865eb7bbc2a777305b46cc059a2.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span></blockquote><p>No, I just don't like the idea of some [Removed for Content] with a pile of LoN items being able to walk beside a guild raiding a contested mob and sending half the MT group LD...</p><p>All so some low level nub can feel special for having a multitude of mismatched particle effects.</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">You've developed a preconceived notion on terms of my regard for relevancy and standing had by those whose situations beckoned their change in direction, to the point that their current position they'd depose. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/47941865eb7bbc2a777305b46cc059a2.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span></blockquote><p>No, I just don't like the idea of some [Removed for Content] with a pile of LoN items being able to walk beside a guild raiding a contested mob and sending half the MT group LD...</p><p>All so some low level nub can feel special for having a multitude of mismatched particle effects.</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span>

[Luag]

whenever I raid I do it on my "raid" settings and wouldn't see that stuff anyway so the nub as you call them wouldn't bother me theres also max effects per player settings you can check out if the sparkly gnomes dreams fill you with paranoia it really really isn't gamebreaking to let people used these effects to try to come up with something original in their little game also "that's the way it is" isn't a good reason for things to be a certain way in a game that changes all the time

[Starwindz]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>So, I read your post, twice to make sure I didn't miss it, and I see no reason given as to why >!!THIS!!< needs to happen.</p><p>Could you maybe provide one?</p><p>Oh, any why would they even think to bother writing a dsiclaimer for a particle effect? more to the point, why would you write a post admitting that you actually looked for one?</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">LoN loot cards have great worth due to player ability to accomodate (the finder), and as such, need not be dishonored with performance not highlighted in any area, especially when interfering with prior in-game mechanics. If you don't understand logical rationale, then I can understand how, in your subjective idea of sensibility, the reason stated this 2nd time, wouldn't be acceptable to you.</span></blockquote><p><b><u>Making it so all LoN cards showed their particle effects would interfer with current in game mechanics, as these effects do not stack. At any given time you are only able to have a single shape changing effect, retexturing effect and particle effect on you.</u></b></p><p>Why should LoN cards be an exception?</p></blockquote><p>And you are the current graphic designer for the game these days?  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Beastmage]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc.   I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Beastmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc. I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Acting like GPU off-loading is feasible is to ignore developer comments on the issue, relative to allowing for GeForce 3 shaders. Luag's and Starwindz' comments, insofar, have the most rationale resonance relative to reason and its elegance, tbh.</span>

[Norrsken]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beastmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc. I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Acting like GPU off-loading is feasible is to ignore developer comments on the issue, relative to allowing for GeForce 3 shaders. Luag's and Starwindz' comments, insofar, have the most rationale resonance relative to reason and its elegance, tbh.</span></blockquote>By geforce 3, do you mean generation 3 of geforce, or did you actually mean shader model 3.x?

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beastmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc. I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Acting like GPU off-loading is feasible is to ignore developer comments on the issue, relative to allowing for GeForce 3 shaders. Luag's and Starwindz' comments, insofar, have the most rationale resonance relative to reason and its elegance, tbh.</span></blockquote>By geforce 3, do you mean generation 3 of geforce, or did you actually mean shader model 3.x?</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I'm not sure, but there was specific mention of accomodating a certain spectrum of the hardware/software demographic, by developers. It might be in an archived Allakhazam developer chat. ;O</span>

