It's kinda quiet in here... [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Allowin

12-23-2005, 08:23 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR>Or it says that when the forum appearance was changed all the stickies were lost and Raijinn needs to be contacted with links to resticky your lost threads.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>why bother?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>sticky, non sticky, clean or dirty. having a sticky post about the never ending problems with guardians will not change anything.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>they know we suck and have no dps/utility. we know we suck and have no dps/utility. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>what do you think a sticky thread will do to change this?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and before all you fanbois start posting about "ohh guards are the best raid tanks blah blah"</DIV> <DIV>how about paying attention to the other 98% of us who dont raid tank, the other guards who like to quest and solo and do small groups? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>or the guards who dont have as good gear as the raid MT. which forces us to equip our duel wield pom poms and stand on the sidelines and cheer for our guild to "knock em back, push em back, knock em wayyy back"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV>

JeffBship

12-23-2005, 08:35 PM

Everyone gave up.

Wasuna

12-23-2005, 10:44 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR>Don't encourage them Gage. It's nice and quiet here for a change! ^.^~ However, my personal theory is that the vocal minority finally gave up and accepted the fact that the silent majority of guardians are actually enjoying the game.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Your not a Guardian, your a level 35 paladin. So why don't you get the heck out of the Guardian forum. Making statement about silent majority and crap like that means nothing coming from the likes of you.

Kain Hammersmith

12-23-2005, 10:57 PM

<P>The reason the post count in this forum has gone down is because of:</P> <P>1. The most vocal Guards have left the game.</P> <P>2. Other Guards have re-rolled a new toon or dusted off an old one (Me included).</P> <P>3. This forum is bombarded by non Guards that want to keep us down, its ok, the nerf bat will swing back one day.</P> <P>I have done everything I know of to let SOE in on our issues (PMs to devs, /feedbacks, threads, posts, play test, even /bug), but nothing has changed and I am tired of trying. Let everyone tank, I dont care. But if everyone can tank I want do do something when I am not the MT. Now I do NOT raid and I am a guild leader, I can get groups. But I feel bad when I group with my fellow guildies and cant do my job as MT, cause that swashy is almost as good of a tank, or when someone else is tanking I feel like I am just a wasted space that one of our wiz/warlocks could be in. Oh well, my Bruiser is getting there (DPS is FUN!!!!).</P> <P>Thanks</P>

Gaige

12-23-2005, 11:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Allowin wrote:<BR> <DIV>and before all you fanbois start posting about "ohh guards are the best raid tanks blah blah"</DIV> <DIV>how about paying attention to the other 98% of us who dont raid tank, the other guards who like to quest and solo and do small groups? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems to me your biggest problem with this is internal.<BR>

Salgo

12-23-2005, 11:33 PM

<P>I stand corrected.</P> <P>:smileyvery-happy: Hey, Gaige corrected one of my posts...now I feel like I truly fit in. C'mon everybody all together now....For he's a jolly good fellow...for he's....</P> <DIV>Everyone?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's so quiet in here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gaige

12-23-2005, 11:35 PM

I was just letting you know the sticky thread deal happened in every forum... yes even the bruiser and monk forums.

Salgo

12-23-2005, 11:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Allowin wrote:<BR> <DIV>and before all you fanbois start posting about "ohh guards are the best raid tanks blah blah"</DIV> <DIV>how about paying attention to the other 98% of us who dont raid tank, the other guards who like to quest and solo and do small groups? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>Gaige wrote:</DIV> <DIV>Seems to me your biggest problem with this is internal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>By internal you must mean within the fighter class such as <ahem> brawlers.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Salgore on <SPAN class=date_text>12-23-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>10:48 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Salgore on <span class=date_text>12-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:48 AM</span>

Gaige

12-23-2005, 11:48 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Salgore wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seems to me your biggest problem with this is internal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By internal you must mean within the fighter class such as brawlers. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually no. I mean other guardians who want to sacrifice DPS and utility for tanking. Other guardians who are and do raid MT and that is all they care about. Guardians who want no part of soloing, grouping or questing, they simply want to be the best raid MT out there.</P> <P>That's what I meant by internal.</P> <P>If anything brawlers advocating fighter class balance were trying to get guardians better rounded, but a lot of vocal guardians wanted nothing of it.<BR></P>

Shizzirri

12-24-2005, 12:08 AM

<DIV>Guardians work fine...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With a coercer or dirge in the group.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Much better being a guard there a lot more mana efficient broke my monk out the other day and was amazed at how much power you could burn on one fight.</DIV>

Salgo

12-24-2005, 12:10 AM

<P>You are right and you are wrong Gaige. Perhaps before the update this was true. Now, I'm not so sure. The sub-classes are slowly starting to meld together (i.e. closer in tanking...closer in DPS, utility, etc..) yet Guardians are left with the short end of the stick in this respect. </P> <P>The differences in opinion within the Guardian class really lies with the answer to this question: "Do you think SOE is going to once again make Guardians superior in their primary role not just in raids but in groups as well?"</P> <P>If you think the answer is "yes" then you continue fighting the good fight.</P> <P>If you think the answer is "no" and you have succombed to the fact the we will all tank equally then you ask for more DPS and more Utility.</P> <P>Maybe I'm wrong, but thats the way I see it.</P> <P> </P>

mastersard

12-24-2005, 01:00 AM

<DIV>I am watching the dissolusion of the "Archtype" system closely. My gut tells me that this is the first step in the guardian's journey out of 'nerfed' status. If there is no more "I'm a <EM>fighter</EM> so i'm a <EM>tank</EM>", then we can move into the realm of plate wearers tanking, leather wearers DPSing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Flame away, Gaige.</DIV>

Gaige

12-24-2005, 01:27 AM

<P>I don't need to because I fail to see how being your class from the beginning changes the roles. The roles are there now, the mechanics are there, the buffs/skills are there.</P> <P>/shrug</P> <P>I suppose they could change it, and if they do so, fine. Until then though I'll want to be balanced as a tank, if they change it then I'll ask to be balanced as melee dps.</P> <P>Doesn't really matter.</P>

DanielAtchison

12-24-2005, 03:26 AM

Gaige, why dont you tell us how you think every fighter class is balanced now? i dont think we are balanaced at all. <div></div>

craized warrior

12-24-2005, 04:57 PM

<P>it doesnt really matter? then why the hell did you [Removed for Content] and moan for months on end to have things changed? jeez, weve been royally screwed over for an issue that "doesnt really matter" to the guy who pushed for change. Gaige, do us all a favour and stop trolling guardian forums </P> <P> </P> <P>/edit typos</P> <p>Message Edited by craized warrior on <span class=date_text>12-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:57 AM</span>

mastersard

12-24-2005, 09:20 PM

<P>Doesn't really matter. Doesn't mater that you had a semblance of a working class before LU13, and so did we, but 4,000 posts (at that time) mainly about bringing tanks "in line" that really, coupled with you ingratiating yourself at fan-fairs, playing the sycophant with the moderators and devs, you got what <EM>you</EM>, and a few, very few, others wanted. </P> <DIV>But it doesn't matter.</DIV>

laddich

12-24-2005, 10:33 PM

<DIV>I have brought my Guardian up to 54, until i finally ran out of sympathy for the class and time to play. I saw same levels monks/bruisers etc kill mobs in 30 sec flat while each and every fight I was struggling to finish in less than three minutes. And with the mana burn in a fight I usually came out having to power-nap at least 1-2 mins before engaging the next. I loved to solo with my Guardian (650+ quests done) but after nov 1 I have only used him for T6 harvesting.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here's to my new and improved Coercer (now lvl 50) which can easily solo, invis and power regen, and my lvl 40 inquisitor. Who needs guardians? When faced with a choice in a group I would take a SK, zerker or monk over a guardian any day. Just due to dps issues. They made the Guard the ;aughing stock and are they missed?? I didnt see any "I miss guardians" posts in any of the class specific forums. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Face it guys, guardians have the best agro control but suck at basically everything else. Be smart and enjoy the money you spend on the game. Reroll.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh, and when you think we're the only class thats nerfed... watch the Paladin forum <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> they had some weapons taken from them in the last update. No BBC for pallies haha</DIV><p>Message Edited by laddich on <span class=date_text>12-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:35 PM</span>

mastersard

12-24-2005, 10:42 PM

<DIV>What? I didn't see anything about that....and Amends was nerfed. Not that it didn't need to be tweaked...but hell, SOE fixes everything with a hammer.</DIV><p>Message Edited by mastersardis on <span class=date_text>12-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:44 AM</span>

Gaige

12-25-2005, 02:48 AM

<P>I meant if they decide to change the "leather wearers" role to DPS instead of tanking, it doesn't really matter. I'll play my monk whatever the role becomes, because I like the class.</P> <P>As of now, we are a tank class, and I'll continue to talk/post about us being balanced as a tank class. I'll also continue to post about things that affect fighter balance overall, since the end result of those types of changes affects my class and its playability.</P> <P>If the dissolution of the archetypes means a realignment of roles and SOE says brawlers are melee DPS, then you can bet I will post my opinion and what needs to be changed to balance us as a melee DPS class. </P> <P>Of course I think that's just wishful thinking from some players, as I don't think the archetype roles are desolving just because players go straight to their subclass, /shrug.</P> <P>We'll all just have to wait and see.</P>

Ladicav

12-26-2005, 06:27 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> laddich wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Face it guys, guardians have the best agro control but suck at basically everything else. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Message Edited by laddich on <SPAN class=date_text>12-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:35 PM</SPAN><BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>No, they don't have the best agro control.</DIV>

aislynn00

12-27-2005, 02:12 PM

<P>Our hate generation is still crap. Fighting in offensive stance most of the time with all taunts at Adept III or Master I, I am able to hold aggro reasonably, but it should neither take offensive stance nor such high quality combat arts to do my job. </P> <P>By the by, the primary reason I am able to hold aggro these days is the avoidance debuff inherent to our offensive stance, which affords more Hold the Line procs. The moment I switch back to defensive stance, I am back where I have been since LU13: utterly incapable of holding aggro against someone who spends power at the same rate I am.</P> <P>Apart from that, we still need more powerful (non-buff) utility. Plant works well enough under the right circumstances, but considering it breaks 50% of the time when someone AE's--and AE'ing is really the most effective way of dealing with multiple mobs--it really isn't what it should be. I would love to see the root and debuffs changed to separate components, with the former set as breakable due to damage taken while the latter would stick for the full duration no matter what.</P> <P>And what about our line of power drains? These days, they really have no point. I don't make a dent in the power bar of any heroic mob, let alone an epic equivalent, and I certainly don't intend to leave a solo con alive long enough for its power to matter. Personally, I would like to see power drains once more become a powerful tool versus at least heroic named mobs. It certainly would give guardians back some of that utility we are craving.</P> <P> </P>

Ladicav

12-27-2005, 04:26 PM

<P>Aislyn you are right. In effect you are playing a Guardian more like a Berserker. They get their best agro generation in offensive mode, and fair enough too, Berserkers are the "offense" based tank. It would be reasonable to assume that a Guardian being the more "defensive" based tank would gain more benefit from taunts in defensive mode, to differ them from berserkers, or even just all the offensive based tanks in general. However it is just not the case. In defensive mode with a shield, high agility and if theres a char in the group slowing the mob(s) then HTL counts for almost nothing, and Guardians agro generation drops <EM>dramatically</EM> and you are relying on just your static taunts alone, which is a losing battle, which you were experiencing it seems. </P> <P>In offensive mode self buffed only, no group buffs, my avoidance only drops about 8% from around 50% to about 42% against a mob of even con. So in effect an even con mob still misses me a bit more than 2 in every 5 attacks. A lesser con mob misses me a lot more than this. So in the 3 in every 5 attacks an even con actually connects HTL line still only procs 50% of the time, so actual hate generated by HTL is roughly a bit less than 1 in every 3 attacks, or 30% of the time, which really is still not great. I have to drop the shield as well to get the remaining effect and duel wield or two hander to drop avoidance into the mid 30%'s before HTL starts to work along with the static taunts to help maintain agro.</P> <P>It is flawed at the basic level. I have to give up a lot of defense, well not just me, all Guardians do, to maintain agro, <EM>which defeats the purpose of having all the defense in the first place</EM>. I also <EM>do notice</EM> that the healers are having to heal me a lot more often because of this dropped avoidance because I do get hit that much more often.</P> <P>I think Guardians gave up enough in LU13 without having to deal with this also. I liked the idea of having some avoidance, it was good for the success of the group as a whole and made the healers job a bit easier, but SOE doesn't seem to agree.</P><p>Message Edited by Ladicav on <span class=date_text>12-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:30 AM</span>

