A community set on having no community?

[LaurnaRose Fauldorn]

<p>I hardly ever post on the forums.  When I do, it is usually to bring an idea to the community that would encourage the players to spend time in the game with each other, helping each other, utilizing each others abilities and skills. </p><p>/rant</p><p>Why is it that whenever an idea is put on the table to encourage us to interact with each other in game (not making interaction necessary, but simply putting something available in the game that would reward community interaction) that the majority of the players flame/shun/rant/pout and flat out get mean when someone takes the initiative to try and bring some form of community play into the game? </p><p>I really do not understand this and would love an honest answer.  For goodness sakes this is an MMORPG .... massive MULTIPLAYER online ROLE-PLAYING game.  Have we as the players totally lost sight of what that means?  It is implicated in the genre alone that we will need to interact with other players.  Not simply run around and play the game as a solo individual where our main form of interaction with other players is to try and beat the pants off someone in a parsing contest or purchasing items from a impersonable broker. </p><p>Player cities have been suggested, allowing guilds with common goals to come together in one area and build a stronghold.  In effect combining a group of guilds into one guild.  Letting each guild keep their own guild name and hall, but having one point of access for all of the guilds and allowing sister guilds to benefit from their higher level sister guilds ammeneties.  Allow a guild to branch off into smaller guilds based on functionality (raiding/crafting/casual-play) where all guild members can serve a function and purpose within a guild system.  I really do not understand why ANYONE is opposed to this?  Wouldnt this actually bring more to the game?  Wouldn't this idea actually help large guild increase in functionality and members?  Please explain this negativity toward this idea to me!</p><p>Group harvesting?  Nothing but negative responses there.  Why would it be so terrible to put in a system that encouraged our adventure class to interact with our tradeskill class?  Would the ideas I proposed prevent our current harvesters from harvesting solo?  No.  Would it require adventerers to help with harvesting to get their materials needed for their gear?  No.  So, why would offering this system to the players, rewarding them for spending time together and helping one another out be such a bad thing?</p><p>Tenant system on houses ... allowing us to have alts or friends/family members to purchase a "room" in our homes adding to our weekly rent.  HOW does this effect anyone but the people who want the ability to share a house?  Why are people so up in arms and freaking out over this?  I really don't understand.</p><p>I remember when this game was all about community.  Something has happened over the last 6 years or so that has given SOE the idea that we do not want to play a multiplayer game.  I would be willing to bet that if SOE implemented "mercenaries for hire" that people would hire them out in a heart beat and just slash and bash everything w/o ever looking at another player again. </p><p>I think it is really sad that the community in this game has fallen to such a low point.  I think that it should be the other way around.  SOE should be trying to build community interaction within the game rather than bending to the massess of console cross-overs and generation "serve it to me on a silver plater" gamers who just seem to scream louder than the rest of us.  There is such a wonderful noncombat community in the game that totally gets overlooked.  The tradeskill/noncombat players have handsdown the best Dev on the team, and her hands are tied as to what she is able to give the community because SOE spends so much time focusing on the aforementioned gamer types that the noncombat types get swept under the rug. </p><p>/rantoff</p>

[Pakhet]

<p>The problem with forums is... people who are happy with something have no reason to post, those that are unhappy are the vocal minority in a lot of cases but come off as the "majority" because the others are silent. I don't get people who want to solo only in EQ, but that is their choice and if it makes em happy go for it. I really don't get the soloers that are mad because the devs make group content though. o.O</p>

[Novusod]

<p>Isn't this just a mirror of real life in some ways? Most people would rather watch TV or play video games than attend a town hall meeting. You can't expect the simulation of community to be better than the real deal.</p>

[LaurnaRose Fauldorn]

<p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Isn't this just a mirror of real life in some ways? Most people would rather watch TV or play video games than attend a town hall meeting. You can't expect the simulation of community to be better than the real deal.</p></blockquote><p>In all honesty, it is the hermits of life who are the minority.  Even if we aren't all joining in in the town meetings, almost every person enjoys going out with their friends and family to dinner, lunch, drinks, a movie, the park, picnics, bbqs, ect.  So it is not that I'm expecting the simulation of community to be better than the real deal, rather that I would expect there to be some merit given to those ideas we bring forward asking to encourage community.</p>

[Tallithia]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote> <p>I think it is really sad that the community in this game has fallen to such a low point.</p><p>/rantoff</p></blockquote><p>There is plenty raiding and grouping content in this game.  There is the ability to communicate through voice and chatting.  And there is this forum. Guilds are communities that work and play together.  And I don't see any shortage of them.  And I don't see why anyone would be upset with the idea of expanding guilds or group harvesting.  Actually I use to love group harvesting in VSoH.</p><p>The amount of people actually posting complaints relative to the population playing, I imagine is very small.  Of course being that SOE doesn't post numbers only they know for sure.  But I would bet only about 3% of the population of EQ2 actually post here.</p>

[Tallithia]

<p><cite>Pakhet wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The problem with forums is... people who are happy with something have no reason to post, those that are unhappy are the vocal minority in a lot of cases but come off as the "majority" because the others are silent. I don't get people who want to solo only in EQ, but that is their choice and if it makes em happy go for it. I really don't get the soloers that are mad because the devs make group content though. o.O</p></blockquote><p>I am a soloer and I group occasionally.  I am not upset.   <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Katz]

<p>I think most objections spring from the fact that a lot in the game needs to be addressed.  Gear itemization needs to reflect the current stat of stats throughout the tiers, and lag/server breakdowns need to be addressed.  There are a lot of bugs in the game. People who are frustrated with those and with other things that need to be fixed express their frustration on the forums sometimes.</p><p>People get frustrated and want to see things that are currently in the game working well and relatively bug free.</p><p>Many see adding the items that you mentioned as putting the cart before the horse. </p><p>However, many things that were suggested and that they have added during the last few years are great.  The addition of guild halls and amenities, the appearance weapon and mount tab, the ability to hide your mount, flying mounts, all of the wonderful houseing and house items added, the chronomage quests that give you the house items, and more that I can't think of right now. Oh yeah, BGs and PQs.</p><p>I think the suggestions for improving community have merit.  Sometimes it takes time to get them into game.  Don't get discouraged.</p>

[d1anaw]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I remember when this game was all about community.  Something has happened over the last 6 years or so that has given SOE the idea that we do not want to play a multiplayer game.  I would be willing to bet that if SOE implemented "mercenaries for hire" that people would hire them out in a heart beat and just slash and bash everything w/o ever looking at another player again. </p></blockquote><p>You go through this whole diatribe of why it hurts anyone's game if we do this and that and then you get the this. How does it hurt YOUR game if I don't want to group or raid with you? How does it hurt your game if I choose to stick to soloing or duoing or small grouping with the people I know instead of putting up with the over-inflated egos that permeate raids and large groups? Why do you care if I utilize a "mercenary for hire"? Oh yeah, YOU don't think it should be played that way and thus, neither should anyone else. My money is the same as yours. Therefore I'm as much entitled to play the game as I choose to do so, every bit as much as you do. And I see no reason why I shouldn't have options that permit me to do so the same as you do. See, my not grouping/raiding with you does nothing to change your game. It merely prevents both of us from being in a circumstance that would neither please or benefit either of us. YOU saying that I should or should not be permitted to have access to things because you don't like does affect my game and that is unacceptable. I take nothing from you, you shouldn't expect to take anything from me.</p>

[feldon30]