[Norrsken]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beastmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc. I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Acting like GPU off-loading is feasible is to ignore developer comments on the issue, relative to allowing for GeForce 3 shaders. Luag's and Starwindz' comments, insofar, have the most rationale resonance relative to reason and its elegance, tbh.</span></blockquote>By geforce 3, do you mean generation 3 of geforce, or did you actually mean shader model 3.x?</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I'm not sure, but there was specific mention of accomodating a certain spectrum of the hardware/software demographic, by developers. It might be in an archived Allakhazam developer chat. ;O</span></blockquote>Considering the GF3 being the chip in Xbox (not 360) and that its 7 years old, I think that its shader model 3. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Noaani]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beastmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc. I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Acting like GPU off-loading is feasible is to ignore developer comments on the issue, relative to allowing for GeForce 3 shaders. Luag's and Starwindz' comments, insofar, have the most rationale resonance relative to reason and its elegance, tbh.</span></blockquote><p>Actually, they have hinted at offloading some of the graphical calculations to the GPU, if the technical hurdles can be overcome (other systems needing info from the particle effect/animation system causing a backlog between the CPU and GPU or some such).</p><p>if/when this happens, i would be all for multiple particle effects. however, until then, no.</p><p>Get a PC with the minimum specs for this game, join a raid and ask a friend to play with fireworks. You will crash.</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beastmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc. I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Acting like GPU off-loading is feasible is to ignore developer comments on the issue, relative to allowing for GeForce 3 shaders. Luag's and Starwindz' comments, insofar, have the most rationale resonance relative to reason and its elegance, tbh.</span></blockquote><p>Actually, they have hinted at offloading some of the graphical calculations to the GPU, if the technical hurdles can be overcome (other systems needing info from the particle effect/animation system causing a backlog between the CPU and GPU or some such).</p><p>if/when this happens, i would be all for multiple particle effects. however, until then, no.</p><p>Get a PC with the minimum specs for this game, join a raid and ask a friend to play with fireworks. You will crash.</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think particle effects are such a heaping burden to the lowest common denominator, and strongly support a stance vehemently against Noaani's unjustified bias. Lighting, shadows, animations, and textures are what effect FPS and bandwidth usage the most in EverQuest II.</span>

[Macross_JR]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beastmage wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think EQ2's visual interfacing is as unstable as you assert.</span></blockquote>Not necessarily unstable, but extremely taxing on the user's pc. I would be all for this change, but to make it more viable and enjoyable they need to offload much of the current rendering to the video card and away from the processor.</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Acting like GPU off-loading is feasible is to ignore developer comments on the issue, relative to allowing for GeForce 3 shaders. Luag's and Starwindz' comments, insofar, have the most rationale resonance relative to reason and its elegance, tbh.</span></blockquote><p>Actually, they have hinted at offloading some of the graphical calculations to the GPU, if the technical hurdles can be overcome (other systems needing info from the particle effect/animation system causing a backlog between the CPU and GPU or some such).</p><p>if/when this happens, i would be all for multiple particle effects. however, until then, no.</p><p>Get a PC with the minimum specs for this game, join a raid and ask a friend to play with fireworks. You will crash.</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think particle effects are such a heaping burden to the lowest common denominator, and strongly support a stance vehemently against Noaani's unjustified bias. Lighting, shadows, animations, and textures are what effect FPS and bandwidth usage the most in EverQuest II.</span></blockquote>I'm sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about.  You don't think particle effects effect FPS you are sadly mistaken.  Get a bunch of people with the fireworks and stand next to each other and set them off and watch your FPS drop.

[thajo]

Particle effects are one of the biggest FPS breakers in a lot of games, next to shadows.  In a raid with 24 people you get the most FPS boost not by dropping texture resolutions but by eliminating particle effects.  Or go to that priest/watery area in NQ - the particle FX there are bugged to death and can drop my system to the teens in fps while its coasting 40 - 60.  Just what we need, someone who stacks particle effects and runs around messing up framerates!