Johnd

12-27-2005, 05:08 PM

<DIV>Wouldn't a guardians life be a lot easier if our defensive stance had a automatic group taunt. It will trigger every X seconds. No matter what. Only in attack mode ofcourse.. you don't want to tab-agro an entire zone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That way we have a auto taunt and we only need our static ones for the shifting monsters. The monsters who don't understand you want to be hit. That way we will loose our power burning on taunts, mobs will stick to us like glue and any other profession can go full out on dps, cause we own agro. I only see this benefit all classes and not only the guardians.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It would make our role defining, we would have our special own thing. Maybe give the guardians a buff that gives us a % more of migitation ( perhaps steal a % from the group migitation ? ), that way it grows with us and we will have more migitation then any other class. For that I ( and I hope many more ) wouldn't mind sacreficing dps ( as far as wel can loose more dps ).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We would be walking metal with a swarm of monsters around us. Thats the way I always pictured our role..</DIV>

SniperKitty

12-27-2005, 07:36 PM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr><font color="#ffff00">aislynn00 wrote:</font><font color="#ffff00"></font><p><font color="#ffff00">Our hate generation is still crap. Fighting in offensive stance most of the time with all taunts at Adept III or Master I, I am able to hold aggro reasonably, but it should neither take offensive stance nor such high quality combat arts to do my job.</font></p><hr>If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. Not one of my three tanks ever uses defensive stance. If you're grouping with scouts and mages with adept3's and up, you're going to need your taunts upgraded just as much. Even then, the scouts and mages also need to learn to control their aggro too. Controlling aggro is not just the tanks job, but the job of everyone in the group.That's where all the whining crybaby guardians are wrong. They think they should have 100% perfect aggro control all the time no matter the situation. Which makes for boring and easy combat. I'm sick of boring. I'm sick of easy. I want a challenge. My lvl 53 warden got access to Silent City last night. I was tanking lvl 54^^^ with roots, snare, and heals from just the templar with no danger of dying. She's only in T5 rare armor with a couple T5 fabled drops (talisman and ring). The warlock and ranger burned down the mob. The game is getting too easy again.White and yellow con heroic mobs should be the target for the average xp group. And they should provide a reasonable amount of challenge for an average equipped group. A lvl 54^^^ shouldn't be able to be tanked by a lvl 53 priest in T5 rare leather armor with a templar healing.If you're losing aggro every single fight. Your group is doing something wrong. It's that simple.</blockquote></span><div></div>

mastersard

12-27-2005, 08:21 PM

<P>If the game is too easy, i have 2 options for you.</P> <P>1) Play another game.</P> <P>2) Look for ways to make it more challenging.</P> <DIV>Posting here how well you do and flaming anyone who disagree's with you is childish and a deterrant to any worthwhile discussion. As Guardians post LU13, we need all the intellegent posts we gan get on this board. We cant really play the class we chose as it was sold to us by SOE. If your warden is working so well, then go play it. We dont have the <EM>option</EM> sit and be quiet, and to trust SOE will fix us.</DIV>

Johnd

12-27-2005, 08:22 PM

<DIV>I might be understanding you wrong, please tell me if I do, but ...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What you are saying is that no profession can shoot at will, cause then you get agro. The tank can't agro up against that so all should step back in the damage they do.</DIV> <DIV>Basicly you give a character awesome power, wich he / she can't use. That sounds wrong to me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tanking doesn't have to be boring even if you keep agro well. Lets just say you have a spell running that keeps your target glued to you like a bee on honey, but the rest of the monsters group won't be agro'ed like that. It means your team have to attack with sense, but they can go all out.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its not about being to easy, a leather tank staying alive.. thats wrong in my opinion. But any profession other then a warrior tanking is wrong imo. And in the warrior class the tanks should work in various ways.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bezerker : Good tank, but only short duration. Much damage, means less defense. So the hits will be harder from your enemie.</DIV> <DIV>Brawler : Based on evasion. So you won't be hit much, but if you get hit.. you have pain. Come on, you are wearing leather. Thats not ment to be hit on</DIV> <DIV>Guardian : You wear armor.. and lots of it. You spend your life shouting at others to [Removed for Content] them off. You didn't have time to train your weapon skills. Less damage, more plate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are a few more professions, but I don't know anything about those..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Most people on this forum don't want to be uber. If you become a guardian you become it because you like to eat dust, dirt, mud and love the taste of blood.. your own.. </DIV>

Allowin

12-27-2005, 08:36 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P> I was tanking lvl 54^^^ </P> <P> The game is getting too easy again.<BR><BR> A lvl 54^^^ shouldn't be able to be tanked by a lvl 53 priest in T5 rare leather armor</P></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>why dont you go post in YOUR forums about YOUR class.</P> <P> </P> <P>im so sick and tired of $&^#% coming in here and telling me how to play my class. telling me what im doing wrong and telling me its my fault. blah blah blah.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>shut your pie hole and go post in your own forums. if your tanking yellow ^^^ mobs why dont you /petition it and tell sony that your class is way overpowered? i bet you wont do that will you? you are overpowered as furys are also. but i dont see you getting up in arms about that. i dont see you raising %&## in your forums saying you need to be nerfed.</P> <P> </P> <P>so if you want to do something, go to your forums and tell your own class that your overpowered and need to be nerfed. but dont come here and talk trash to me, and my class, and tell me what im doing wrong and that we are just cry babies. you dont play my toon, and you never will. you think all guardians are just cry babies, that we just all met up in some hidden room and had a huge game wide guardian meeting and decided that since we are a fine class, and we are a equal tank and equal dps and have equal utility that we would all come here and let sony know that we think were [Removed for Content] and need a fixing. and to back that point up, 1/2 of us would cancel our accounts and 1/4 of us would re-roll another class and a very small majority would keep playing?</P> <P> </P> <P>if so, your as close minded as you and gaige claim we are.<BR></P>

Allowin

12-27-2005, 08:43 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <P>I suppose they could change it, and if they do so, fine. Until then though I'll want to be balanced as a tank, if they change it then I'll ask to be balanced as melee dps.</P> <P>Doesn't really matter.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>so your saying if they changed you, (like they did us) you would be asked to be balanced huh? and your saying that you would ask to be equal dps huh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so your saying you would do exactly what we are doing, but you come here and run your mouth and troll our forums and tell us we are fine and the game is what sony wanted it to be?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>we tanked better than any class. you guys cried and whined about it saying you want to be equal. so they changed it where you are equal. nobody said anything to you for the first year you were crying to sony about wanting to be equal. but you want to come here and talk trash and troll our forums for doing the same thing you did for a year?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>you said it yourself. now let me see you spin and try and back away from this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>you said if they changed it, you would asked to be equal as a melee dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>is that not what we are asking? that if your going to make all fighters tank equal, give us equal dps?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>you said it, not me</DIV>

SniperKitty

12-27-2005, 09:28 PM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr><font color="#ffff00">Allowin wrote:</font><font color="#ffff00"></font><div><font color="#ffff00">... nobody said anything to you for the first year you were crying to sony about wanting to be equal...</font></div><hr>Bull frakking crap. Brawlers and monks specifically had lamearse guardians spewing forth idiocy and stupidity from the very beginning. The oft used phrase was, "Want to tank? Roll a guardian." So take your crap and shove it ya noob. And just so you're absolutely clear...Fighters tank. Brawlers are fighters. Monks are brawlers. Guess that makes them a fighter too, which means they tank. Their DPS does NOT match anything but a lazy ranger/assassin/brigand/warlock/wizard/etc.</blockquote></span><div></div>

mastersard

12-27-2005, 11:09 PM

<P>Not for long, sweetheart.</P> <P>The archtype system is going away.</P> <P>SOE will have free reign to force any class into any role.</P> <P>A monk may end up a healing class, or DPS. Templars may be tanks. Wardens may be the new Guardian. I've said it before, i'll say it again: This is SOE's way of righting the wrong of trying to balance Avoidance tanks vs. Mitigation tanks. They will <EM>never</EM> admit they were wrong to try this crap.</P> <P>I promise you, it will get to the point where every time you log in you will cross your fingers and <EM>pray</EM> that you still have the same class you logged out with. They did it with SWG, they'll do it here.</P>

SniperKitty

12-27-2005, 11:19 PM

They're not going to change the core role of the final sub-class choice. Any class that started as a fighter pre-revamp will still be a fighter post-revamp. They're not going to make monks and bruisers into melee dps. There's already enough dps classes out there. We don't need any more. What we need is for lame tanks that suck (like all the whiny guardians on this forum) to stop playing tanks and for all the morons that chose monk or bruiser for dps, to go play swashies and brigands. Monks and bruisers are brawlers are fighters. Fighters are tanks. Fighters will always be tanks. Learn2play. =p <div></div>

Kain Hammersmith

12-27-2005, 11:21 PM

<P>Yes a Monk's DPS can meet a lazy ranger/brigand/blah/blah/blah, but what does our DPS meet? A monk on Auto attack. Seem fair? Let me put it this way. If right now SOE came in and changed the classes again and Monks were made to be healers you would want to be equal healers and have equal DPS right? So you understand what we are saying.</P> <P>BTW, Sniper I have read many of your posts and I think you need to take a break from the forums. Your posts are full of name calling and flaming. I can only guess that you are in your early teens and have nothing better to do. I am sorry if you dont have any RL friends to talk to. But please dont come here and show us how immature you are.</P> <P>Thanks</P>

SniperKitty

12-27-2005, 11:47 PM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr><font color="#ffff00">Kain Hammersmith wrote:</font><font color="#ffff00"></font><p><font color="#ffff00">Yes a Monk's DPS can meet a lazy ranger/brigand/blah/blah/blah, but what does our DPS meet? A monk on Auto attack. Seem fair? Let me put it this way. If right now SOE came in and changed the classes again and Monks were made to be healers you would want to be equal healers and have equal DPS right? So you understand what we are saying.</font><font color="#ffff00"></font></p><hr>I don't care what my DPS or HPS is as long as I have fun and have the ability to keep the group alive by whatever means my class has available to them. Whether it's through defensive buffs and decent taunts, or mediocre dps and avoidance, or good buffs and decent heals. As long as I'm having fun... numbers don't mean squat.It's funny how there's so few guardians actually whining about their class. Especially since they're often the majority of the tanks played. Seems the greatest majority of guardians are enjoying their class and playing the game instead of [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing and moaning about their class on the forums. I see guardians tank just fine each and every day I play the game. As a healer, I don't care what kind of tank I have in a group. As long as their gear is decent and they know how to play their class, the group will be pretty successful.<p></p><hr><p><font color="#ffff00">BTW, Sniper I have read many of your posts and I think you need to take a break from the forums. Your posts are full of name calling and flaming. I can only guess that you are in your early teens and have nothing better to do. I am sorry if you dont have any RL friends to talk to. But please dont come here and show us how immature you are.</font></p><p><font color="#ffff00">Thanks</font></p><div></div><hr>Oh noes. I called someone an idiot who is deserving of that title. Big deal. Maybe they'll wonder why I called them an idiot and look to themselves for the answer. If they can't find it, I'll tell them here and now. They're idiots because they whine about a perfectly viable class that the majority of the pleople playing that class seem to enjoy. I'm just sick of seeing all the morons whining about the same things over and over like a damned broken record. The class is what it is and there's nothing wrong with it. The number are on my side. I mean seriously. Look at the numbers.Count the number of unique individuals whining on these forums about their class and then compare it to the number of guardians in game. Seems to me the vast majority enjoy the class and are capable of playing the class with a modicum of skill. The idiots here just suck and need to reroll or play a different game since they can't handle playing a guardian. Maybe they should play a scout that groups and groups only since mashing buttons without regard to aggro control is the only thing they know.</blockquote></span><div></div>