<p>Completely solo play of EQ2 has been condoned and encouraged for several expansions now (really starting with Rise of Kunark which REQUIRED SOLO QUESTING TO LEVEL), that solo players consider it a core gameplay style that all other gameplay must orbit around. Now, any attempt to turn up the difficulty, or add content that requires a group, is met with hostility. "I don't want to group and you can't make me!"</p><p>It really surprises me, because if you want a solo RPG with a chatroom, there are far more engaging choices on the market. No offense, but SOE didn't spend 10 years programming multiplayer network code so you can kill 10 rats and never interact with another player.</p><p>I don't think EQ2 should mandate full 6-person group play to have a good time. Sometimes I solo, sometimes I duo/trio (an area of the game that's always been limited -- the current Chronoportals are an exception, the Haunted Mansion, Shard of Love, and a few other areas), and sometimes yes I group. I think there should be good quantities of all gameplay styles.</p><p>As well-designed as the Velious dungeons are, they range from very hard to ridiculously hard for any but exceptionally-geared level 90 players (who likely won't find any gear upgrades within the dungeons). And by not updating the Sentinel's Fate gear, 12 dungeons were instantly rendered as "why bother". At 82, you get the MC gear, a few quest drops in Sentinel's Fate, power-level to 86, do the Velious quests, camp out at the PQs for a couple of days and presto you're 90 with rockin gear. Kunark wasn't like this. Even TSO wasn't like this. Unless you farmed grey shards, you couldn't walk into TSO and replace Kunark gear in 2 hours of questing. By completely removing any meaning for doing the Sentinel's Fate dungeons, the lifespan of the game has again been shortened. Making sure that each expansion doesn't completely invalidate the one before it is something SOE used to pride itself on. Now it seems to be the status quo.</p><p>Kingdom of Sky did not completely eliminate any need to run Desert of Flames dungeons.</p><p>Echoes of Faydwer did not completely eliminate any need to run Kingdom of Sky dungeons. In fact they made good companions to each other.</p>

[LaurnaRose Fauldorn]

<p><cite>d1anaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I remember when this game was all about community.  Something has happened over the last 6 years or so that has given SOE the idea that we do not want to play a multiplayer game.  I would be willing to bet that if SOE implemented "mercenaries for hire" that people would hire them out in a heart beat and just slash and bash everything w/o ever looking at another player again. </p></blockquote><p>You go through this whole diatribe of why it hurts anyone's game if we do this and that and then you get the this. How does it hurt YOUR game if I don't want to group or raid with you? How does it hurt your game if I choose to stick to soloing or duoing or small grouping with the people I know instead of putting up with the over-inflated egos that permeate raids and large groups? Why do you care if I utilize a "mercenary for hire"? Oh yeah, YOU don't think it should be played that way and thus, neither should anyone else. My money is the same as yours. Therefore I'm as much entitled to play the game as I choose to do so, every bit as much as you do. And I see no reason why I shouldn't have options that permit me to do so the same as you do. See, my not grouping/raiding with you does nothing to change your game. It merely prevents both of us from being in a circumstance that would neither please or benefit either of us. YOU saying that I should or should not be permitted to have access to things because you don't like does affect my game and that is unacceptable. I take nothing from you, you shouldn't expect to take anything from me.</p></blockquote><p>If you would read my "diatribe" you would see that I was not saying why it hurts everyones game to do this or that, rather I was asking how it would hurt anyones game if the OPTION (not necessity) were made available to us to be a community if we should so choose.  How you play your game has no effect on me whatsoever.  I never said it did.  As a matter of fact, my question was pointing to that exact question.  How does implementing more community rewarding content effect those who solo play?  If they could implement game playing mechanics that encourage but not require community, without changing the player's ability to solo the game with limited community interaction, why should it matter?  Why does everyone on the forums get up in arms when an idea is proposed to bring community together?  Honestly, I'm beginning to think that it is not that they feel adding community encouraging features to the game would effect their own solo experience, but rather that they are afraid that they would not be asked to join in that community /shrug.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>feldon30 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think EQ2 should mandate full 6-person group play to have a good time.</p></blockquote><p>No, but perhaps, just maybe, they should create incentives for doing so.  Like xp bonuses for additional players in a group like EQ1 had.</p><p>Adding a 4th, 5th, or 6th player should increase our rewards, not decrease.</p>

[Onorem]

In general, I'm not against pretty much anything that creates more options for people. I'm often against what, for my own selfish purposes, seems like trivial (in content, but not necessarily implementation) things being suggested when so many existing issues still need to be addressed. Shared guild cities. Sure, why not? I have absolutely no need for it, but if some small guilds want to share resources without giving up their names, that's fine. Group harvesting? I harvest when I'm bored. It's a safe time-waster. When I have people with me, I'd like to do something that I couldn't if I were alone. Group harvesting seems like something that would more likely be used by boxers and abused by farmers. If they want to add it, fine...but meh. I haven't seen much said against shared housing. Not sure where the tenant suggestion resulted in freaking out from the masses. I'd be curious to read the specifics of the proposal and the responses. This game still has a community for me...and I'm glad it does, since I'd likely be gone if it didn't. The portion of the community that I'm concerned with just happens to almost entirely belong to one guild.

[JoarAddam]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I hardly ever post on the forums.  When I do, it is usually to bring an idea to the community that would encourage the players to spend time in the game with each other, helping each other, utilizing each others abilities and skills. </p><p>/rant</p><p>Why is it that whenever an idea is put on the table to encourage us to interact with each other in game (not making interaction necessary, but simply putting something available in the game that would reward community interaction) that the majority of the players flame/shun/rant/pout and flat out get mean when someone takes the initiative to try and bring some form of community play into the game? </p><p>I really do not understand this and would love an honest answer.  For goodness sakes this is an MMORPG .... massive MULTIPLAYER online ROLE-PLAYING game.  Have we as the players totally lost sight of what that means?  It is implicated in the genre alone that we will need to interact with other players.  Not simply run around and play the game as a solo individual where our main form of interaction with other players is to try and beat the pants off someone in a parsing contest or purchasing items from a impersonable broker. </p><p>Player cities have been suggested, allowing guilds with common goals to come together in one area and build a stronghold.  In effect combining a group of guilds into one guild.  Letting each guild keep their own guild name and hall, but having one point of access for all of the guilds and allowing sister guilds to benefit from their higher level sister guilds ammeneties.  Allow a guild to branch off into smaller guilds based on functionality (raiding/crafting/casual-play) where all guild members can serve a function and purpose within a guild system.  I really do not understand why ANYONE is opposed to this?  Wouldnt this actually bring more to the game?  Wouldn't this idea actually help large guild increase in functionality and members?  Please explain this negativity toward this idea to me!</p><p>Group harvesting?  Nothing but negative responses there.  Why would it be so terrible to put in a system that encouraged our adventure class to interact with our tradeskill class?  Would the ideas I proposed prevent our current harvesters from harvesting solo?  No.  Would it require adventerers to help with harvesting to get their materials needed for their gear?  No.  So, why would offering this system to the players, rewarding them for spending time together and helping one another out be such a bad thing?</p><p>Tenant system on houses ... allowing us to have alts or friends/family members to purchase a "room" in our homes adding to our weekly rent.  HOW does this effect anyone but the people who want the ability to share a house?  Why are people so up in arms and freaking out over this?  I really don't understand.</p><p>I remember when this game was all about community.  Something has happened over the last 6 years or so that has given SOE the idea that we do not want to play a multiplayer game.  I would be willing to bet that if SOE implemented "mercenaries for hire" that people would hire them out in a heart beat and just slash and bash everything w/o ever looking at another player again. </p><p>I think it is really sad that the community in this game has fallen to such a low point.  I think that it should be the other way around.  SOE should be trying to build community interaction within the game rather than bending to the massess of console cross-overs and generation "serve it to me on a silver plater" gamers who just seem to scream louder than the rest of us.  There is such a wonderful noncombat community in the game that totally gets overlooked.  The tradeskill/noncombat players have handsdown the best Dev on the team, and her hands are tied as to what she is able to give the community because SOE spends so much time focusing on the aforementioned gamer types that the noncombat types get swept under the rug. </p><p>/rantoff</p></blockquote><p>Some of these you have to compare value-add vs development time.  Some of these ideas are interesting and more community oriented, but even Domino felt the group harvest idea just wasn't worth the time, since it was already tried and failed.</p><p>So yeah, the value to the game, IE how many people would actually use it VS the amount of time that would be invested to create the change is something to be considered.  Much like building a 4 lane highway to a community of 8 people is a waste of money, so would some of these ideas be.</p><p>I'd like to see the big investment these would take applied in some other ways.  I'm not impugning your ideas, but like you, I'd like to add value to my own playstyle... So would everyone, each with their own playstyle. If you prove a larger community than we're aware of in your playstyle, and make it obvious to the developers that such a community exists, you'll get more development time.</p>