[Beastmage]

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I don't think particle effects are such a heaping burden to the lowest common denominator, and strongly support a stance vehemently against Noaani's unjustified bias. Lighting, shadows, animations, and textures are what effect FPS and bandwidth usage the most in EverQuest II.</span></blockquote>It absolutely is.  Not that it helps that each spell has about 3 or 4 different particle effects, but do have a huge impact on FPS.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>thajoka wrote:</cite><blockquote>Particle effects are one of the biggest FPS breakers in a lot of games, next to shadows.  In a raid with 24 people you get the most FPS boost not by dropping texture resolutions but by eliminating particle effects.  Or go to that priest/watery area in NQ - the particle FX there are bugged to death and can drop my system to the teens in fps while its coasting 40 - 60.  Just what we need, someone who stacks particle effects and runs around messing up framerates!</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">TBH I truly believe it needs incorporation because particle effects settings can be downgraded. No reason to have some hard limit against the capacity for another to experience content (via particle effects they've acquired, class innate and purchased however) just because you or others may not like to modify their particle effects settings.</span> 

[Leafkiller]

<p>To heck with nasty stacking particle effects, I just want to be able to stack fun pets reliably. Just give me two - the god pet and any single other pet would be perfect. Even require the god pet to be invisible to cast a second pet!</p><p> As it is now you can never tell which pet will overwrite another. Given the choice between the buffing god pet and my cool looking pet orc....old, bald, diaper wearing, god pet (that buffs) wins....and stays hidden...while the orc stays unsummoned.</p><p> Thats stacking I want fixed!</p>

[thajo]

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>thajoka wrote:</cite><blockquote>Particle effects are one of the biggest FPS breakers in a lot of games, next to shadows.  In a raid with 24 people you get the most FPS boost not by dropping texture resolutions but by eliminating particle effects.  Or go to that priest/watery area in NQ - the particle FX there are bugged to death and can drop my system to the teens in fps while its coasting 40 - 60.  Just what we need, someone who stacks particle effects and runs around messing up framerates!</blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">TBH I truly believe it needs incorporation because particle effects settings can be downgraded. No reason to have some hard limit against the capacity for another to experience content (via particle effects they've acquired, class innate and purchased however) just because you or others may not like to modify their particle effects settings.</span> </blockquote>Go work for Nvidia and change the way things work.   Until then were just saying...

[LordPazuzu]

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">All particle effects do <b><i>NOT</i></b> stack (item-only modifications discluded)! :'[. This is categorized as "Items and Equipment" because fun spells for particle effects, as well as LoN loot cards, are items and equipment.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">I've acquired tens of Legends of Norrath loot cards and <b><i>NONE</i></b> of them stack with even my LVL 50 class fun spell effect, even with particle effect count per player turned to very high values in my options. There is <b><i>NO DISCLAIMER WHATSOEVER</i></b> rectifying this as a reasonable outcome, for <b><i>ANY</i></b> of the loot cards, and I truly feel it has detracted from the value had in trading for/purchasing a multitude of the LoN loot cards, especially when interfering with even my class fun spell.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">A moping Gnome,</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Sir Sorrowfullious Selirious Dar'Yanneous ;(</span></p></blockquote><p>So basically you want to be able to use your LoN particle effects en masse with your class spell, in effect making yourself look like a giant walking pile of rainbow puke?</p><p>Personally, I say more power to ya, but I doubt the games particle effect engine or your computer's processor could handle it.  This game handles the graphics processing very oddly in that it makes very little use of your graphics card, dumping the majority of the work on a single cpu core.</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<span style="color: #ffff00;">I highly doubt 6 particle effects on my toon would do anything next to severely cripple the functionality of my gaming experience. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span>

[Noaani]