Gaige

12-27-2005, 11:49 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Johndoo wrote:<BR> <DIV>That way we will loose our power burning on taunts, mobs will stick to us like glue and any other profession can go full out on dps, cause we own agro. I only see this benefit all classes and not only the guardians. <FONT color=#ffff00>Wow sounds fun... whoops no it doesn't. Sounds like the bore fest that was combat preLU13.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>It would make our role defining, we would have our special own thing. <FONT color=#ffff00>It would make your role very defining, you'd become the only tank... again.</FONT> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Gaige

12-27-2005, 11:53 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Allowin wrote:<BR> <DIV>nobody said anything to you for the first year you were crying to sony about wanting to be equal. but you want to come here and talk trash and troll our forums for doing the same thing you did for a year? <FONT color=#ffff00>Sure they did. Captain Tuna led the charge, but a lot of other guardians who, most of which are no longer here, flamed me for pages and pages of multiple threads for wanting brawlers to be realistic tank options.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>you said if they changed it, you would asked to be equal as a melee dps. <FONT color=#ffff00>Where? Read your own quote... I said balanced as melee dps. I never said equal anything.</FONT> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

SkarlSpeedbu

12-28-2005, 12:02 AM

<P>Sweet thread. I give it an A for originality. Lets see, guardians suck, its all gaiges fault, and we wanna be the only tank.</P> <P>I'm proud to be a guardian boy ol boy.</P>

SniperKitty

12-28-2005, 12:06 AM

Nah, guardians don't suck. They're actually pretty good tanks. The ones that suck are the dumbasses whining on the guardian forums. All full of woe is me bullcrap. I read through the "suggestions" thread stickied above. OMG what a load of crap. [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] near every post in there is gimmie this and gimmie that. Make me uber again. They're all horrible suggestions with no regard to actually making the game fun and challenging. People whining about losing aggro... oh well. That's part of the challenge. No challenge makes a game boring. People don't want to play a boring game. So up the challenge more. Increase damage from white/yellow con heroics. Make it a thrill to play again. I'm sick of ezmode and want to have fun playing the game. Not be bored to tears mashing buttons which is what would happen if even half the suggestions from the whiny crybabies got implemented. <div></div>

mastersard

12-28-2005, 01:24 AM

<P>You want a challenge? Here's 2:</P> <P>1) Roll a Guardian and tank your way to 60.</P> <DIV>2) Make an intellegent post <EM>that doesn't insult anyone</EM> and <EM>doesn't make you look like a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Until you have done at least 1 of these, you really have no business here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

SniperKitty

12-28-2005, 01:26 AM

I was going to make a guardian. Got to lvl 19 and had to make a choice. Finally decided I didn't want to be associated with such a bunch of lamearse whiners and crybabies, I chose berserker instead. So glad I did. Guardians haven't changed at all since the day they lost their coveted position of best tank overall. Now all fighters tank pretty much equally well and that's great. Yet you guardians here can't stop whining and crying about it. Y'all make me sick. If it wasn't for friends that played guardians, I'd be just as happy to never group with a guardian again. <div></div>

Allowin

12-28-2005, 01:27 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <P> then you can bet I will post my opinion and what needs to be changed to balance us as a melee DPS class. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>umm come on man. make your mind up. thats your exact quote. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>thats exactly what im doing here. sony wants us balanced, we are balanced...TANKS. guardians dont have 1/10th the dps of a bruiser or monk. and dont have 1/2 the utility (usefull utility) as a pally or SK. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so im posting my opinions and what needs to be changed to balance us as a melee DPS class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>whats good for the goose is good for the blah blah blah</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now tell me you honestly think that guardians are equal to a monk or bruiser in dps. or equal to a SK or pally in utility?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and for whats-your-name. go troll somewhere else. you are ignorant to guardians as you have stated many times that you dont play a guardian. why people feel the need to come here (this is the guardian forums last i checked) to call names, flame and whine and cry saying that we are whining and crying is beyond me.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Allowin on <span class=date_text>12-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:32 PM</span>

Johnd

12-28-2005, 01:33 AM

Not be bored to tears mashing buttons which is what would happen if even half the suggestions from the whiny crybabies got implemented.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And only using your taunts to keep agro from the monsters on you instead of the squishies is fun ?</DIV>

Allowin

12-28-2005, 01:33 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR> <P>I was going to make a guardian. Got to lvl 19 and had to make a choice. Finally decided I didn't want to be associated with such a bunch of lamearse whiners and crybabies</P> <P><BR> </P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>i for one am glad you chose not to taint our class with your negative banter and nonstop flames and crying</P> <P> </P> <P><img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Message Edited by Allowin on <SPAN class=date_text>12-27-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>12:35 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Allowin on <span class=date_text>12-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:35 PM</span>

Gaige

12-28-2005, 01:35 AM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Allowin wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>umm come on man. make your mind up. thats your exact quote.<FONT color=#ffff00> Yup, and notices how it says "balanced as melee DPS". Not equal DPS to every other melee DPS class.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>thats exactly what im doing here. sony wants us balanced, we are balanced...TANKS. guardians dont have 1/10th the dps of a bruiser or monk. and dont have 1/2 the utility (usefull utility) as a pally or SK. <FONT color=#ffff00>Wow go figure. Other non-guardians and I tried to convince guardians that after LU13 they needed increased DPS/utility. They wanted nothing of it. They wanted defense/tanking increases, they said "who cares about DPS and utility, I'm a guardian". You only have yourselves to thank for your current situation.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so im posting my opinions and what needs to be changed to balance us as a melee DPS class. <FONT color=#ffff00>Now you want to be a melee DPS class?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>whats good for the goose is good for the blah blah blah <FONT color=#ffff00>It wasn't, according to guardians, prior to LU13. What was good for guardians... was good for guardians - ie being the best tank - and if you didn't like it, they informed you to "roll a guardian".</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now tell me you honestly think that guardians are equal to a monk or bruiser in dps. or equal to a SK or pally in utility? <FONT color=#ffff00>Nope. I've never said that either. Guardians are better tanks than all of those though.</FONT></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>12-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:36 PM</span>

SniperKitty

12-28-2005, 01:48 AM

"And only using your taunts to keep agro from the monsters on you instead of the squishies is fun ?" Actually what I find fun about playing a tank is controlling the pacing of combat. Controlling how fast the group moves through different areas of a dungeon. Being able to keep my group alive. Sometimes that means letting the scout tank a single, no arrow mob while the rest of the group finishes off the triple-arrow friend he brought. The tank does not have to control the aggro on every single mob during an encounter. Many scout classes and even some priest classes are quite capable of handling an add on their own while the rest of the group is occupied. On my warden, if I can survive against a mob for more than 3s and it's not an epic, I can root it and move away, leaving it there for the tank to trouble with later. I have a group root spell for encounters. Many mages have roots and charms or stuns or even mezzes. They're all some form of crowd control. Something that's useful when the tank can't be bothered to snag aggro from an add. Tanks whine about power consumption quite a bit it seems. To me, those tanks aren't playing their class properly. Use only the absolute bare minimum of attacks (preferably ones with stuns or stifles or interrupts or other similar effects like defense reduction) and your taunts. Keep an eye out for wanderers or respawns. Watch the aggro if a mob peels off onto the rogue. Be ready to take that aggro back if need be, but don't worry if the scout isn't going to die. As a healer, I love tanks that know how to manage groups like that. I love groups that know how to work well together and understand that aggro is fluid and not always guarenteed. That sometimes it's beneficial for someone else other than the tank to hold the attention of a mob or two. As a warden, my group heals kick butt. I can very easily keep the group alive, even if everyone is getting smacked around by various mobs. That's when I have the most fun is when the crap hits the fan and everyone is doing their best to bring things back under control. Whether I'm the tank or the healer... frenetic healing and taunting and stunning and killing is the best thing in the game. The more mayhem the better. Watching a tank pull, taunt, keep aggro and mashing my heal button is boring. 100% perfect aggro control makes the game too easy. People whined cause the game was too easy. Now the tanks are whining cause they don't have 100% perfect aggro control. Wah. Deal with it. Most people have learned to. <div></div>

Allowin

12-28-2005, 01:58 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Allowin wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>umm come on man. make your mind up. thats your exact quote.<FONT color=#ffff00> Yup, and notices how it says "balanced as melee DPS". Not equal DPS to every other melee DPS class. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff>and how are we balanced? tell me a guard is balanced with a monk in dps? or a bruiser? im talking about fighters. we arent talking scouts. i mean F-I-G-H-T-E-R-S. get that?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>thats exactly what im doing here. sony wants us balanced, we are balanced...TANKS. guardians dont have 1/10th the dps of a bruiser or monk. and dont have 1/2 the utility (usefull utility) as a pally or SK. <FONT color=#ffff00>Wow go figure. Other non-guardians and I tried to convince guardians that after LU13 they needed increased DPS/utility. They wanted nothing of it. They wanted defense/tanking increases, they said "who cares about DPS and utility, I'm a guardian". You only have yourselves to thank for your current situation. </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>whos they? im not here posting for "them" or "they" im posting MY opinions. im a guardian. if sony wanted fighters to be equal, lets be equal. all around. deciding to make guardians low end everything but tanking was not my idea, it was sony. im sure not going to "thank myself" for that. MG has already stated that guards will never be "uber tanks" again. im fine with that, lets all tank the same. i dont care. but lets all be equal in everything, not just tanking. my whole thing is that unless i want to be in a uber raid guild and MT raid mobs, im bottom tier fighter. guards tank the same as any other fighter in groups. so why have a class that adds almost no dps. a few worthless group buffs and one you have to wait on between every fight to regen mana? and what if i DO want to be in a uber raid guild. theres only 1 MT in a raid. and 23 other classes. so what am i supposed to do? hope the MT calls in sick or forgets to show up? so i can actually play my toon? and not have to sit out because i dont iffer anything to a raid unless i am MT?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so im posting my opinions and what needs to be changed to balance us as a melee DPS class. <FONT color=#ffff00>Now you want to be a melee DPS class? </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>here you go with your spins again. yes. i want to be equal DPS with the rest of the fighters!!! again F-I-G-H-T-E-R-S!!!! is that too much to ask for? we are all equal tanks. so yippie for that. im cool with it. we all tank alike. now give me some decent DPS so i can have something to do if im not tanking. is that clear? or can you find another spin on that quote?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>whats good for the goose is good for the blah blah blah <FONT color=#ffff00>It wasn't, according to guardians, prior to LU13. What was good for guardians... was good for guardians - ie being the best tank - and if you didn't like it, they informed you to "roll a guardian". </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>well you know what. this aint pre LU13. this is post LU13. get that straight. pre LU13 we were fine with no dps or utility cause we were the "uber tanks" but now were not. as i stated, im fine with that. sony will not ever go back to guardians being the only choice for tanks. so lets move past that. lets move to post LU13. we are all equal tanks. so what exactly is my roll if im not MT? equip my DW pom poms and cheer for the raid to "knock em back, push em back, knock em wayyy back?" EVERY other fighter has a ability if they are not MT. bruiser and monks can DPS. pally and SK can do some dps and add utility, (heals, wards, evac ect ect) so what is my role if im not MT? sit in a group and pray the MT looses aggro and my group members catch a AE so i can pop my guard sphere or use one of my "l33t" protection skills and double the damage we take?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now tell me you honestly think that guardians are equal to a monk or bruiser in dps. or equal to a SK or pally in utility? <FONT color=#ffff00>Nope. I've never said that either. Guardians are better tanks than all of those though. </FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>ok, answer the question. tell me you believe WE are balanced!!. you claim we are still uber tanks. well were not. are we good tanks? sure. i dont complain about not being able to tank. i can. but so can you. and so can johnny bruiser. or paul pally, or jimmy SK. so answer the question. do you think we are balanced? its a simple yes or no question. do you think guardians are balanced with other fighters? if you think so, THEN give me a example. if you dont think so, give me some of your ideas on what you think needs to be done to cure that.</FONT></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Gaige on <SPAN class=date_text>12-27-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:36 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <p>Message Edited by Allowin on <span class=date_text>12-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:04 PM</span>