[Banditman]

<p><cite>feldon30 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Kingdom of Sky did not completely eliminate any need to run Desert of Flames dungeons.</p><p>Echoes of Faydwer did not completely eliminate any need to run Kingdom of Sky dungeons. In fact they made good companions to each other.</p></blockquote><p>While I agree with most of what you're saying here, I've got to point out some "ommissions" you made here.</p><p>While it is true that players still ran a few DoF dungeons in the KoS era, that was dictated by the mechanics of the game at that time.  Remember, at that point, we were still on the 14 level spell upgrade system.  So, despite the fact that you had gained 10 levels, you STILL needed Masters from the prior expansion, and in the case of this specific expansion, you needed your "Ancient" masters which would ONLY drop in the DoF zones / instances.</p><p>Likewise, running KoS zones in the EoF era was also done for similar reason.  EoF introduced "set" armor, and for the most part, that is what people went after . . . and it only dropped in the EoF zones.  Sure, people would go back and run KoS zones for the chance to Master out, but those zones were largely gear irrelevant.</p><p>Today, the "expectation" is that you are already Mastered out.  The need to go backwards to get Master spells is largely gone.  I mean, I know that when we see a "Master" chest drop (see, I still call them Master chests, because that used to be the big thing you'd get from them)  . . . anyway, when I see one drop, I find that I "expect" a Fabled item in the chest and find myself "disappointed" when "only" a Master spell is in the chest.</p><p>Those are expectations Sony pushed on to me, and the rest of the population.  Right or wrong, they exist now, and SOE must deal with them.</p><p>Anyway, one expansion invalidating the last is not unusual.  It is unfortunate, but not new or unusual.</p>

[Zaldor]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>feldon30 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think EQ2 should mandate full 6-person group play to have a good time.</p></blockquote><p>No, but perhaps, just maybe, they should create incentives for doing so.  Like xp bonuses for additional players in a group like EQ1 had.</p><p>Adding a 4th, 5th, or 6th player should increase our rewards, not decrease.</p></blockquote><p>I had forgotten about that.  I remember now that groups would hold out for a 6th because of the bonus.  EQ2 definitely should do this.  Very practical and I don't see how anyone can argue against it.</p><p>ETA:  Would be another revenue generator as maybe more people would be inclined to get a second account to help fill out groups.  Sure, that might be counterproductive to the community thing but I'm trying to think of all the positives.</p>

[Littlelove]

<p>I really wouldn't use this argument anymore</p><p><img src="http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6817/hardlyever.jpg" width="388" height="216" /></p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Zaldor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Adding a 4th, 5th, or 6th player should increase our rewards, not decrease.</p></blockquote><p>I had forgotten about that.  I remember now that groups would hold out for a 6th because of the bonus.  EQ2 definitely should do this.  Very practical and I don't see how anyone can argue against it.</p></blockquote><p>As is, my duo in a dungeon, or wherever is going to be hampered by joining up with someone else trying to solo or duo the same content.</p><p>This IMO, is a flaw in design for an MMO.  I should always be motivated to invite others and share content for greater rewards vs being motivated to kill steal / lock down the mobs I need/want before they can touch them.</p><p>The same should be applied to even solo questing.  Its rare this community invites someone in the same area doing the same quests, as too often its a penalty vs a benefit. </p><p>Its difficult for me to see any reason why adding more obvious benefits for teaming up is a bad thing for an MMO, but the history of eq2 mechanics seems to indicate SoE does feel its the wrong thing.</p>

[Banditman]

<p>In Planetside, at least when I played, the XP was the XP.  You got the exact same XP whether you were in a group or solo.  If a kill was worth 253 XP, well, by gosh, everyone in the group got 253 XP for the kill regardless of what level anyone was, regardless of whether you even fired a round at the target and regardless of how many people were in the group.  As long as you were on the same continent (zone), you got XP.</p><p>It absolutely did motivate the formation of groups to take on content.  It absolutely did drive the use of the, /gasp, LFG tool.  I rarely spent more than 2 or 3 minutes LFG in that game, and it was a pleasure to know that I wasn't siphoning off anyone elses XP if I was having a bad night.</p><p>The only obvious pitfall was that yes, it was in fact possible for a player to join a group and then /afk somewhere.  I'll tell you what though, it didn't take long at all for groups to police that stuff themselves and kick dead weight / afk losers out and bring in someone who was actually going to go out there and earn XP for the group.</p><p>I cannot comprehend how this is so very difficult to apply to EQ2.</p>

[Diamyr]

<p>I don't see how any of those ideas you suggested have anything to do with community. RP community maybe, but actual game community.. no relation whatsoever.</p><p>That said they all require dev time and seeing as how this game is [Removed for Content] near on life support already i'd place them at the very bottom of the laundry list of things that need $$ thrown at them. Sorry but server stability matters just a teensy bit more to me than whether someone can rent out a room of their house if they want.</p><p>Player towns is a great idea i've always wanted to see done right, but not tacked onto a 7 year old game and especially not in EQ2. Such things are the realm of sandbox games not railed mmos like EQ2.</p>

[Andok]

<p><cite>Banditman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In Planetside, at least when I played, the XP was the XP.  You got the exact same XP whether you were in a group or solo.  If a kill was worth 253 XP, well, by gosh, everyone in the group got 253 XP for the kill regardless of what level anyone was, regardless of whether you even fired a round at the target and regardless of how many people were in the group.  As long as you were on the same continent (zone), you got XP.</p><p>It absolutely did motivate the formation of groups to take on content.  It absolutely did drive the use of the, /gasp, LFG tool.  I rarely spent more than 2 or 3 minutes LFG in that game, and it was a pleasure to know that I wasn't siphoning off anyone elses XP if I was having a bad night.</p><p>The only obvious pitfall was that yes, it was in fact possible for a player to join a group and then /afk somewhere.  I'll tell you what though, it didn't take long at all for groups to police that stuff themselves and kick dead weight / afk losers out and bring in someone who was actually going to go out there and earn XP for the group.</p><p>I cannot comprehend how this is so very difficult to apply to EQ2.</p></blockquote><p>/derail</p><p>In Planetside, you only received a percentage of the experience points a squadmate got from a kill (and you got full XP from your own kills.)  You also got bonus XP for keeping the entire squad close together.</p><p>/derail off</p><p>But yeah, there should definitely be an incentive for forming a full group even if a full group isn't needed.  </p>