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I highly doubt 6 particle effects on my toon would do anything next to severely cripple the functionality of my gaming experience. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span></blockquote><p>With that many particle effects, if you walk past anyone with less than 256mb on their video card, or less than 1.5g of ram, I would not be at all supprised to see them go linkdead.</p><p>SoE will not allow this if for no reason other than the headache it will cause CS from people sending raids LD mid way through a contested epic kill.</p><p>And no, your desire to have more than one particle effect on you at once does not take precedence over technical issues of any kind.</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">I highly doubt 6 particle effects on my toon would do anything next to severely cripple the functionality of my gaming experience. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span></blockquote><p>With that many particle effects, if you walk past anyone with less than 256mb on their video card, or less than 1.5g of ram, I would not be at all supprised to see them go linkdead.</p><p>SoE will not allow this if for no reason other than the headache it will cause CS from people sending raids LD mid way through a contested epic kill.</p><p>And no, your desire to have more than one particle effect on you at once does not take precedence over technical issues of any kind.</p></blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Sounds to me it's as though you can't conquer this self-righteous supposing of yours, that of which has you thinking you're in tune with the game design to a point you really aren't. What would be more sensible is to say is, "So long as hardware stressors aren't supplemented on some supreme degree, then stacking in-game particle effects is something we should expect to see."</span>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<span style="color: #ffff00;">This consideration of content need be confronted in manners that never relent! :'[ <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/c30b4198e0907b23b8246bdd52aa1c3c.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></span>

[steelbadger]

I know how to counter self absorbed unreasonableness! No. You want massive numbers of particle effects, I do not. Such an alteration would affect my gaming experience and thus you're wish to have the system changed is negated by my wish to not see what you suggest. I don't care about "technical issues" or "coding problems". As far as I'm concerned it's a stupid idea that should never again see the light of day. Of course my opinion has no precedence over your opinion, the conflict, however, means that the status quo should be maintained until a conclusion is reached. And that is good enough for me.

[Noaani]

I fully endorse the above post!

[Sfumato2047]

Yes and I would like to add that the yellow text is [Removed for Content], hell I believe the poster is dressed as his character as he types this and possibly eats his own dung, for the record.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Many players don't care about choice and fairness, but their own self-serving agenda. People pay money and devote countless hours to afford the capital for trades to gather such benefits of aesthetics. To these people, those accomplishments matter not, because simply seeing someone who has too many whizzy sparks run by on their extreme performance specs is of utmost, negative, in-game affectuality. Despite it never being specified that LoN particle effects don't stack, players are constantly given the shaft as they purchase these items in good will, believing them to function appropriately. I think it's wholly unacceptable that consumers can be led to make imprudent and wasteful decisions they might otherwise be led away from due to lack of developer oversight (to either implement the relevant disclaimers about particle effects or to allot them the capacity for stacking).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Sfumato2047, there will be the day when by such superficial impressions you shan't care for, allowing your discipline and dignity to make such complacent transgressions. For you I have mercy, and as a brother, fellowship beith but shared between us. n_n L2LightenUp some might say, but to you personally I do parlay the fact that you ought consider what it is to reflect intrapersonally so that honor for yourself and your peers be given without delay, for you are one worthy, as are we, to apathy's dismay.</span></p>

[Noaani]

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Despite it never being specified that LoN particle effects don't stack</span></blockquote><p>This is still the part I do not understand.</p><p>EQ2 is not a home for "special" people. We are, according to the EULA, all teenagers or older, or have the supervision of such people. We are all able to figure things out for ourselves. SoE has no legal obligation to put a warining sticker on particle effects stating that they do not stack (and such notification would be viewed as nothing but an rediculous joke to those outsode of the US, as well as to most inside the US). The fact that particle effects on characters do not stack has been known for almost 4 years, and is often used by developers as a means of removing unwanted/anoying particle effects from characters (see some posts from Fyreflyte on the Diamond Rod if you are not aware of what I am talking about).</p><p>Since t is not *just* LoN particle effects that do not stack, it is all particle effects added to a character, if you spent time and/or money getting multiple of any particle effect in game without casting multiple of them to see how they looked, then its no one but your own fault that you are now upset about it. before setting out on any non gameplay based feat in this game (or any open ended game for that matter) it is well worth trying to find out if such a feat is supported at all by the code the game is written with.</p><p>In your case, it is not. Get over it.</p>

[Grumpy_Warrior_01]

<p>Guys, he's on Nagafen and he's talking in circles, so it's pretty obvious he thinks he's figured out some way to grief other players using particle effects and he's frustrated because the game limits this.  But I'll agree his delivery is pretty entertaining.</p>