Pry

12-28-2005, 02:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <FONT color=#ffff00>Kain Hammersmith wrote:</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><BR></FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes a Monk's DPS can meet a lazy ranger/brigand/blah/blah/blah, but what does our DPS meet? A monk on Auto attack. Seem fair? Let me put it this way. If right now SOE came in and changed the classes again and Monks were made to be healers you would want to be equal healers and have equal DPS right? So you understand what we are saying.</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><BR></FONT></P> <HR> I don't care what my DPS or HPS is as long as I have fun and have the ability to keep the group alive by whatever means my class has available to them. Whether it's through defensive buffs and decent taunts, or mediocre dps and avoidance, or good buffs and decent heals. As long as I'm having fun... numbers don't mean squat.<BR><BR>It's funny how there's so few guardians actually whining about their class. Especially since they're often the majority of the tanks played. Seems the greatest majority of guardians are enjoying their class and playing the game instead of [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing and moaning about their class on the forums. I see guardians tank just fine each and every day I play the game. As a healer, I don't care what kind of tank I have in a group. As long as their gear is decent and they know how to play their class, the group will be pretty successful.<BR> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>BTW, Sniper I have read many of your posts and I think you need to take a break from the forums. Your posts are full of name calling and flaming. I can only guess that you are in your early teens and have nothing better to do. I am sorry if you dont have any RL friends to talk to. But please dont come here and show us how immature you are.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Thanks</FONT></P> <HR> Oh noes. I called someone an idiot who is deserving of that title. Big deal. Maybe they'll wonder why I called them an idiot and look to themselves for the answer. If they can't find it, I'll tell them here and now. They're idiots because they whine about a perfectly viable class that the majority of the pleople playing that class seem to enjoy. I'm just sick of seeing all the morons whining about the same things over and over like a damned broken record. The class is what it is and there's nothing wrong with it. The number are on my side. I mean seriously. Look at the numbers.<BR><BR>Count the number of unique individuals whining on these forums about their class and then compare it to the number of guardians in game. Seems to me the vast majority enjoy the class and are capable of playing the class with a modicum of skill. The idiots here just suck and need to reroll or play a different game since they can't handle playing a guardian. Maybe they should play a scout that groups and groups only since mashing buttons without regard to aggro control is the only thing they know.</BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>In fantasy land, there are thousands of Guardians happily playing their class and they don't post here because they are happy with their class so they don't have to!</P> <P>*thwap*</P> <P>You're talking about numbers, and the reality is that server populations are lower than they have ever been (thanks to LU13, and Station-Excange), that WoW numbers have exceeded 4 million subscriptions, that people are again playing other games like DAOC again and even going back to EQ1. When the subscription base for EQ1 is greater than that of EQ2 like it is now, then it would be indicative of a problem, wouldn't you agree?</P> <P>Now, is the reality that all of these people cancelling their subscriptions and playing other games because EQ2 is finally *balanced*? Or perhaps more apropos is that the game is filled with whiners (as you say) who want to intrude on poor little sniperkitty's fun. Or worse that we all never knew what we were doing so we just quit.</P> <P>Please.</P> <P>Everquest has competition out there and more to come. If you think that the subscription base of EQ2 is going to increase because they *balanced* fighter classes thus making the game more fun, you are high on something other than life. EQ2 is lame because when it was king daddy of MMORPG's, someone made a bad decision thinking that EQ2 would rest on its laurels. And you know as well as I do that this in the real world doesn't work. </P> <P>So all I can say is enjoy having fouled up economies, bugs galore, where the highest population server is the RP server for God's sake, and when SOE decides that it's not economically viable anymore, and then we'll see what they do next. My suggestion would be to change the game back to what it was, but the ego won't let it. Then and only then will I sign into my account and play once more. Until then, WoW Paladin > EQ2 Guardian.</P> <P>The numbers are what they are, they are on nobody's side.</P>

Gaige

12-28-2005, 02:06 AM

Wow you brought up Station Exchange as a reason players are leaving the game?

Wasuna

12-28-2005, 02:17 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR>"And only using your taunts to keep agro .... they don't have 100% perfect aggro control. Wah. Deal with it. Most people have learned to.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Your post is full of I and me. To bad nobody cares what you think is good or bad with Guardians. Atleast Gaige has some entertaining arguments until most here figured out the pig in the mud hole thing.</DIV>

Kain Hammersmith

12-28-2005, 03:25 AM

<P>Funny thing is that these two, you know who you are, say that only a few Guards are complaining about our class and most are happy. Ok lets look at that.</P> <P>Including me there are 2 Guards in my Guild that are mains and one that is an alt. MY guild is over 100 members.</P> <P>My server used to have lots of Guardians running around but now when you do a search it comes back as the lowest played class next to chanters and bards.</P> <P>Where are all the happy Guards on these forums? Dont tell me that they are playing the game so they dont post. You guys are happy with your class so why do you post?</P> <P>The most vocal Guards have quit the game, so the remaining few seem to be the minority. I understand that, it may seem that way. But if you could actually find these numbers that you keep talking about I would love to see them. As of now I think that only SOE employees can access that info and they dont seem to share it with us.</P> <P>Any other facts according to "you" that you would like to bring.</P> <P>This is a forum and I hate to see name calling and such. I also hate to see people arguing about something that neither affects them or involves them. These forums would be better if only people that play a class could post in that class's forums. Wishful thinking.</P> <P>In closing remember this. In RL if you would not say it to someone's face than you probably shouldnt say it at all. Think about it next time you post.</P>

Pry

12-28-2005, 03:49 AM

<P>Here's my numbers from 6 months ago. You mean EQ1 subscriptions > EQ2 subscriptions even though the graphics in EQ2 are far, far superior than any other game? Nah, couldn't be Station Exchange. Nah, it couldn't be the craptacular combat system. Oh my, you mean that enormous chunk that says Lineage, Lineage II (filled with plat farmers) and World of Warcraft are filled whining idiots as subscribers?! </P> <P>I wonder how miniscule the chart would look like now in December. Would Toontown Online surpass EQ2 subscriptions by now? It's all the whining idiots I tell you, who don't know how to play! </P> <P>Runescape > EQ2! I am.....not surprised really. </P> <P>I think we know who the real idiot is here. The prosecution rests, your honor.</P> <P><IMG src="http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart7_files/Subscriptions_12473_image001.gif"></P> <DIV> </DIV>

SniperKitty

12-28-2005, 03:58 AM

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr><font color="#ffff00">Kain Hammersmith wrote:</font><font color="#ffff00"></font><p><font color="#ffff00">Funny thing is that these two, you know who you are, say that only a few Guards are complaining about our class and most are happy. Ok lets look at that. Including me there are 2 Guards in my Guild that are mains and one that is an alt. MY guild is over 100 members. </font><font color="#ffff00">My server used to have lots of Guardians running around but now when you do a search it comes back as the lowest played class next to chanters and bards.</font></p><hr><p>That's funny. I still see plenty of guardians running around on my server. Guess your server is full of quitters that couldn't handle being forced to do more than mash buttons without thinking about what they were mashing.</p><hr><p><font color="#ffff00">Where are all the happy Guards on these forums? Dont tell me that they are playing the game so they dont post. You guys are happy with your class so why do you post?</font></p><hr><p>I post while at work since my job allows me plenty of free time. I don't post so much when at home.</p><p></p><hr><p><font color="#ffff00">The most vocal Guards have quit the game, so the remaining few seem to be the minority. I understand that, it may seem that way. But if you could actually find these numbers that you keep talking about I would love to see them. As of now I think that only SOE employees can access that info and they dont seem to share it with us. </font><font color="#ffff00">Any other facts according to "you" that you would like to bring. </font><font color="#ffff00">This is a forum and I hate to see name calling and such. I also hate to see people arguing about something that neither affects them or involves them. These forums would be better if only people that play a class could post in that class's forums. Wishful thinking. </font><font color="#ffff00">In closing remember this. In RL if you would not say it to someone's face than you probably shouldnt say it at all. Think about it next time you post.</font></p><hr>This isn't real life however. It's a game. It's meant to be fun. Not boring. What guardians want would make the game BORING again. Just like pre-LU13. I don't want that again so I'm going to do whatever it takes to get these whiny guardians threads locked down and ignored. They serve no purpose other than to try and railroad the devs into making the guardians the goober-uber tank again and make the other five tanks useless for anything but easy, boring content. Since their dps is so uber... whatever. I said it before, there's no reason at all to invite a tank to a group to do anything beyond tanking. DPS, get a scout or mage. Healing? Get a priest. Tanking... well that leaves a fighter. Best groups are tank, healer, dps x 4. They go quick, fast and furious with very little downtime. If the tank knows how to hold themselves back from mashing combat arts and wasting power.<hr><font color="#ffff00">I also hate to see people arguing about something that neither affects them or involves them.</font><hr>But it does affect us. If you guardians get your way, you'd be the only tank worth playing in the game, making them the defacto tank that people look for. Which that does effect how people perceive the other tanks like monks and paladins. That is the biggest reason I hate these forums and think they shouldn't exist. It doesn't matter how [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] good the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing game is. There's always some [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] whining about this or that without any clue about how their suggestions would affect the overall game.I''m a gamer. I've played various games for fifteen plus years. I'm also a game designer. Only been doing that for a year and a half now, but I've learned a lot and done some research on making games fun and enjoyable. Guess what... boring grind != enjoyable. Godmode != long term fun. There's a happy medium between tedious, boring work and ezmode. Guardians want ezmode. Guess what... that will ruin the game faster than making the game more like EQ1.So do you see now why it does involve or affect me? Or are you too dense and wrapped up in your tank ego to understand? By the way, the reason I'm so crass here is to get these threads locked and ignored. They're useless and pointless threads because the devs are likely never going to listen to you because what the vocal minority of the guardians want is detrimental to the long term health of the game. They've probably made their decisions about the classes and will do what needs to be done instead of what the crybabies think and want.</blockquote></span><div></div>

Allowin

12-28-2005, 04:15 AM

<P>i would like to be the first to say im sorry.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>sorry gaige, i thought you were the most ignorant flamer on these boards. but i was wrong. your a einstein and pacifist compared to Sniper. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>i have never seen one person so ignorant to something, so ready to flame and call names and talk trash about something that has nothing to do with them. something that does not effect them and they have no right adding their moronic 2 cents about. </P> <P> </P> <P>and BTW. i think i win the award for shutting gaige up. i see its been several hours and no reply to my last post. is this a mythical discovery on the forums?</P>

Wasuna

12-28-2005, 04:19 AM

Sniperkitty... your just ignorant and offensive. Don't think your dribble here is going to make people change their minds. It's not. Better people that you have come here and tried. I ask you to present facts and numbers. If you can't then eventually you'll get tired of people telling you what you are and leave.