[Illmarr]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>d1anaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I remember when this game was all about community.  Something has happened over the last 6 years or so that has given SOE the idea that we do not want to play a multiplayer game.  I would be willing to bet that if SOE implemented "mercenaries for hire" that people would hire them out in a heart beat and just slash and bash everything w/o ever looking at another player again. </p></blockquote><p>You go through this whole diatribe of why it hurts anyone's game if we do this and that and then you get the this. How does it hurt YOUR game if I don't want to group or raid with you? How does it hurt your game if I choose to stick to soloing or duoing or small grouping with the people I know instead of putting up with the over-inflated egos that permeate raids and large groups? Why do you care if I utilize a "mercenary for hire"? Oh yeah, YOU don't think it should be played that way and thus, neither should anyone else. My money is the same as yours. Therefore I'm as much entitled to play the game as I choose to do so, every bit as much as you do. And I see no reason why I shouldn't have options that permit me to do so the same as you do. See, my not grouping/raiding with you does nothing to change your game. It merely prevents both of us from being in a circumstance that would neither please or benefit either of us. YOU saying that I should or should not be permitted to have access to things because you don't like does affect my game and that is unacceptable. I take nothing from you, you shouldn't expect to take anything from me.</p></blockquote><p>If you would read my "diatribe" you would see that I was not saying why it hurts everyones game to do this or that, rather I was asking how it would hurt anyones game if the OPTION (not necessity) were made available to us to be a community if we should so choose.  How you play your game has no effect on me whatsoever.  I never said it did.  As a matter of fact, my question was pointing to that exact question.  How does implementing more community rewarding content effect those who solo play?  If they could implement game playing mechanics that encourage but not require community, without changing the player's ability to solo the game with limited community interaction, why should it matter?  Why does everyone on the forums get up in arms when an idea is proposed to bring community together?  Honestly, I'm beginning to think that it is not that they feel adding community encouraging features to the game would effect their own solo experience, but rather that they are afraid that they would not be asked to join in that community /shrug.</p></blockquote><p>I think one of the biggest reasons is that today's generation (Post WoW/EQ2 release) of MMORPG players don't tend to have the background in classic D&D where you played in groups exclusively. They come from console/single player backgrounds and like what they are familiar with. Did the games evolve into a more solo oriented game (At least for leveling purposes) due to the influx of these next gen players, or in an effort to court their business?</p><p>People once expected to invest time and effort into developing their characters. You played many hours to gain level increases and to have chances at loot. As you put in more time and developed more in power you had bigger and more difficult adventures and got bigger and shinier rewards for them. A campaign or quest may have an end, but your character's story/adventure did not, there could always be another campaign.</p><p>Console and single player games are different. Your objective is to beat the game or scenario. You ride along the quest rails to the end and gain the power you need to finish the campaign. Then you start over on the next one. But you go from point A to point B to point C and you finish.</p><p>MMORPGs don't have a finish. The gameplay has come more and more to resemble the consoles, but without the payout console players come to expect. Then add in events that require people to not play the game like a solo adventure and they are forced out of their comfort zone, so they complain. They've been perfektly happy soloing along when all of a sudden the roots of the genre are exxposed and brought back and there are events that cannot be done alone, but cxan be easily accomplished by a group. This is where the people like Dianaw come out and start complaining, because they feel the rules were switched because they are not familiar with the root inspiration of the game.</p><p>To end the wall of text, more options = good. Add in the party experience bonus like EQ1 had to encourage picking up that 4th, 5th, and 6th person to fill out your party. An incentive to group is not a slam on soloing. People should realize this.</p>

[Bacci]

<p>I rather see a community which is posting complaints about things they feel are wrong, than a community that is silent and shrinks without sign.</p><p>Beeing constructive is good and trying to encourage people also.</p><p>But trying to degrade valid complaints ( and in my opinion any complaint is valid - even if i dont understand it, for the poster it was worth some of his/her lifetime) is not constructive dear OP and does not make this community better. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Xiotia]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>feldon30 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think EQ2 should mandate full 6-person group play to have a good time.</p></blockquote><p>No, but perhaps, just maybe, they should create incentives for doing so.  Like xp bonuses for additional players in a group like EQ1 had.</p><p>Adding a 4th, 5th, or 6th player should increase our rewards, not decrease.</p></blockquote><p>QFE. I never played EQ1 so I didn't know about this. Now that I hear about it... I think it is kind of a no brainer. So +1 as well. </p>

[Cusashorn]

I like the response above that MMORPGs reflect real life. I have no problem interacting with other people in real life, but I tend to work better when I'm doing something by myself. Players in MMOs generally have no problem interacting with other players, and I want to think that most prefer to know that there are others out there that they can play with, but most of them just prefer the option of being able to talk to others while they play the game by themselves. I have to agree that things have gone out of hand though. Part of it just comes with time and age. When you play a game for so long, it starts to influence your mindset about others. Once you've reached level 90, you find yourself playing mainly with the same other players who've you've seen playing the game for years now. You sort of know who they are just by their name alone. You might think back to an incident where they left a very bad impression on you, and it influences your decision to not play with them. You put up with all the changes that are made to this game and you become jaded. Eventually, the vocal people who want to see change only want to see what THEY want changed. I myself am no exception of this. I admit I've suggested changes in the past that would mainly only benefit me alone, and I still do, because I know that these changes would NOT affect anyone else unless they manually chose the option in the game's menus and features and allow themselves to be affected by it. People start to expect that they should be allowed to obtain EVERYTHING through the exact way that they want it. Part of this comes from the classes and how they have been developed over the years. Certain classes have become expected to be in every group (bards, enchanters, healers, plate tanks), leaving other classes not able to get groups as easily and be allowed to interact with other players because the group mentality always boils down to "Complete a zone in the easiest and most convenient way possible" because they know that this class provides what they need to accomplish that, and they know that if they don't have that class, things will be a little different, may take longer to complete, and may be more difficult. Players have become self sufficient and can happily play without being forced to rely on others, but at the same time those that want to interact with each other know that they have to know how to play their class, and know that their class may or may not be what other people want you to play as in order to benefit themselves.

[Drusi]

<p>An issue with giving an experience bonus to full groups is that yet even more groups will be sitting around all day waiting for that 6th person when they could have just gone and enjoyed their adventure with 5 people. Add in the fact that they feel that they "need" the 6th person to be a very particular class and you end up sitting around waiting more than adventuring.</p><p>Though I solo a great deal, I still find plenty of community in this game. I've attended guild and RP events, chat with people most of the days I'm online, and also group on occasion, though typically with people I know and/or are in guild. I don't PuG because my game time tends to correspond with my RL alone time, so I need time to myself or with others who will not drain more of my energy before I can get it recharged. PuGs tend to be very fast-paced and I typically find them to be very stressful.</p><p>I personally don't believe more community options are going to convince those of us who are not already grouping with you to group up even more with you. We'll either just ignore the community options if we're not in the mood to be social, or we'll end up in another game that is better suited to our needs. In fact, I decided to play EQ2 because it was being promoted at the time as *not* being like EQ1. </p><p>If you (general, not directed to any particular person) want to promote more community, why not get out there and make it happen. Run events. RP with others as you see them pass by in town. Join or create a guild that does more of the things you like to do. Make an effort to get involved and you may find that there's plenty of community out there.</p>

[Rijacki]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why is it that whenever an idea is put on the table to encourage us to interact with each other in game (not making interaction necessary, but simply putting something available in the game that would reward community interaction) that the majority of the players flame/shun/rant/pout and flat out get mean when someone takes the initiative to try and bring some form of community play into the game? </p></blockquote><p>You also have to consider it's not the idea of working with others at all that's being commented on, it's the specific idea you brought to the table. If an idea isn't glowingly received, you can't just assume any idea related to a single aspect of that idea is being rejected.</p><p>There are a lot of community building ideas that are brought up and others have great acclaim for.</p><p>Having a group bonus for 4, 5, and 6 member groups, as an example, is an idea that many do think has a lot of merit.</p><p>Having content which encourages groups performing different roles is embraced by some and decried by others who don't like scripts or being 'forced into a set role'.</p><p>Recalling your thread on group harvesting, it didn't get a lot of responses on the board, not because people were shunning it, just because not many were interested one way or another. Those who did respond had their own opinions on why it could or could not work. Disagreeing with you is not a flame or getting mean (and few actually did get mean, not the majority). Domino did address it with a negative response because, as JoarAddam said, it was tried with little success and the development time vs giving an option most will eschew does have to be weighed.</p>

[Meirril]

<p>Don't confuse popularity with quality. When you post an idea for something on the forums your trying to get the attention of a dev and excite their imagination. While having the support of others helps to call attention to your idea, a solid presentation and well though out idea of how it could be implimented works better. The idea you had for group harvesting was a good presentation.</p><p>Unfortunately I don't think you considered how the idea could be abused and you didn't weigh the negatives vs the positives. The developers certainly will before they spend their valuable time on it. Unfortunately group harvesting would mostly benifit the people that abuse the game for profit and not the legitimate crafters or adventurers. Before you make a proposal you really need to try and look at it from a devs point of view and see if you can modify the idea to work. If you don't, you'll get a lot of negative responses as people point out the flaws you should of forseen.</p><p>Confusing the rejection of your ideas with personal rejection is a rather unfortunate but common mistake. Further compounding this to a generality that the EQ2 community doesn't want new idea or improvement is also a mistake.</p><p>Lastly, if a dev does pick up your idea then it becomes their idea. They arn't going to do it your way. They will come up with their own way of implimenting things. That is just the way it is. Just be thankful if they will talk to you afterward.</p>

[LaurnaRose Fauldorn]