[Jesdyr]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Despite it never being specified that LoN particle effects don't stack</span></blockquote><p>This is still the part I do not understand.</p></blockquote>Noaani .. The guy just wants attention. Just do what I do and when you see <span style="color: #ffff00;">yellow text</span>, just skip it. This is one of the most self centered posters I have seen around in here. I only wish this was EQ2flames so I could say how I actually feel.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Despite it never being specified that LoN particle effects don't stack</span></blockquote><p>This is still the part I do not understand.</p><p>EQ2 is not a home for "special" people. We are, according to the EULA, all teenagers or older, or have the supervision of such people. We are all able to figure things out for ourselves. SoE has no legal obligation to put a warining sticker on particle effects stating that they do not stack (and such notification would be viewed as nothing but an rediculous joke to those outsode of the US, as well as to most inside the US). The fact that particle effects on characters do not stack has been known for almost 4 years, and is often used by developers as a means of removing unwanted/anoying particle effects from characters (see some posts from Fyreflyte on the Diamond Rod if you are not aware of what I am talking about).</p><p>Since t is not *just* LoN particle effects that do not stack, it is all particle effects added to a character, if you spent time and/or money getting multiple of any particle effect in game without casting multiple of them to see how they looked, then its no one but your own fault that you are now upset about it. before setting out on any non gameplay based feat in this game (or any open ended game for that matter) it is well worth trying to find out if such a feat is supported at all by the code the game is written with.</p><p>In your case, it is not. Get over it.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Your pretentious idea that such a prudent annotation would somehow be relevant to "legal obligation" only exemplifies the lacking righteousness with which you display your self concern. Fact of the matter, there is due, objective reason behind soliciting sense and clarity where there may be disparity. Simply because YOU know and simply because "IT HAZ BEEN ROUND FOR YRZ" doesn't justify the lacking contribution to an environment where awareness can be picked up instantly for decisions on the fly.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">There is no reason any other impressionable fellow just like yourself would assume that there is no justification to bloccade the usage of more than 1 particle effect, therein devoting their deservant hours of leisure to some vain, misdirected, uninformed end. Acting like nothing need be done just because "the status quo is the status quo" is an obstinate ignoring of needed innovation. Because you've gotten by without such cares and accomodations, you've grown to not care, and now you've let yourself be callous, crude, and rude to those who may be initially stepping foot, you cover your own sensibility in nothing but soot.</span></p>

[Lasai]

In SWG we could lock a zone or crash a server with enough people spamming launcher pistol particle effects.Particles are evil, and I am glad they don't stack.I also buy into the theory that you are just another PvP mechanics sploiter who spent a ton of RL money looking for a way to lag opponents out.Too bad, so sorry your LoN RMT trash isn't working for you that way.

[steelbadger]