Kain Hammersmith

12-28-2005, 04:41 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SniperKitty wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <FONT color=#ffff00>Kain Hammersmith wrote:</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00><BR></FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Funny thing is that these two, you know who you are, say that only a few Guards are complaining about our class and most are happy. Ok lets look at that. Including me there are 2 Guards in my Guild that are mains and one that is an alt. MY guild is over 100 members. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>My server used to have lots of Guardians running around but now when you do a search it comes back as the lowest played class next to chanters and bards.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> <P>That's funny. I still see plenty of guardians running around on my server. Guess your server is full of quitters that couldn't handle being forced to do more than mash buttons without thinking about what they were mashing.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>I have never been a button masher as you say. I know what each CA does and I use them to their fullest.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Where are all the happy Guards on these forums? Dont tell me that they are playing the game so they dont post. You guys are happy with your class so why do you post?</FONT><BR></P> <HR> <P>I post while at work since my job allows me plenty of free time. I don't post so much when at home.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>You didnt answer the question. I will ask again. Why are you posting on the forums if you are happy with your class? Since you said that only the whiners and quiters post here.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>The most vocal Guards have quit the game, so the remaining few seem to be the minority. I understand that, it may seem that way. But if you could actually find these numbers that you keep talking about I would love to see them. As of now I think that only SOE employees can access that info and they dont seem to share it with us. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Any other facts according to "you" that you would like to bring. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>This is a forum and I hate to see name calling and such. I also hate to see people arguing about something that neither affects them or involves them. These forums would be better if only people that play a class could post in that class's forums. Wishful thinking. </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>In closing remember this. In RL if you would not say it to someone's face than you probably shouldnt say it at all. Think about it next time you post.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>This isn't real life however. It's a game. It's meant to be fun. Not boring. What guardians want would make the game BORING again. Just like pre-LU13. <FONT color=#ff3300>I don't want that again so I'm going to do whatever it takes to get these whiny</FONT> <FONT color=#ff0000>guardians threads locked down and ignored</FONT>. They serve no purpose other than to try and railroad the devs into making the guardians the goober-uber tank again and make the other five tanks useless for anything but easy, boring content. Since their dps is so uber... whatever. I said it before, there's no reason at all to invite a tank to a group to do anything beyond tanking. DPS, get a scout or mage. Healing? Get a priest. Tanking... well that leaves a fighter. Best groups are tank, healer, dps x 4. They go quick, fast and furious with very little downtime. If the tank knows how to hold themselves back from mashing combat arts and wasting power.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>How is this game less boring than before LU13? Before you had to spam Taunts and stay alive, same as now. Before you had to outlive the mob, same as now. Before you needed to get great gear, same as now. I could go on all day. You said it right there, you are trying to get the threads locked, thanks for posting it. I will say this, if there is no reason to have more than one tank in a group than what are the rest of us going to do? /cheer on the sidelines? Best groups I have ever had: Me (Guard), Pally, Swashy, Fury, and various DPS classes. We used either me or the pally to tank or he would help heal for hard fights. Thats fun, thats tactics, thats what a game like this is about. I guess you dont understand how to group with more than one fighter.</FONT><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I also hate to see people arguing about something that neither affects them or involves them.</FONT><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>But it does affect us. If you guardians get your way, you'd be the only tank worth playing in the game, making them the defacto tank that people look for. Which that does effect how people perceive the other tanks like monks and paladins. That is the biggest reason I hate these forums and think they shouldn't exist. It doesn't matter how [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] good the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing game is. There's always some [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] whining about this or that without any clue about how their suggestions would affect the overall game.<BR><BR>I''m a gamer. I've played various games for fifteen plus years. I'm also a game designer. Only been doing that for a year and a half now, but I've learned a lot and done some research on making games fun and enjoyable. <FONT color=#ff0000> Guess what...</FONT> <FONT color=#ff0000>boring grind != enjoyable. Godmode != long term fun</FONT>. There's a happy medium between tedious, boring work and ezmode. Guardians want ezmode. Guess what... that will ruin the game faster than making the game more like EQ1.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff>Is that what you want? I may not understand. Grind = enjoyable? Godmode = long term fun? Isnt that what you are fighting against? Did you get confused when typing this post?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ccffff></FONT><BR>So do you see now why it does involve or affect me? Or are you too dense and wrapped up in your tank ego to understand? <FONT color=#ff0000>By the way, the reason I'm so crass here is to get these threads locked and ignored</FONT>. They're useless and pointless threads because the devs are likely never going to listen to you because what the vocal minority of the guardians want is detrimental to the long term health of the game. They've probably made their decisions about the classes and will do what needs to be done instead of what the crybabies think and want.<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry that you feel that you need to post things here about something you dont understand. I am also sorry that you think that the best way to help the game is to derail threads and call people names. I guess I am old-school but I think you are just very immature.<BR>

Ladicav

12-28-2005, 04:45 AM

<P>Sniper comes here to dribble because the monks at the monk forums don't want him, the beserkers won't put up with his bull and despite his hypocracy at telling other classes who visit his classes forums to go troll on their own forums, he doesn't take his own advice and instead comes here to cause trouble.</P> <P>Every man and his dog knows Guardians need a boost of some kind, but of course Sniper chose to become a Berserker instead, probaby the most balanced tank of the whole fighter archetype system, or a Paladin who basically can create almost agro lock or a Monk who on single target encounters is insane agro generation, second only to a Bruiser I daresay. The aidvert wants a challenge, yet picks the tanks with some of the best single target agro generation and two of those also excel at multi mob encounter also.</P> <P>I totally believe he chose a zerker because of what is said on these boards, but not because of his so called whining, but because he didn't want to risk playing a Guardian and then finding out, oh my, some of these Guardians may actually have a point. That would be rather embarrasing wouldn't it, finding out they were right after calling them every expletive under the sun he could think of. You don't WANT a challenge, despite all your efforts to convince us you do, if you wanted to undertake a challenge, you would have picked a Guardian or a Shadowknight. Such bull. If you're that bored, maybe it's you that should be looking for somewhere else to play since the game has become all so ho hum for you.</P> <P>Stop spinning your bullfaeces here, take some of your own advice and go troll your home forums, you hypocrit.</P>

Kain Hammersmith

12-28-2005, 04:50 AM

well said

Ladicav

12-28-2005, 05:10 AM

<P>Gaige, honestly and no offense, EQ2 holds bugger all market share and it is slowly dwindling. You know this and I know this, we don't need graphs etc to show us, as players we can just see it. The very last of my friends left EQ2, 2 weeks ago to join the rest of my friends on WOW. Everyone here calls WOW an inferior game, and in their opinion it may be so, but there has to be something about it that draws the crowd and that is all that really matters despite peoples opinions about it. I can tell you for fact many players on WOW laugh hysterically at what EQ2 is. The coming Feb EQ2 expansion will blip the market share a bit for a short time until people remember why they left in the first place. The fact that EQ1 still holds a greater market share over EQ2 just shows that a 7 year old game with mass appeal still attracts more people. EQ1 has some kind of "addiction" factor, which EQ2 just doesn't have. Game design and implementaion counts for a whole lot more than what EQ2 is offering in its current state right now at this point in time. People will be attracted to those games that "feel" right for them. EQ2 doesn't "feel" right, in various scenarios it doesn't even play "well" it just seems disjointed and to be honest it doesn't feel like the company has any kind of direction for it. </P> <DIV>EQ2 could well have become a juggernaut of a game, but no one ever ever ever is going to convince me the management and developers put 2 years into development before release, created beautifully graphic filled world, quests that number into the thousands and expansions only to satisfy 3% of a whole market share. It's a certainty they did all this work to generate wide appeal and they just are not getting it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is how it is, anyway you slice it.</DIV>

Greyto

12-28-2005, 07:10 AM

<P>Well, been awhile since I posted here. Looks like nothing has changed. We have folks still holding out hope and posting suggestions. We have Gaige splitting his online time between playing and trying to come up with more explanations as to why guardians should not be fixed. And I see we still have the mindless trolls who are so obviously clueless to everyone but themselves it's somehow morbidly funny.</P> <P>I used to think that this games Dev team just did not care. Now it is apparent that they are just lost. There seems to be a shotgun approach to game fixes now. Scatter as much buckshot as you can and see if you can hit something that sticks.</P> <P>I tried to get Steve and gang to at least give us some input as to where we were going as an online gaming community, and heck for about 3 days Dev response was at an all time high. There were even posts by people thanking the dev team for the increased feedback. Sadly that "new" attitude was short lived and I see we are back to our 3-4 response/feedback per day trickle.</P> <P>Tick..Tick..Tick. Steve. Time is running short and the chain on the plug has so much tension in it atm that I am not sure what is still holding it in place.</P> <P>This is your game, if you can't answer the call then who will?</P> <P>One more observation/question before I sign off.</P> <P>Does anyone at SOE really believe that the type of responses generated by some of your biggest fanboi's are in any way helping your cause?...Joel? </P> <P> </P>

a6eaq

12-28-2005, 07:26 AM

<P>SniperKitty wrote</P> <P>This isn't real life however. It's a game. It's meant to be fun. Not boring. What guardians want would make the game BORING again. Just like pre-LU13. I don't want that again so I'm going to do whatever it takes to get these whiny guardians threads locked down and ignored. They serve no purpose other than to try and railroad the devs into making the guardians the goober-uber tank again and make the other five tanks useless for anything but easy, boring content.</P> <HR> <DIV>So, you are going to do "whatever it takes", your words not mine, are you? So I guess those Guards asking for increased utility and DPS to equal the OTHER five fighters is whiny. Let us look at the game mechanics for those us that actually know what generates hate and are therefore effective tanks will unerstand and not argue over to try and keep us guards down cause I am upset that I was not overpowered pre-LU-13 shall we? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hate is generated from more than just taunts... it comes from stuns, stifles, knock-backs and OH MY GOD! DPS. If all the fighters are able to generate the same amount of hate from taunts/stuns/stifles/knock-backs and yet we are not generating the same amount of hate from DPS then HOLD THE PRESSES!!! we are not equal. Guardians get what 1 or 2 more taunts then you do to generate agro right? This is supposed to make up for our pathetic DPS huh? Well, let's not forget that our taunts (like yours) are now RESISTABLE. We do not have added DPS to make up for that. You do. In fact, you have more abilities to make up for your single resisted taunt than we do. "Oh look Swashy, my taunt got resisted! Don't wory oh boy, I will make up for that lose of 950 points of hate with my uber attack that will do a hole 200 points of damage!" Sounds like balance to me!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Speaking of fun, you are now having fun in the game, terrific! Let's see how the Guardian fight goes. Put all your taunts into the primary bar so that you can push 1, 2, 3, 4 wait two seconds and 1, 2, wait 3 secs 1, 2, wait three seconds 3, 4. HOLY NUMBER MASHING BATMAN! Guardians have been reduced to the very boring gameplay that you yourself HATED! So, why not ask for SOE to make the game FUN for us? If you didn't like button mashing, what makes you think that we do? Our class was nerfed to a point where WE are NOW where YOU where pre-LU-13! It wasn't fun for you then and it aint FUN for us now!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So Sniper, I am sure you have heard the old addage "Walk a mile in anothers shoes..."</DIV> <DIV>Before you come into our forums and try childish name calling and totally immature tactics to keep us from being the only tank out there again, roll a guardian and play it into the 50s and you will understand what we are truly asking for. Sure there are still a few [Removed for Content] that want the Guardian to be the Warrior of EQ1, but we (as a hole) do not want to be the "only tank" again, we just want what you have wanted and finally got... we simply want to have FUN!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally, if doing whatever it takes means that you will intentionally derail any post that attempts to make the game fun for another class, how adult of you! Do you teach your children to stab others in back or lie about them to get what they want to make them happy? What a wonderful example you must be. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. I know how to play my Guardian very well BTW. I can tailor my tanking style to any other class out there in a few fights so please, do not insult me by attempting to say I do not know how to play. You don't know me from Adam, so don't pretend you know who I am or how I play. It only makes you look that much more infintile.</DIV>