<p><cite>Littlelove@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I really wouldn't use this argument anymore</p><p><img src="http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6817/hardlyever.jpg" width="388" height="216" /></p></blockquote><p>First, to Littlelove, 723 posts in 6 years of play DOES NOT constitute a flood of posts ... just saying.  LOL  There are people on here who have played less time than I have who have 10s of thousands of posts. </p><p>Okay, now for serious comments:</p><p>I like the idea of the extra bonus to encourage grouping.  Factionz said, "I don't see how any of those ideas you suggested have anything to do with community. RP community maybe, but actual game community.. no relation whatsoever."  Adventuring community is not the only community in an MMORPG.  There is so much potential for a Noncombat Community to form in Eq2.  Yes, we already have one, but it needs some love. </p><p>I know I've compared the two in the past, but the PreNGE SWG was a prime idea of how to form a NonCombat community.  I wont go into detail again, but if you're interested in figuring out what I'm talking about, I'm sure you can do a simple search and figure out what PreNGE SWG was like.  The system encouraged adventurers to interact with the noncombat community be they doctors, entertainers, or crafters.  All the aspects of the game intertwined in a manner to where you could go on about your day w/o interaction, but the benefits of spending time together with other player types really outweighed solo play.</p><p>To Rubaide, I do not remember "degrading" valid complaints at any point in time.  All constructive critisism only further advances any ideas worth.  What I am concerned about is that players tend to focus on "how they want their game built" w/o giving any merit to ideas that go to support other play styles.  If it is not something they would use, it has no basis and is therefore a worthless idea ... and that simply is not so.  I'm not a hard core raid enthusiast, but I understand the need and desire to balance the classes and gear and loots and mobs ect.  It is not something I am actively involved in, so when posts are made concerning those aspects of the game, I may read them, but choose not to comment on them because they do not effect my gameplay and I really don't have enough information about that playstyle to give an educated and constructive opinion.</p><p>To Rijacki, my /rant focused on my ideas, because those are ones that I know the specifics of.  However, I have seen on the forums that it is not just ideas that I bring to the table.  Almost 90% of any idea that is brought to the general forums by any player that has a noncombat focus is ridiculed and flamed and shoved under the rug no matter how grand of an idea it is.  Of course, the majority of the players who visit the general forums are combat players (or combat/noncombat combo players).  I wasnt upset that my idea wasnt "glowingly recieved".  I thought that the discussion in the TS forums on the group harvesting went very well ... considering.  There were some people who insisted on being rude, but for the most part, posters gave good insight that I had not thought of and ideas that might help to "beef" up the idea, or explain how the idea would not be worth implementing or could be taken advantage of ect.  I wasnt saying that "disagreeing with me" was a flame.  But I have noticed a trend within the forum community that if someone has an "idea" that has nothing to do with your (not you specifically) type of playstyle, though a small percentage of the forum community, the "brats" tend to speak the loudest and it is just really irritating. </p><p>I guess basically my /rant was on the fact that the trolls tend to speak the loudest.  Great ideas tend to get over looked because once the trolls have taken notice of their post, it goes downhill from there.  Too bad there is no way to /ignore forum troll LOL.  Again, I come from PreNGE SWG, which greatly effects the way I veiw how a MMO community should function.  There should be ample content available for all play styles.  It just seems that all the efforts being made to the game right now are focused on adventure only.  Domino is, in my opinion, the best dev on the SOE team.  She is thoughtful, considerate, attentive, and she listens to her community. </p><p>SOE is concerned about bringing in new players.  They have a completely untapped fount of players in noncombat playstyles.  If they would take some of the noncombat ques and community building ideas and implement them into EQ2, they would be unstoppable on the market.  Look at Farmville and Frontierville and all the other silly games like that.  My husband swears there is come kind of hidden code of addiction in them.  If they could bring that kind of noncombat playstyle to EQ2, it would open the door for an entirly new gamer to recruit into the EQ2 world.</p>

[Kendricke]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I hardly ever post on the forums.  When I do, it is usually to bring an idea to the community that would encourage the players to spend time in the game with each other, helping each other, utilizing each others abilities and skills. </p><p>/rant</p><p>Why is it that whenever an idea is put on the table to encourage us to interact with each other in game (not making interaction necessary, but simply putting something available in the game that would reward community interaction) that the majority of the players flame/shun/rant/pout and flat out get mean when someone takes the initiative to try and bring some form of community play into the game? </p><p>I really do not understand this and would love an honest answer.  For goodness sakes this is an MMORPG .... massive MULTIPLAYER online ROLE-PLAYING game.  Have we as the players totally lost sight of what that means?  It is implicated in the genre alone that we will need to interact with other players.  Not simply run around and play the game as a solo individual where our main form of interaction with other players is to try and beat the pants off someone in a parsing contest or purchasing items from a impersonable broker. </p><p>Player cities have been suggested, allowing guilds with common goals to come together in one area and build a stronghold.  In effect combining a group of guilds into one guild.  Letting each guild keep their own guild name and hall, but having one point of access for all of the guilds and allowing sister guilds to benefit from their higher level sister guilds ammeneties.  Allow a guild to branch off into smaller guilds based on functionality (raiding/crafting/casual-play) where all guild members can serve a function and purpose within a guild system.  I really do not understand why ANYONE is opposed to this?  Wouldnt this actually bring more to the game?  Wouldn't this idea actually help large guild increase in functionality and members?  Please explain this negativity toward this idea to me!</p><p>Group harvesting?  Nothing but negative responses there.  Why would it be so terrible to put in a system that encouraged our adventure class to interact with our tradeskill class?  Would the ideas I proposed prevent our current harvesters from harvesting solo?  No.  Would it require adventerers to help with harvesting to get their materials needed for their gear?  No.  So, why would offering this system to the players, rewarding them for spending time together and helping one another out be such a bad thing?</p><p>Tenant system on houses ... allowing us to have alts or friends/family members to purchase a "room" in our homes adding to our weekly rent.  HOW does this effect anyone but the people who want the ability to share a house?  Why are people so up in arms and freaking out over this?  I really don't understand.</p><p>I remember when this game was all about community.  Something has happened over the last 6 years or so that has given SOE the idea that we do not want to play a multiplayer game.  I would be willing to bet that if SOE implemented "mercenaries for hire" that people would hire them out in a heart beat and just slash and bash everything w/o ever looking at another player again. </p><p>I think it is really sad that the community in this game has fallen to such a low point.  I think that it should be the other way around.  SOE should be trying to build community interaction within the game rather than bending to the massess of console cross-overs and generation "serve it to me on a silver plater" gamers who just seem to scream louder than the rest of us.  There is such a wonderful noncombat community in the game that totally gets overlooked.  The tradeskill/noncombat players have handsdown the best Dev on the team, and her hands are tied as to what she is able to give the community because SOE spends so much time focusing on the aforementioned gamer types that the noncombat types get swept under the rug. </p><p>/rantoff</p></blockquote><p>Why worry about what other players think on a forum? </p><p>One thing I've heard over and over again in my project meetings is "may the best ideas survive".  Any one on my team can suggest any idea.  At that point, it's the job of everyone else on the team to play devil's advocate to try to spot the weaknesses in the idea.  As we identify those, we find potential solutions.  If we can't find enough solutions for the idea to survive, we reject the idea. </p><p>The important thing is to realize that just because you have an idea you think is good doesn't mean that it is so.  Distance yourself emotionally from your own suggestions.  Take a professional distance from your own ideas.  If it's a truly good idea, it will survive the criticisms levied against it.  If not, then perhaps it can be altered, adjusted, or changed.  If not, then perhaps the idea wasn't that good after all. </p><p>Dont' attach yourself personally to your own ideas.  There are no sacred cows.  May the best ideas survive.</p>

[Zhern]

<p><p > </p> <p >In Rift if I see someone killing snails and I need snails, I can right click on the person killing snail and group with him if he is in public mode. If that person is in private then I know he doesn’t want company. That is a good tool for EQ or any MMO!</p> <p > </p> <p >Secondly EQ2 is spread way too thin. If you want EQ2 to be the GAME. All that is needed is for the good guys to have their town and the bad guys have their own town, the others need to go/changed…………..</p> <p > </p> <p >What has made Rift popular and is a good idea for all MMOs are event that bring a community together, in Rift, it’s Rift’s opening up for invasions.</p> <p > </p> <p >In EQ2 it could be X.</p> <p > </p> <p ><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes I like Rift and I think it is a good game and no I am not trying to make EQ2 into Rift. But small changes like this really could help EQ2’s future.</p></p>