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Many players don't care about choice and fairness, but their own self-serving agenda. People pay money and devote countless hours to afford the capital for trades to gather such benefits of aesthetics. To these people, those accomplishments matter not, because simply seeing someone who has too many whizzy sparks run by on their extreme performance specs is of utmost, negative, in-game affectuality. Despite it never being specified that LoN particle effects don't stack, players are constantly given the shaft as they purchase these items in good will, believing them to function appropriately. I think it's wholly unacceptable that consumers can be led to make imprudent and wasteful decisions they might otherwise be led away from due to lack of developer oversight (to either implement the relevant disclaimers about particle effects or to allot them the capacity for stacking).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">Sfumato2047, there will be the day when by such superficial impressions you shan't care for, allowing your discipline and dignity to make such complacent transgressions. For you I have mercy, and as a brother, fellowship beith but shared between us. n_n L2LightenUp some might say, but to you personally I do parlay the fact that you ought consider what it is to reflect intrapersonally so that honor for yourself and your peers be given without delay, for you are one worthy, as are we, to apathy's dismay.</span></p></blockquote>Doesn't matter.  None of it matters.You want this to happen, a lot of people in this thread do not.  This thread may not be a representitive sample of the game population but it is still a better sample than one person (ie; you) which is the only sample you have thus far presented.Since the majority of the population sample of this thread disagree with your suggestion it is not a prudent business decision to make the changes you suggest.This is an pragmatic argument, your pure rationalist views hold no water as the morally "right" conclusion is not the same as the pragmatic "right" conclusion.  What is right for SOE is the conclusion that keeps most players happy, our crude poll (this thread) has shown preliminary results to be in favor of my view.  Unless you can come up with statistically reliable results (More reliability is required in evidence provoking a risky decision) that show the majority to both be in favor of your view point and that the majority will cease to play the game if the change is not implemented (at the same time as providing a count of how many would leave the game where the changes you suggest to be made) the status quo will be maintained.What is more is your rationalist arguments further hold no water as the agreement you e-sign every time you log in says that SOE owes you nothing and you own nothing in the game.NB:  Please stop passing your posts through a thesaurus-bot, quite often the result is a sentence that only has a tenuous grip on reality, grammer and liguistic mores.

[Barakuz]

<p>5 stars for the use of as many big words as possible, I am sure your English teacher would be proud. Personally, I find it annoying and pretentious when someone trys to speak like Dr Suess - just saying</p><p>Bara</p>

[Curs3]

lol i remember in swg to boycott nge everyone raided theed and whooped out their broken speeders and anything else that can lag..That was great, bria, ahazi and bloodfin crashed i believed.

[trovan2]

<p><span style="color: #999999;">Ok, seriously guys, do this:</span></p><p><span style="color: #999999;">EQ2 -> Options -> Settings -> Graphics -> Optimal Performance</span></p><p><span style="color: #999999;">Guess what? Particle effects are not an issue!!</span></p>

[Noaani]

<cite>Seliri@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #ffff00;">Your pretentious idea that such a prudent annotation would somehow be relevant to "legal obligation" only exemplifies the lacking righteousness with which you display your self concern. Fact of the matter, there is due, objective reason behind soliciting sense and clarity where there may be disparity. Simply because YOU know and simply because "IT HAZ BEEN ROUND FOR YRZ" doesn't justify the lacking contribution to an environment where awareness can be picked up instantly for decisions on the fly.</span> <p><span style="color: #ffff00;">There is no reason any other impressionable fellow just like yourself would assume that there is no justification to bloccade the usage of more than 1 particle effect, therein devoting their deservant hours of leisure to some vain, misdirected, uninformed end. Acting like nothing need be done just because "the status quo is the status quo" is an obstinate ignoring of needed innovation. Because you've gotten by without such cares and accomodations, you've grown to not care, and now you've let yourself be callous, crude, and rude to those who may be initially stepping foot, you cover your own sensibility in nothing but soot.</span></p></blockquote><p>I suggest you stop it with the demeaning comments you like to try and slip into your posts and go back to showing others how to level up their fletching.</p><p>And as I have said, the status quo should be maintained for technical reasons, anything other than that including your view here, is a matter of opinion. The day opinion beats out technical reasoning in the realm of computers will be a sad sad day.</p>

[Lasai]

<cite>trovan2 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #999999;">Ok, seriously guys, do this:</span></p><p><span style="color: #999999;">EQ2 -> Options -> Settings -> Graphics -> Optimal Performance</span></p><p><span style="color: #999999;">Guess what? Particle effects are not an issue!!</span></p></blockquote>Thats a client side adjustment, and only improves framerate on your machine.Network is always affected... its going to send me every single particle packet whether I choose to render them on my machine or not.  The fact that people can choose high quality settings means that the information needs to be sent to everyone...including particle effects, or a multitude of them.  Whether visible on your machine or not, the server has to generate the data associated with them.Thats how we could crash SWG servers, and why "player gatherings" in excessive numbers became bannable.