Kain Hammersmith

12-28-2005, 11:19 AM

I have to say, that was one of the best posts I have ever read, well done. ^^^^^^^^^ <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>BTW we missed you Grey</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kain Hammersmith on <span class=date_text>12-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:19 PM</span>

aislynn00

12-28-2005, 02:01 PM

<DIV>Someone mentioned aggro maintenance being a group effort. Ideally, it <EM>should</EM> be, by allowing the damage dealers to lower their own hate totals by virtue of spells and abilities such as Concussion while the tank takes an active part in raising his own hate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It should <EM>not</EM>, however, be a matter of damage dealers <EM>having</EM> to lower their DPS output to the point where they end up with significantly more power than the tank in question. If that becomes the status quo, then why would a damage dealer ever have to upgrade combat arts and spells, increase intelligence/strength, and/or acquire better weapons? If all that new Master I nuke means is that the wizard will end up with even higher power at the end of a fight while her DPS remains the same (since the tank wouldn't be able to hold aggro otherwise), then that constitutes a serious game balance issue.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To clarify for the benefit of you, Gaige, I would love if aggro management took great skill and tactical savvy on the part of the tank. Unfortunately, building hate in EQ2 doesn't require either no matter which class you are playing; hate generation is simply a matter of getting the proper quality of gear and spells/combat arts as well as getting certain hate generation (directly or indirectly) buffs on yourself (think "coercer", "dirge", "warden", etc.) Once you have that, you don't really have to do much beyond going through the same basic routine of executing spells/arts. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That isn't challenging. That isn't skill. So claiming that some of us guardians want to remove the skill element from tanking in EQ2 is nonsense; you can't remove what isn't there. What we <EM>do</EM> want to do, first and foremost, is introduce balance between the various fighter classes as far as hate generation goes by removing the randomness which is the bane of guardians in particular. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>After that has been achieved, SOE should start looking at ways of making playing choices count for a lot more in combat. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How about putting several different combat art lines on the same timers, so you wouldn't actually be able to use them all simultaneously, forcing players to choose between using, for instance, a melee damage debuff, a slow, and a stun? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heroic opportunities require player interaction and could certainly be a way of bringing more tactics into the game. Perhaps it would be a good idea to drastically boost the potential effectiveness of (multi-class) HO's and giving players more control over them? How about introducing HO's which generate hate? What about HO debuffs, particularly mental debuffs to help taunting? How about reactionary HO's; that is to say, group HO's triggered by mob actions, which players could respond to, thus achieving significant situational advantages? A successful responsive HO could generate even more hate on behalf of the tank, thus rewarding teamwork.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Those are changes which would help the game, in my view, but since they affect everyone equally, they don't address the current imbalance between guardians and most other fighters. And to us guardians, that is what matters the most right now.</DIV>

Johnd

12-28-2005, 04:08 PM

<DIV>exactly what I think too <SPAN>aislynn00<FONT color=#ffffff>. I don't think making agro maintenance easyer for a guardian ( and its evil twin ) unbalances the game ( you choose for that while becoming a guardian ).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>But since many seem to think so, I would leave it as it is. But help us guardians with mitigation. We should be damage absorbers. Some ideas on this :</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>- </FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Make shields drop the avoidance and increase the mitigation by static amount of %. This has been said before and with the HTL buffs it would 'fix' some of the structural problems with it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>- Drop our avoidance by 10-20%. This is a big amount, but we ain't monks. We have so much armor with us, that its not possible to avoid hits. We have more migitation tho, so the hits will be more absorbed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>I hear a lot about balancing the warrior classes. But the balance shouldn't be sought after in making us all the same. We should be able to accomplish the same but in various ways.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>A guardian ( the tank type ) should be a punch-bag.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>A brawler has avoidance, bit more damage</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>A crusader has healing, bit more damage</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>I don't mind it if all these 3 classes have the same taunt / agro abilities. But atleast give us them.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Last bit, I am not sure if it works like that, but make our sentinel line / intercept line use our migitation to absorb the pain from the punch we taking for our healers / casters. I don't know if it already works that way, in that case I didn't say a thing. But with increased migitation, we should be able to drop the total amount of damage taken on group level.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>So the 100% damage taken by the tank will be reduced by the migitation. So it will only be 20-30% of the damage a healer / caster would take. The healer still takees 30-40% making the total damage 50-70%, instead of 130-140%.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff>Thats a way I would like to see it all work.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>

Raberis

12-28-2005, 07:21 PM

<P>PRYNN wrote:</P> <P>Here's my numbers from 6 months ago. You mean EQ1 subscriptions > EQ2 subscriptions even though the graphics in EQ2 are far, far superior than any other game? Nah, couldn't be Station Exchange. <FONT color=#ff0000>Nah, it couldn't be the craptacular combat system</FONT>. Oh my, you mean that enormous chunk that says Lineage, Lineage II (filled with plat farmers) and World of Warcraft are filled whining idiots as subscribers?! </P> <P>I wonder how miniscule the chart would look like now in December. Would Toontown Online surpass EQ2 subscriptions by now? It's all the whining idiots I tell you, who don't know how to play! </P> <P>Runescape > EQ2! I am.....not surprised really. </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>I think we know who the real idiot is here</FONT>. The prosecution rests, your honor.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________</P> <P>I agree, because the "craptacular" combat system didn't even hit until September 2005. Your chart is from June 2005, when most claim they were happy with their guardians. I actually agree that guardians need some improvement, but when you put nonsense like this up to prove your point, it makes YOU look like the idiot.</P> <P> </P>

mastersard

12-28-2005, 08:28 PM

<P>If the chart was before the CU, and so many people have left since then, then the EQ2 piece of the pie is even <EM>smaller.</EM></P>

Johnd

12-28-2005, 09:15 PM

<DIV>I must have read over it... suits me well, no brains but muscles... but why is the chart at all in this tread ?</DIV> <DIV>I see two people fighting over the chart and the rest of the tread is about something else...</DIV>

Pry

12-28-2005, 09:33 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Rheuschek wrote:<BR> <P>PRYNN wrote:</P> <P>Here's my numbers from 6 months ago. You mean EQ1 subscriptions > EQ2 subscriptions even though the graphics in EQ2 are far, far superior than any other game? Nah, couldn't be Station Exchange. <FONT color=#ff0000>Nah, it couldn't be the craptacular combat system</FONT>. Oh my, you mean that enormous chunk that says Lineage, Lineage II (filled with plat farmers) and World of Warcraft are filled whining idiots as subscribers?! </P> <P>I wonder how miniscule the chart would look like now in December. Would Toontown Online surpass EQ2 subscriptions by now? It's all the whining idiots I tell you, who don't know how to play! </P> <P>Runescape > EQ2! I am.....not surprised really. </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>I think we know who the real idiot is here</FONT>. The prosecution rests, your honor.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________</P> <P>I agree, because the "craptacular" combat system didn't even hit until September 2005. Your chart is from June 2005, when most claim they were happy with their guardians. I actually agree that guardians need some improvement, but when you put nonsense like this up to prove your point, it makes YOU look like the idiot.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Well genius, first of all I said if these were the numbers in June, imagine what they would be in December. Didn't I? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Secondly, because many people left due to the CU, then there would be less market share in December now wouldn't there? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out, or even someone with a moderate IQ. What's your excuse?</DIV>

Raberis

12-29-2005, 12:05 AM

<P>PRYNN:</P> <P>Yep, those numbers are completely accurate all right. The author said so, when he admitted basing them on an "educated guess" and you know how wildly accurate that is.</P> <P>Can you get the numbers for July, August, September, and November? My dumb brain can't figure out this stuff without some trending data. I know I "should" be able to see what is obvious from the chart, but the dots just aren't connecting. Maybe you have numbers form previous months and i can extrapolate future months and subtract an additional 10000 for each month after September.</P> <P>Sorry for the big words, but I think I used them right. </P> <P> </P> <P>TO EVERYONE ELSE:</P> <P>My apologies for derailing the thread. It was not my intention. In fact I think that guardians do need something, they are kind of bland now. However, that chart is weak at best, and does not belong here.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by Rheuschek on <span class=date_text>12-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:06 AM</span>

Pry

12-29-2005, 12:43 AM

<P>There's plenty of data out there if you bothered to look, including trending data. This conversation is obtuse. EQ2 has less subscriptions today than there were 6 months ago. It has less than several other games on the market. The question is not whether the numbers are "accurate" to the Nth subscription, but rather an indication that a game that allegedly offers the best playing experience and the best graphics, with the best quest system and the best combat engine should have the most subscribers. </P> <P>And since EQ2 does not, it is indicitive of an issue. Now I wonder what that issue is, or is that beyond your capacity as well? And given this, the chart fits perfectly within the context of this thread. Sorry that you had to come on here and derail it (as you said).</P> <P>According to Snipernewb, it's because everyone is an idiot except for him; that they don't know how to play and that is the issue. Certainly even someone such as yourself can see how silly is this, no?</P>

mastersard

12-29-2005, 01:31 AM

<P>An intellegent poster will look at the information available and form an oppinion based on that information.</P> <P>An <EM>idiot</EM> will form an oppinion out of emotion and rumor, and then sustain that oppinion with lies and insults.</P> <P>On rare occasions, two people can look at the same information and come to opposite conclusions. To the people who have played a Guardian to a significant level and still think their is nothing wrong, I respectfully disagree with you. </P> <P>to the Troll: go away.</P>

Gaige

12-29-2005, 01:33 AM

<P>I just don't understand why we should use a chart which hasn't been updated since June of 05 (the last post by the guy who runs MMORPGchart.com was in October) and your personal dissatisfaction with the game as proof that EQ2 is suffering subscription losses.</P> <P>There is no way you can prove to me that EQ2 has less subscribers now than it did in June 05. SOE quit releasing subscription numbers, so even if MMORPGchart.com did get updated, he would at best have an "educated guess" about EQ2's population since in his FAQ that is where he gets his numbers if legitimate sources don't have the information, which obviously they wouldn't.</P> <P>At any rate none of us know how the subscriptions are going for EQ2. Just because <EM>you</EM> didn't like LU13 and DoF doesn't mean everyone shares your opinion. Plenty of people did/do, since I play it everynight and I know others who do.</P> <P>While it is true that some people didn't and they did quit, what you can't see is people who just started or came back, because you don't personally know them. You can do a /who all and go wow 18 people in zone in June there would've been 100 people in this zone. However that is unaccurate at best and crazy at worst.</P> <P>All I know is the last few weeks we've had an SS2 up, so someone is playing this expansion, and that doesn't even mention the rest of the people through the other tiers/zones.</P> <P>I'm sure you'll say how its only a few die hards playing, and all the lowbies are twinked alts and no one new is coming to the game and all servers will be merged soon, but its just pessimistic speculation on your part, since you are a prime example of an unhappy customer... and you feel the need to project your opinion of the situation and the game onto everyone else in an effort to legitimize your complaints.</P>

Krooner

12-29-2005, 01:53 AM

Gaige wrote: There is no way you can prove to me that EQ2 has less subscribers now than it did in June 05. <U><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>SOE quit releasing subscription numbers,</FONT></STRONG></U> so even if MMORPGchart.com did get updated, he would at best have an "educated guess" about EQ2's population since in his FAQ that is where he gets his numbers if legitimate sources don't have the information, which obviously they wouldn't. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <P><U><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>At any rate none of us know how the subscriptions are going for EQ2.</FONT></STRONG> </U> Just because <EM>you</EM> didn't like LU13 and DoF doesn't mean everyone shares your opinion. Plenty of people did/do, since I play it everynight and I know others who do.</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG>Sometimes partner its not what is said, its what is not being said that matters. If things were going as well for SOE as some would have us believe those numbers would be shouted from the highest hilltop.</STRONG> </P> <P><STRONG>Silence breeds misscontent</STRONG></P></DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Warbird1 on <span class=date_text>12-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:54 PM</span>

Gaige

12-29-2005, 01:57 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Warbird1 wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P><STRONG>Sometimes partner its not what is said, its what is not being said that matters. If things were going as well for SOE as some would have us believe those numbers would be shouted from the highest hilltop.</STRONG> </P> <P><STRONG>Silence breeds misscontent</STRONG></P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps. My point is any increase/decrease in subscription numbers isn't provable, its all speculation. So why even bring it up?<BR>

Krooner

12-29-2005, 02:06 AM

<DIV>Because its obvious to any lay person that the is a decrease in subscritions. How big of one may not be provable but a general trend is.</DIV> <DIV>If losing subscriptions isnt important to SOE then what is ??? You would think that they would show more concern about it,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gaige