[Zaldor]

<p><cite>Drusi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>An issue with giving an experience bonus to full groups is that yet even more groups will be sitting around all day waiting for that 6th person when they could have just gone and enjoyed their adventure with 5 people. Add in the fact that they feel that they "need" the 6th person to be a very particular class and you end up sitting around waiting more than adventuring.</p></blockquote><p>If a group is so set on getting that little bonus that they would rather sit around and wait instead of actually going out and doing stuff that is completely and totally their own fault.  We cannot hold back on enhancing the game because there MIGHT be some people who are too clueless to work within the system in a sensical manner.</p><p>EQ1 had this bonus, sure groups would wait around a few minutes to get that 6th, but they would never wait around so long that it could be considered "all day". </p><p>The rest of your statement is conjecture and is really not a valid argument against this idea.</p>

[Kendricke]

<p><cite>Zaldor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Drusi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>An issue with giving an experience bonus to full groups is that yet even more groups will be sitting around all day waiting for that 6th person when they could have just gone and enjoyed their adventure with 5 people. Add in the fact that they feel that they "need" the 6th person to be a very particular class and you end up sitting around waiting more than adventuring.</p></blockquote><p>If a group is so set on getting that little bonus that they would rather sit around and wait instead of actually going out and doing stuff that is completely and totally their own fault.  We cannot hold back on enhancing the game because there MIGHT be some people who are too clueless to work within the system in a sensical manner.</p><p>EQ1 had this bonus, sure groups would wait around a few minutes to get that 6th, but they would never wait around so long that it could be considered "all day". </p><p>The rest of your statement is conjecture and is really not a valid argument against this idea.</p></blockquote><p>In 2003, Everquest updated their "Full Group Experience Bonus" system to progress from +20% (duos) to +80% (group of 5+).  A sixth member to a group did not negatively impact the experience for the rest of the group in any way.  The sixth member of the group would gain exactly what each member of the group would receive as if there were still only five members in the group.</p><p>In this way, groups would not wait for a sixth member, nor would they avoid a sixth member.  The sixth member would simply make the group more efficient without hurting the incoming experience per member.</p>

[SirDinadan]

<p>I think I'm going to go a bit meta on this question, as you can't use forum responses to ANY question as a valid guide to how the game-playing community really thinks.  You could suggest "free chocolate chip cookies every day you play the game", and some are going to respond angrily that they can't eat chocolate, are on a diet, prefer some other flavor, want a dozen instead, or demand that the devs work on THEIR pet issue instead of sending out delicious fresh-baked cookies.  Many players never sign on to the forums, or visit only rarely to post a particular question without reading other threads.. we're a small subset of opinionated, intentionally-squeaky wheels.</p><p>I once played a Korean F2P game involving baby dragons with big eyes....  hey, don't look at me that way.  I'm not proud of it.</p><p>But the relevant part is that they had one in-game tab you could visit.. it had issues and development ideas.  Each account could vote for three things, and this would give the developers a true understanding of what people wanted fixed or created, and how strongly the community felt about them.  Some would get accepted, and transform to 'In Development' status, no longer needing votes. </p><p>I realize this idea is unlikely to qualify for inclusion in the game.. EQ2 is obviously in the winding-down phase.. but without something like it, the developers are always going to be guessing about what the users want next, they are always going to get some of it wrong, and the vocal minority are always going to feel a need to shout down things they don't love.   </p>

[Littlelove]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First, to Littlelove, 723 posts in 6 years of play DOES NOT constitute a flood of posts ... just saying.  LOL  There are people on here who have played less time than I have who have 10s of thousands of posts. </p></blockquote><p>never once did I say it was a "flood of posts"....just saying.  But 1 post every 3 days is hardly, "hardly ever."</p>

[Andok]

<p><cite>Grayven@The Bazaar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think I'm going to go a bit meta on this question, as you can't use forum responses to ANY question as a valid guide to how the game-playing community really thinks.  You could suggest "free chocolate chip cookies every day you play the game", and some are going to respond angrily that they can't eat chocolate, are on a diet, prefer some other flavor, want a dozen instead, or demand that the devs work on THEIR pet issue instead of sending out delicious fresh-baked cookies.  Many players never sign on to the forums, or visit only rarely to post a particular question without reading other threads.. we're a small subset of opinionated, intentionally-squeaky wheels.</p></blockquote><p>This is very true!  Most of the people I know in game never visit the forums, and the "majority" opinions you see here rarely represent their opinions.  </p>

[SmokeJumper]

<p><cite>Andok wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Grayven@The Bazaar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think I'm going to go a bit meta on this question, as you can't use forum responses to ANY question as a valid guide to how the game-playing community really thinks.  You could suggest "free chocolate chip cookies every day you play the game", and some are going to respond angrily that they can't eat chocolate, are on a diet, prefer some other flavor, want a dozen instead, or demand that the devs work on THEIR pet issue instead of sending out delicious fresh-baked cookies.  Many players never sign on to the forums, or visit only rarely to post a particular question without reading other threads.. we're a small subset of opinionated, intentionally-squeaky wheels.</p></blockquote><p>This is very true!  Most of the people I know in game never visit the forums, and the "majority" opinions you see here rarely represent their opinions.  </p></blockquote><p>And that's the tricky part for developers also. The loudest voices are always here on these forums, but there are many opinions. That's one of the reasons that I spend so much time playing the game. Talking to players within the game as I play is always interesting and educational, even moreso when they don't know it's me. Most of us on the dev team do this, whether anonymously or known within a guild.</p><p>We get *lots* of info about the game from the forums, but no, it's definitely not our only source of data.</p>

[SmokeJumper]

<p>To the OP: Have hope. This coming year is going to appeal to a lot of different types of players and some of the stuff we'll be doing will increase opportunities for socialization. (Not required socialization, obviously, but you'll end up around other players more often as things roll out this year. You have to choose whether to drink from the trough or not. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Runelaron]

<p><cite>SmokeJumper wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Andok wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Grayven@The Bazaar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think I'm going to go a bit meta on this question, as you can't use forum responses to ANY question as a valid guide to how the game-playing community really thinks.  You could suggest "free chocolate chip cookies every day you play the game", and some are going to respond angrily that they can't eat chocolate, are on a diet, prefer some other flavor, want a dozen instead, or demand that the devs work on THEIR pet issue instead of sending out delicious fresh-baked cookies.  Many players never sign on to the forums, or visit only rarely to post a particular question without reading other threads.. we're a small subset of opinionated, intentionally-squeaky wheels.</p></blockquote><p>This is very true!  Most of the people I know in game never visit the forums, and the "majority" opinions you see here rarely represent their opinions.  </p></blockquote><p>And that's the tricky part for developers also. The loudest voices are always here on these forums, but there are many opinions. That's one of the reasons that I spend so much time playing the game. Talking to players within the game as I play is always interesting and educational, even moreso when they don't know it's me. Most of us on the dev team do this, whether anonymously or known within a guild.</p><p>We get *lots* of info about the game from the forums, but no, it's definitely not our only source of data.</p></blockquote><p>You know, there used to be a In Game Poll system that would pop up a long time ago in the early days of EQ2. Back when Scott was at the wheel, I thought that was a great idea and it got Everyones opinions about major points. Its realy what started the whole combat system change in the beginning.</p><p>IDEA... You could bring it back as part of the welcome screen or in some other fashion.</p>

[Terrius]