12-29-2005, 02:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Warbird1 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Because its obvious to any lay person that the is a decrease in subscritions. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>See, this is where I get lost. How is it obvious? I'm not trolling or being sarcastic, I'm serious.<BR>

Krooner

12-29-2005, 02:16 AM

<DIV>I have some new guildies who are from other servers.</DIV> <DIV>Lots of people on other servers are being offered free charector transfers... one toon only but they are free.</DIV> <DIV>Read over the other server forums look at the number of posts of people complaining about people moving off server or lack of groups.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But ultimately if you cant see it or realize the decline right now you never will.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

landru

12-29-2005, 02:47 AM

<DIV>I can tell you one reason why I've stopped posting here ... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's the non-guardians (see: gaige) coming in and disrupting and/or de-railing posts. This one alone he has posted more than anyone else, but then again he might be posting to "Re-Educate" or "Because he can" or "Because he needs to change your thinking" or any of the other reasons he has givin for coming here and completely spiraling these posts out of control ... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Occationally I come here to see if anything has changed, too bad it hasn't ... Still camped by griefers, guess I'll come back in a couple weeks ... Maybe then if this board continues to be quiet they'll grab their toys and go home. Then again, this could be all that they have ... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

mastersard

12-29-2005, 03:13 AM

<DIV>I log on and go out to hunt, and rarely get KSed, i dont have to look for an uncamped spot, i see no groups farming/grinding. Low level areas are deserted. The few lowbies i see are re-rolls, mostly Guards, Troubs, and chanter classes. Subscriptions are dropping off. If you can't see it, its because you are not in an area to. Go to one of the tier 1 zones. Their used to be lots and lots of nooblets running around in there. Check out Ant and CL. Deserted, man. Their are a few, very few, people in TS and Nek, and the population grows only a little toward the high level. Yes EQ2 has a core group of players. Their will allways be that. But a game like this requires a constant influx of new players. EQ2 does not have it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People are getting wise to the SOE way. Ignore the customer base, and it will go away. Go to any game store and ask them if they recoment EQ2. They will laugh and hand you a copy of WoW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I watch my roomate play WoW, a clearly inferior game. He hast to run instanced zones because all the other areas are <EM>over</EM> camped. Their servers are full to capacity. The game is crappy, easy, and cartoony, but it is beating the shiz out of EQ2. Why?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Cuz Blizzard <EM>listens</EM> to its customer base and changes the game accordingly. SOE listens to us and changes the game the way <EM>they</EM> want it to run. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Their's a big poster in my office at work. It says:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"If we dont take care of our customers, some one else will!"</DIV>

Wasuna

12-29-2005, 03:41 AM

<P>It's kind of funny how when LU13 was in testing and when it came out the matra of everybody was that it's good for the game's long term health. I'm on Antonia Bayle server so we have no population problems but we hear over and over how people have moved to our server becasue it has actual people on it.</P> <P>I fail to see how that was good for the game.</P> <P> </P>

Pry

12-29-2005, 04:17 AM

<P>It can all be summed up in something you might of learned in your 10th Grade Science class.</P> <P>You take information as it was last presented. This is called the control. We can estimate that EQ2's subscription numbers are at 250,000 in June, because these were the numbers as released by SOE in that month. </P> <P>Now take you average populated server during prime time hours and count the number of people in an average populated zone, multiply that by all the zones and then by all the servers. So if there are 10 people in the West Freeport, for example, and there are 50 zones (I don't know exactly how many zones there are), it can be estimated that there are 500 people online. There are 29 servers, so at any given night during prime time hours there are 14,500 people online. Let's take a very liberal estimate and say that only 1/3rd of all the subscribers are on at one time, so there are 29,000 subscribers not online. 14,500 + 29,000 = 43,500 monthly subscriptions.</P> <P>Now of course my numbers aren't scientific, because I didn't count, and 43,500 is far from 250,000. That's 83% less subscribers if what I said were accurate than there were in June. Which is silly, but I bet if you do this exercise on your own you will find a decrease in subscribers (by a large percentage) than in June.</P> <P>The idea is that when biologists count the number of cells in a Petri dish, they take a section of cells, count them and then multiply it by the entire area. When Journalists count crowd numbers at an event, they count a section of people and then apply it across the entire crowd. It's simple probability that even though some sections will have more people, and some less you will get a pretty accurate idea of the amount of people in the crowd, or cells in a dish.</P> <P>Why it's important (as some people here understand) is that all that is touted by folks such as yourself, Gaige, that the game is better now than it was pre-LU13, that it is better than any other game on the market, then you must question why people aren't flocking to EQ2 as their game of choice and furthermore why someone would rather play an inferior game such as World of Warcraft than play EQ2. EQ2's numbers should be 4,000,000 then, not WoW's. </P> <P>If you don't see something wrong with that, and why it's a problem then I don't know what to tell you. </P> <P>The thing is, what I *really really* want to do is play EQ2. I love my Guardian very much, but I cannot play under a system where I am forced to grind out XP for countless hours with a haphazard toon for no reward. It's not that I want to be top of the heap, King of the Hill, or Queen of the Jungle, but I work hard and it's my relaxation time. Not my frustrating gulag time. Even though I played EQ1 since the start until EQ2 came out, it was entirely less frustrating and more fun than EQ2 was post LU13.</P> <P>The thing we can't seem to wrap our minds around here (and I laugh out loud every time I read it) is when it is said "Well, the game is more fun for ME now, and all of these whiners are in the minority". When in fact due to the above those statement makers are probably in the minority and the people who continue to throw their money at Blizzard or *gags* Lineage are not satisfied with the EQ2 experience and are in the Majority. SOE needs to address the majority and then they can win. But they like catering to the minority and that's fine, just don't expect all of those dissatisfied WoW people (because it's an inferior game as was said) to come to EQ2 as the alternative.</P> <P>This is the point for posting the chart, this is the relevance that it has to this conversation (and well, most conversations here). I am glad that some people understand it.</P>

a6eaq

12-29-2005, 04:44 AM

Well said Prynn

Greyto

12-29-2005, 07:55 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Warbird1 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Because its obvious to any lay person that the is a decrease in subscritions. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>See, this is where I get lost. How is it obvious? I'm not trolling or being sarcastic, I'm serious.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Giage, you have played EQ2 from day one. You have been on these boards as long as anyone. You have read update message after update message. massive amounts of EQ2 news updates full of self promotion and links to "Vote us number 1". </P> <P>Let me ask you one question and then maybe you can answer your own.</P> <P>Have you ever seen at any time any amount of modesty from SOE?</P> <P>What I mean to ask is. Has Sony ever had a problem blowing their own horn?</P> <P>If the game were doing as well as you are hoping it is. I don't believe (yup my opinion) that SOE would have any problem gloating over it.</P> <P>Do you?</P> <P> </P> <P>PS ok that was three questions. Just trying to help <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>

Ladicav

12-29-2005, 09:02 AM

<DIV>I've based it on trends I have observed over time. The people I know and the friends I played with all over time basically left. My wifes guild (whos is seperate to mine) started out with over 65 people, all online all playing. Nowdays they number between none during off hours, to 9 or 10 during peak ours, the rest have left. It is not unreasonable to assume judging by zone counts that many guilds have had this kind of down turn over the last year or so also, as an average. I say average because not all guild went through a downturn, many would have picked up people from older defunct guilds, but I cannot see any evidence of more people playing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And I don't really call SS a true indication of population numbers because even the guild I am in uses SS as a meeting place a lot of the time either formally or informally, because it is easy and quick to get to for both goodies and evils. A lot of players do the same thing and actually pass through there, meet up or chat and then move on. But while they are there, that means some other zone population decreased. You are just shifting the same people from one zone to another, that is no evidence that there are more people playing the game in as much as you don't believe any evidence anyone else has pointed out to you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And even then, for arguements sake, lets say the figure jumped from 3% to 5% or even 10% market share. Is that still a successful figure for all the development and obviously all the time and money and reasource SOE spent to create and maintain this game? It's not, that's chump change for a company of SOE's size and structure. SOE seems to have the strategy that they may as well have many smaller population games and thus draw an acceptable level of income from all of them combined instead of having one or 2 monster games. If that is their strat, fine. But no one is ever going to believe that EQ2 is or ever will be a juggernaut now, it has missed its window of opportunity.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not being inflammatory, trying to be as calm and reasonable as I can.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Ladicav on <span class=date_text>12-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:03 PM</span>

Chog

12-29-2005, 10:37 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Warbird1 wrote:<BR> <DIV>I have some new guildies who are from other servers.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Lots of people on other servers are being offered free charector transfers... one toon only but they are free.</FONT></DIV> <DIV>Read over the other server forums look at the number of posts of people complaining about people moving off server or lack of groups.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But ultimately if you cant see it or realize the decline right now you never will.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Where did you hear the highlighted at? The only times I have heard people getting free tranfsfers is when a server is overpopulated (when game was first released and opening more servers). When the Sony Exchange servers opened up (believe they are still free to transfer to them with rules). Tranferring to the Test server.<BR>

Terron

12-29-2005, 08:17 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>Prynn wrote:<p>Why it's important (as some people here understand) is that all that is touted by folks such as yourself, Gaige, that the game is better now than it was pre-LU13, that it is better than any other game on the market, then you must question why people aren't flocking to EQ2 as their game of choice and furthermore why someone would rather play an inferior game such as World of Warcraft than play EQ2. EQ2's numbers should be 4,000,000 then, not WoW's. </p> <p>If you don't see something wrong with that, and why it's a problem then I don't know what to tell you. </p><hr></blockquote> You have made a faulty assumption that becuase something is higher quality it will be more popular. Bill Gates's fortune disproves that. If there were a strong link between popularity and quality Microsoft would have gone bust at least 15 years ago.</span><div></div>

Krooner

12-29-2005, 08:24 PM

<P>Chogar.</P> <P>As I said I have some guildies that joined the our guild on AB server. I dont remember which one they came from but they all had the chief complaint the server population wasnt high enough for the level of gaming they were used to. Two of them were hard core raiders from EQ1.</P> <P>One of them had 3 toons on the other server and was able to transfer her main to AB. Shes considering moving at least one more over.</P>

mastersard

12-29-2005, 08:28 PM

What he was saying: WoW has an inferior game, but people like it more than EQ2. EQ2 <EM>is a better game</EM>, but the customer service and public relations are horrid. Its not just EQ2, it's every game released by SOE. (not really counting EQ, that was released by Verrant, altho i can remember some really defunct CS there, too)

Pry

12-29-2005, 08:33 PM

<DIV>Don't be silly. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Microsoft relies on product sales. Period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE relies on product sales AND (important, pay attention) monthly subscription fees. Therefore, it is in effect providing a service. And in that case low subscribers to that service can only mean an inferior service in the minds of people. Now I merely asked why that was (I know why). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Most of the time, people will choose an inferior service due to cost, but in this case the costs are the same. So it's something else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Product Sales aren't the bread and butter of SOE, it's merely a means to an end to get more subscriptions. </DIV>

Terron

12-29-2005, 08:51 PM

I'm not being silly. Microsoft also offers some things on a subscription basis. More significantly they rely on people continually using Windows so they can sell them upgrades to products that run on Windows Like world of WARCARFT they started off relying on a name with a good reputation - the IBM PC. Microsoft have also used illegal commercial practises (and continue to do so despite numerous convictions). (I don't mean to imply anything about WoW). I have had the unpleasant experience of having to use Windows 3.1 and the even worse Windows for Workgroups - about 15 years ago. Reputation is often far more important than current quality in determining popularity of a product or service. Another important factor is that the computer games market is set up for short lived games, always pushing the new thing so the number of new subscribers is bound to decline unless a new version is actively marketed. Games shops don't get any benefit from continuing subscriptions - they want you to buy one game, grow tired of it quickly, and then buy another. Their marketing will be aimed at selling the latest MMO game. EQ2 is no longer the latest so the number of new subscribers is bound to decrease., irrespective of the relatibe qualities of the games. Many poor games with good marketing and enough flash to impress the reviewers have sold well. <div></div><div></div><p>Message Edited by pjackson on <span class=date_text>12-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:37 AM</span>

Wli

12-29-2005, 09:11 PM

<P>And, as a friend would say (and I hate when he talks like that, as if he knows all ... ), if SoE ain't saing anything, it's because the numbers aren't going up. I would guess that's right.</P> <P>And, a static player base I don't believe in. So, the numbers must be droping.</P> <P> </P> <P>But yes, with no hard data on this, we are all guessing here.</P> <p>Message Edited by Wlian on <span class=date_text>12-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:05 AM</span>

mastersard

12-29-2005, 10:02 PM

<DIV>when you log in and entire zones are empty where they were once crowded...well, it ain't rocket science. I dont need a pie chart to see there are fewer people playing. I can look around...<EM>their are few people playing!!</EM></DIV>

Timzil

12-30-2005, 12:51 AM

mmmmm pie...