<p><cite>Runelaron wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SmokeJumper wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Andok wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Grayven@The Bazaar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think I'm going to go a bit meta on this question, as you can't use forum responses to ANY question as a valid guide to how the game-playing community really thinks.  You could suggest "free chocolate chip cookies every day you play the game", and some are going to respond angrily that they can't eat chocolate, are on a diet, prefer some other flavor, want a dozen instead, or demand that the devs work on THEIR pet issue instead of sending out delicious fresh-baked cookies.  Many players never sign on to the forums, or visit only rarely to post a particular question without reading other threads.. we're a small subset of opinionated, intentionally-squeaky wheels.</p></blockquote><p>This is very true!  Most of the people I know in game never visit the forums, and the "majority" opinions you see here rarely represent their opinions.  </p></blockquote><p>And that's the tricky part for developers also. The loudest voices are always here on these forums, but there are many opinions. That's one of the reasons that I spend so much time playing the game. Talking to players within the game as I play is always interesting and educational, even moreso when they don't know it's me. Most of us on the dev team do this, whether anonymously or known within a guild.</p><p>We get *lots* of info about the game from the forums, but no, it's definitely not our only source of data.</p></blockquote><p>You know, there used to be a In Game Poll system that would pop up a long time ago in the early days of EQ2. Back when Scott was at the wheel, I thought that was a great idea and it got Everyones opinions about major points. Its realy what started the whole combat system change in the beginning.</p><p>IDEA... You could bring it back as part of the welcome screen or in some other fashion.</p></blockquote><p>^ This.Implementing/reimplementing the ingame poll/survey would be a good way to get peoples opinions on the current direction of the game. Even if the poll/survey was only done after each GU I'm sure it'd give valuable info.</p>

[Sanction]

<p><cite>SmokeJumper wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And that's the tricky part for developers also. The loudest voices are always here on these forums, but there are many opinions. That's one of the reasons that I spend so much time playing the game. Talking to players within the game as I play is always interesting and educational, even moreso when they don't know it's me. Most of us on the dev team do this, whether anonymously or known within a guild.</p><p>We get *lots* of info about the game from the forums, but no, it's definitely not our only source of data.</p></blockquote><p>Mmmm I've never seen you talk to my guild before /sad panda.  Must because I'm on the unplayable Everfrost server, why would a dev want to visit there <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p><cite>Grayven@The Bazaar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>But the relevant part is that they had one in-game tab you could visit.. it had issues and development ideas.  Each account could vote for three things, and this would give the developers a true understanding of what people wanted fixed or created, and how strongly the community felt about them.  Some would get accepted, and transform to 'In Development' status, no longer needing votes.  </p></blockquote><p><cite>Runelaron wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You know, there used to be a In Game Poll system that would pop up a long time ago in the early days of EQ2. Back when Scott was at the wheel, I thought that was a great idea and it got Everyones opinions about major points. Its realy what started the whole combat system change in the beginning.</p><p>IDEA... You could bring it back as part of the welcome screen or in some other fashion.</p></blockquote><p>Both these QFE +2, I say do it!</p>

[Nix]

<p>Game poll is a great idea to reach as many players as you can! As a new player coming from EQ I can tell you I am still trying to adapt to EQ2 style of grouping. In EQ when you see someone grinding AA/levels somewhere you often ask if they need a buddy and often they will answer: yes, it's good to have someone to chat with. In EQ2 what I experienced so far is groups (you have to start them to see them in low/mid levels) where everyone is super quiet unless they ask if they can need on something. I blame it on the fast rushing of content where whole rooms are pulled and killed in less then a min or two (the totally OP mentoring bad system is responsible in part). In EQ mobs have more hp and there is no button mashing (bad bad) like in EQ2, we have sometime to stop to get endurance/mana back, thus giving us a slower pace and more chance at interraction with others. I know there is voice chat, I use it but not many do unless you're in a guild group.</p><p>That said, I get my community in my guild and it always saddens me to see how dead it feels to group with non-guildies. I feel like I'm running with mercenaries, you get the idea. I agree with most of what was said, reflexion of real life, new gen raised in consolo solo gaming, add exp bonus to group ([Removed for Content] EQ2 doesn't have that yet?). But while it MAY help a bit, I am not sure it will do much, because the game is still too rushed, easy and 3 rows of button mashing. I seriously doubt the devs will drastically change the game eh.</p><p>I like this game, don't get me wrong, I am just sad to see it was super dumbed down and overnerfed in difficulty to please what is probably a minority. I hear my guild and friends complain how the game was made easier in all aspects, I bet others guilds think the same, why was it changed then if so many players were against that? I don't think my guild is more special then any other out there in their way of thinking lol, so their opinion MAY reflect what a majority of players are thinking.</p><p>As for myself, I still hang on, mostly because I love the crafting in here. Level 90 carpenter already but only 54 dirge. But I find myself looking back at EQ more and more often and missing the challenge and the community and even the gring group because the time passed with groupmates was cool even if the grind was monotonous at moment.</p>

[EQ2Magroo]

<p>I think what most people want is for some progress to be made on all the current bugs, itemization issues, unbalanced classed etc., before any more new fun things are added.</p><p>The problem with anything new that gets added is that it ties up so much developer time & QA time and regardless it will be be buggy, require more hotfixes, server reboots & downtime etc. I appreciate the devs may not be the same ones that code bug fixes, but there is a fixed budget for the game so every dollar spent on a "new feature dev" could instead be spent on "bug fixing devs". With SOEs infrastructure, this doesn't even need to be a permanent thing, resources can be moved around departments as and when needed.</p><p>Perhaps now it's time to take stock of the game, really get to work on the bugs. Fire the itemization script and get a real person to start itemizing gear, fix some of the big complaints that are still around and get things stable again.</p><p>Then maybe look to add new stuff if there's still time.</p>

[SirDinadan]

<p><cite>Adeyia@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think what most people want is.. </p></blockquote><p>This is great!  You've talked to 51%+ of the people currently playing the game, and gotten their feedback?  That's even better than waiting for the devs to add an in-game poll; we have our answer, courtesy of your dedication. </p>

[d1anaw]

<p><cite>Banditman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In Planetside, at least when I played, the XP was the XP.  You got the exact same XP whether you were in a group or solo.  If a kill was worth 253 XP, well, by gosh, everyone in the group got 253 XP for the kill regardless of what level anyone was, regardless of whether you even fired a round at the target and regardless of how many people were in the group.  As long as you were on the same continent (zone), you got XP.</p></blockquote><p>This makes logical sense. Any kind of game should be open to any type of play. If someone is going to pay for something, he/she should be able to get the type of experience that suits them, not something that suits someone else.</p>

[LaurnaRose Fauldorn]

<p>Though I've not personally talked to any player or dev concerning this specifically, I would feel confidant in stating that MOST of the players and development team want, more than anything, stable and increasing customers to support the financial end of support for the game.  See, if you do not have clients paying for the product, you have no way to maintain and advance the product. </p><p>So, why don't we help SOE brainstorm ways to make money? </p><p>On of my suggestions is to put together a small team, maybe even just one person, to brainstorm and pole existing players as well as open gamer forums, maybe even facebook/twitter, "Would you or someone you know be more likely to pay for a MMO if there was a healthy noncombat system that consisted of complex crafting, player made citiesm community opportunities, and/or alternative noncombat roles (entertainer, politician, agriculturalist, animal breeder)?"  There is a HUGE player base out there just looking for the game that fits them and not finding it.  SOE has stated many many times that they really want to try and bring in more female gamers ... well, as I've said before, look at farmville, frontierville, yoville, SIMS!  The majority of their player base are women.  Find a way to incorperate these noncombat roles into EQ2 with a function to make them feel needed and useful, bring back the necessity of crafting ... I would be willing to bet that they would increase their subscriptions by at least 1/4 what they have currently.</p><p>Another suggestion I have is taken from the fiaso of the Velous Winter Rewards.  No offense SOE, but you are seriously lacking in the PR department.  The event clearly stated that clients must have an "active, paid subscription" ... Okay but when I pay month to month, my account reads PENDING but states that it is TEMPORARILY ACTIVE ... so isn't that still active?  Since they were not clear on the "rules" they wound up having a flood of CSR tickets and having to go back and check account status and circumstances on several accounts.  But I get the idea behind it.  They were wanting to reward the recurring subscribers!  That is a TERRIFIC idea to help SOE get a hold on some stability and to be able to project their finances month to month!!!  So lets implement a reward system specifically for recurring subscriptions.  For every 4 months a customer holds an active, recurring subscription, they recieve a reward.  Rewards would increase in value/allure with each additional 4 months of uninterrupted service.  Think along the lines of dumbed down verteran rewards, only these would reset if service is ever inturrupted (cancelled, resulting in a PENDING or CLOSED status).  Im thinking health/power potions, limited charge mounts/illusions, nothing that would be game breaking, just fun and a little way to say "thanks for letting us depend on your subscription".  Maybe give a really good something like a house item or perminant armor set at the 12mo marke.</p><p>4mo = X</p><p>8mo = X + Y</p><p>12mo = X + Y + Z</p><p>Rewards would only be rewarded as long as the account status was active AND recurring at the beginning of the month in question.</p>

[SmokeJumper]

<p><cite>Runelaron wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You know, there used to be a In Game Poll system that would pop up a long time ago in the early days of EQ2. Back when Scott was at the wheel, I thought that was a great idea and it got Everyones opinions about major points. Its realy what started the whole combat system change in the beginning.</p><p>IDEA... You could bring it back as part of the welcome screen or in some other fashion.</p></blockquote><p>Funny that you mention that. We were just jawing over that very idea today at lunch. Probably going to happen. No idea what ETA though.</p>

[Nuhus]

<p>I used to do pugs quite often. But then the game got heavy on scripts and also the voice chat came in. I don't mind doing it sometimes, but usually. I want to play and not work. I already do that all week.</p>

[Araxes]

<p><cite>Anobabylon@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Something has happened over the last 6 years or so that has given SOE the idea that we do not want to play a multiplayer game.</p></blockquote><p>I know you would like to place blame on SOE, but this is not a change that is exclusive to SOE.  Sandbox MMO's are a relic of the past.  They may yet make a comeback, and in fact I would say that current opinion is gradually starting to ever so slowly sway back to that idea, but in the present -- as in 2011 -- market, the AAA MMO experience is one which follows a linear path with optional divergent content, and more specifically, a linear path which caters to the solo player.</p><p>The "solo" player is a person with limited time to commit to a game, i.e. a working adult, a parent, a student, or so forth.  Contrary to popular belief, most gamers are not basement-dwelling individuals living on disability income (although, yes, we have all met a few such persons, no doubt, in our years of gaming.) Most gamers are working people, with children perhaps, families, obligations. </p><p>As technology has advanced, the value we place on our time has also increased.  Gone are the days of yore when people could afford their full attention to sitting in front of their screen for hours.  Does it still happen?  Yes.  Do the majority of players have the luxury?  No.  This is why you have games "on rails" and a general over-simplification of such things as quest dialog, and mini-maps that may as well teleport you to the exact goal.</p><p>There are numerous things competing for the attention of the modern gamer.  AAA game companies have not only exponentially increased the amount of their monetary investments over the past 8 years, and particularly MMO companies, but they have also been forced to reconcile real world demands with that of a virtual existence, as they pertain to the modern gamer.</p><p>In summary, I find these things as disheartening as you do -- and my guess is that most developers over the age of 30 also find this paradigm shift to be unsettling, at best, and downright sickening, at most -- but this IS the world we now inhabit, and businesses, companies, of all types, including game studios, have to follow the signs of the time.  Or they sink.</p><p>Ara</p>

[Kigneer]

<p><cite>Tuttotus@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What has made Rift popular and is a good idea for all MMOs are event that bring a community together, in Rift, it’s Rift’s opening up for invasions.</p><p><p>In EQ2 it could be X.</p><p><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes I like Rift and I think it is a good game and no I am not trying to make EQ2 into Rift. But small changes like this really could help EQ2’s future.</p></p></blockquote><p>I like playing that game because of the ease of getting into public groups. It's like the LFG system in WoW, but really adhoc.</p><p>Worst thing in MMOs is spending 30+ minutes spamming a channel to get some group (and in EQ2, certain class groups). Can't stand begging for some group and wasting that much time trying to form one. Want to jump in and have some fun -- and on my schedule.</p>

[Jeepned2]

<p><cite>SmokeJumper wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>To the OP: Have hope. This coming year is going to appeal to a lot of different types of players and some of the stuff we'll be doing will increase opportunities for socialization. (Not required socialization, obviously, but you'll end up around other players more often as things roll out this year. You have to choose whether to drink from the trough or not. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Well I choose to not drink from the trough and canceling subscription was the easiest way to show that. I was in a raiding guild and when I wasn't raiding I prefered to solo quest. Did it bother me that the mobs where made more difficult? Of course not, I had high end raid gear. So no big deal. The injection of Publc Quests and the slowly but surely "forcing" people to group just put an end to me willing to continue my subscription. There isn't a better game out there yet, but with EQ2's downhill slide, the huge changes away from what made the game good, and the constant craptastic expansions made the decision that it was time to move on.</p><p><span style="color: #00ffff;">"(Not required socialization, obviously, but you'll end up around other players more often as things roll out this year. You have to choose whether to drink from the trough or not."</span> Sounds very close to required socialization to me.</p><p>SJ, we have no clue where you are taking the game in the future. You talk in such abstract language that we have no clue what's coming next. You keep talking "in the coming year", hell we just want to know what you are going to be messing with in the next month or two. Thirteen years of Everquest and Everquest 2 was a blast, but I just don't like the way your taking the game. You might want to be a little more forthcoming to the remainer players.</p>

[Seiffil]

<p><cite>Xiotia@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>feldon30 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think EQ2 should mandate full 6-person group play to have a good time.</p></blockquote><p>No, but perhaps, just maybe, they should create incentives for doing so.  Like xp bonuses for additional players in a group like EQ1 had.</p><p>Adding a 4th, 5th, or 6th player should increase our rewards, not decrease.</p></blockquote><p>QFE. I never played EQ1 so I didn't know about this. Now that I hear about it... I think it is kind of a no brainer. So +1 as well. </p></blockquote><p>There was an exp bonus, but you still wouldn't get the same full amount of experience that you would have gotten had you killed the mob while solo.  The bonus was primarily to offset the experience loss by sharing experience for each kill with the group. </p><p>The real benefit to grouping was from the increased dps potential and ability of the group to handle more mobs at a time, and at a quicker pace then most people could handle solo or in a group of 2 or 3.</p><p>And not only that everyone seems to be missing the real reason EQ1 promoted grouping.  EQ1 was not a solo friendly game by any means.  In general if you wanted to do anything, you had to group up.</p>

[CoLD MeTaL]

<p><cite>Nuhus wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I used to do pugs quite often. But then the game got heavy on scripts and also the voice chat came in. I don't mind doing it sometimes, but usually. I want to play and not work. I already do that all week.</p></blockquote><p>+1</p>

[MurFalad]

<p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The injection of Publc Quests and the slowly but surely "forcing" people to group just put an end to me willing to continue my subscription.</p></blockquote><p>I see no part of this game that requires grouping up if you just want to solo quest.  As a former raider you would have had to do something outside of raiding to get AA's, now while doing that at most they've added that you get to earn adornments.</p><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There isn't a better game out there yet, but with EQ2's downhill slide, the huge changes away from what made the game good, and the constant craptastic expansions made the decision that it was time to move on.</p></blockquote><p>How to make it better?  What makes it bad? </p><p>You complain about the devs needing to be "<span >a little more forthcoming to the remainer players" but then post a vague post yourself, but do not miss an opportunity to moan about things.</span></p><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p> <blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ffff;">"(Not required socialization, obviously, but you'll end up around other players more often as things roll out this year. You have to choose whether to drink from the trough or not."</span> Sounds very close to required socialization to me.</p></blockquote><p>I read this as being like the PQ's.  You can turn up and do your own thing ignoring all other players and not communicating at all.  Or you can group up and organise + socialise.</p><p>Personally though I think EQ2 is an MMO, and recently has been hitting the mark on the balance of solo vs group.</p><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ffff;">"(Not required socialization, obviously, but you'll end up around other players more often as things roll out this year. You have to choose whether to drink from the trough or not."</span> Sounds very close to required socialization to me.</p></blockquote>