Gaige

12-30-2005, 02:34 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prynn wrote:<BR> <DIV>Don't be silly. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Microsoft relies on product sales. Period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE relies on product sales AND (important, pay attention) monthly subscription fees. Therefore, it is in effect providing a service. And in that case low subscribers to that service can only mean an inferior service in the minds of people. Now I merely asked why that was (I know why). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Most of the time, people will choose an inferior service due to cost, but in this case the costs are the same. So it's something else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Product Sales aren't the bread and butter of SOE, it's merely a means to an end to get more subscriptions. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually that's wrong.</P> <P>WoW, for one, relies more on product sales than it does subscriptions. Their entire game is designed that way.</P> <P>Microsoft, with the recent changes to the office suite for example, are providing more and more services. Like... say... MSN?</P>

Krooner

12-30-2005, 02:41 AM

<P>To Clarify a few things up:</P> <P>Microsoft actually has several lines of business and is not reliant on one source.</P> <P>They have product and services sales. They also receive a good deal of revenue from licenses.</P> <P>Microsoft makes sure that their own people test any office or PC related product before releasing it to the public by making them use it on a daily basis.</P> <P>Its Obvious that game designers and others at SOE play EQ2, because they can, not because its part of their job. Ponder what would happen if they were actually tasked to achieve certain in game goals and then report on a daily basis.</P> <P> </P>

Wasuna

12-30-2005, 02:44 AM

<P>When EQ1 (EQLive) started having it's subscription number decrease they stoped releasing any subscription information. That took a couple of years but it did happen. When the game first came out you could see how many people were logged on to each server very easily.</P> <P>What makes you think SOE would now follow a different pattern? EQ2 subscriptions were going up and they released information. They all the sudden stopped which imples that the subscription base is going down.</P> <DIV>PS: The numbers are relative in a qualtative way and also provide information on what the current numbers are doing based on the history of SOE operation.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Wasuna on <span class=date_text>12-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:45 PM</span>

Pry

12-31-2005, 12:02 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prynn wrote:<BR> <DIV>Don't be silly. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Microsoft relies on product sales. Period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE relies on product sales AND (important, pay attention) monthly subscription fees. Therefore, it is in effect providing a service. And in that case low subscribers to that service can only mean an inferior service in the minds of people. Now I merely asked why that was (I know why). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Most of the time, people will choose an inferior service due to cost, but in this case the costs are the same. So it's something else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Product Sales aren't the bread and butter of SOE, it's merely a means to an end to get more subscriptions. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually that's wrong.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>WoW, for one, relies more on product sales than it does subscriptions. Their entire game is designed that way.</FONT></P> <P>Microsoft, with the recent changes to the office suite for example, are providing more and more services. Like... say... MSN?</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I am not sure where you amalgamated this information!</P> <P>Here's where the Microsoft analogy (and I can't believe the point of this whole conversation is still being missed) falls apart.</P> <P>Services like MSN you do not (I repeat) do not pay for. They are <STRONG>value added</STRONG> services to a COTS product. You have to be able to discern the difference between a value added service and a paid service in order to understand why the Microsoft analogy to SOE is comparing apples to oranges.</P> <DIV>Vivendi Universal (i.e. Blizzard) isn't in the MMOG business to sell copies of World of Warcraft. For two reasons. One because they readily release the number of subscriptions they have and two that they are reluctant to release COTS software expansions (they have never released one for WoW). If they only wanted to sell copies of WoW, they would have made their money on this release and been on to the next thing already. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally, you can attempt to deflect my posts with misinformation to your heart's content. I don't know why it matters, you have the game you wanted, people like me are playing other games (and are perfectly happy to do so). As for me, part of me is upset because I feel duped by SOE. Secondly that I wasted all that time when I could have been playing WoW. Third that EQ2 has the potential to be a great game, but it's like a crappy waste of time, a shell of what it could be. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nevertheless, it won't be long before more stuff happens, more nerfs, more destruction of content and more broken quests. And more people leaving for other games. And at some point you are going to have to admit that LU13 ruined EQ2. Just hope I am still around when you do. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S. Isn't SOE talking about another expansion for EQ2 already? I figure you would want to fix all the millions of things that are broken first.</DIV>

mastersard

12-31-2005, 01:33 AM

Why fix it when you can bury it under <EM>new</EM> bugs and crappy quests and zones.

Gaige

12-31-2005, 03:01 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prynn wrote:<BR> <DIV>P.S. Isn't SOE talking about another expansion for EQ2 already? I figure you would want to fix all the millions of things that are broken first. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yup, since EQ2 is on a six month expansion cycle this shouldn't be news to anyone. Besides if you wait to release an expansion until absolutely everything is fixed you'd have WoW, who plans to release their expansion in what, 2008?</P> <P>At any rate my comment on WoW being based mainly on box sales stemmed from something I read from Brad McQuaid:</P> <P><EM>So we’ve identified motives and goals, looked at them, and come up with some questions I’m purposely not going to try to answer until the end of the paper. Patience is a virtue. We’ve also come up with some basic features, approaches, and areas to focus on that may be more key to this type of game than others. Certainly the premiere game in this category is World of Warcraft by Blizzard (WoW), and while they’ve after some time finally announced an expansion, it’s plainly obvious that Blizzard’s focus is on box sales first, as well as many if not most of the principles above. That said, though I don’t believe truly accurate domestic retention numbers have been released, the game does appear to have more retention than initial naysayer’s (myself included) asserted it would. This is a pleasant surprise, really. Now if they get close to or match EQ’s numbers over 5+ years, many of us, myself included, will have to go back and reconsider some holy cows. But only time will tell, though I think we’ll be seeing some significant churn, and that is NO criticism of the game (although most certainly other MMOG developers should take advantage of that churn). </EM></P> <P><EM>In the meantime, this game, one that takes from both what makes single player games and MMOGs compelling, almost perfectly intertwines them, and on top of that builds on an IP that is very popular world-wide, pre-existing distribution channels (again world wide), and has the Blizzard name behind it, has broken all sales records. It likely also has broken all MMOG revenue records. It’s unclear, and may be for some time, if it’s broken all profit records, as the game is reputed to have cost $75 million just to develop, and another 25$M and growing to market and continue to distribute and make available. Also, successful penetration into countries like China, while definitely something to study and revere, also yield approximately $2.00 a user, not the $15 bucks a month to which most are accustomed. Lastly, on a side note, remember that Asian subscribers are counted as someone who either plays a lot or just went into a cyber café and played only once. They’re counted the same way – as a subscriber. This should be kept in mind when considering numbers, revenue, etc., especially in the Asian market. Note that I don’t say this to downplay WoW’s king of the hill status in anyway – they set out to make a very wide appealing MMOG and most certainly met and exceeded those goals. Bravo Blizzard and congrats (and I look forward to some percentage of your players wanting something more… something Vanguard ).</EM></P> <P><EM>But enough WoW. Now let’s look at another possible motive.</EM></P> <P>From a very long write-up about MMOs in general, here: <A href="http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=2933&fansite_id=118" target=_blank>http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=2933&fansite_id=118</A></P> <P><BR> </P>

Greyto

12-31-2005, 11:42 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prynn wrote:<BR> <DIV>P.S. Isn't SOE talking about another expansion for EQ2 already? I figure you would want to fix all the millions of things that are broken first. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yup, since EQ2 is on a six month expansion cycle this shouldn't be news to anyone. Besides if you wait to release an expansion until absolutely everything is fixed you'd have WoW, who plans to release their expansion in what, 2008?</P> <P>At any rate my comment on WoW being based mainly on box sales stemmed from something I read from Brad McQuaid:</P> <P><EM>So we’ve identified motives and goals, looked at them, and come up with some questions I’m purposely not going to try to answer until the end of the paper. Patience is a virtue. We’ve also come up with some basic features, approaches, and areas to focus on that may be more key to this type of game than others. Certainly the premiere game in this category is World of Warcraft by Blizzard (WoW), and while they’ve after some time finally announced an expansion, it’s plainly obvious that Blizzard’s focus is on box sales first, as well as many if not most of the principles above. That said, though I don’t believe truly accurate domestic retention numbers have been released, the game does appear to have more retention than initial naysayer’s (myself included) asserted it would. This is a pleasant surprise, really. Now if they get close to or match EQ’s numbers over 5+ years, many of us, myself included, will have to go back and reconsider some holy cows. But only time will tell, though I think we’ll be seeing some significant churn, and that is NO criticism of the game (although most certainly other MMOG developers should take advantage of that churn). </EM></P> <P><EM>In the meantime, this game, one that takes from both what makes single player games and MMOGs compelling, almost perfectly intertwines them, and on top of that builds on an IP that is very popular world-wide, pre-existing distribution channels (again world wide), and has the Blizzard name behind it, has broken all sales records. It likely also has broken all MMOG revenue records. It’s unclear, and may be for some time, if it’s broken all profit records, as the game is reputed to have cost $75 million just to develop, and another 25$M and growing to market and continue to distribute and make available. Also, successful penetration into countries like China, while definitely something to study and revere, also yield approximately $2.00 a user, not the $15 bucks a month to which most are accustomed. Lastly, on a side note, remember that Asian subscribers are counted as someone who either plays a lot or just went into a cyber café and played only once. They’re counted the same way – as a subscriber. This should be kept in mind when considering numbers, revenue, etc., especially in the Asian market. Note that I don’t say this to downplay WoW’s king of the hill status in anyway – they set out to make a very wide appealing MMOG and most certainly met and exceeded those goals. Bravo Blizzard and congrats (and I look forward to some percentage of your players wanting something more… something Vanguard ).</EM></P> <P><EM>But enough WoW. Now let’s look at another possible motive.</EM></P> <P>From a very long write-up about MMOs in general, here: <A href="http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=2933&fansite_id=118" target=_blank>http://www.gamergod.com/article.php?article_id=2933&fansite_id=118</A></P> <P><BR> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Brad Wrote:</P> <P><EM>Certainly the premiere game in this category is World of Warcraft by Blizzard (WoW), and while they’ve after some time finally announced an expansion, it’s plainly obvious that Blizzard’s focus is on box sales firs</EM></P> <P><EM></EM></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>Interesting Giage, When someone posts that it is obvious to them that EQ2 subscriptions have declined. You call it an opinion.</P> <P>When Brad posts that something is obvious to him. You call it proof of your argument.</P> <P>Does Brad McQuaid work for Blizzard?</P> <P>BTW I do remember a post by you mocking people who quoted Brad McQuaid. I think I may look for it when I am bored at work on Tuesday just so everyone else can share in the irony of this post.<BR></P>

Gaige

01-01-2006, 02:11 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Greytoon wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Interesting Giage, When someone posts that it is obvious to them that EQ2 subscriptions have declined. You call it an opinion.</P> <P>When Brad posts that something is obvious to him. You call it proof of your argument.</P> <P>Does Brad McQuaid work for Blizzard?</P> <P>BTW I do remember a post by you mocking people who quoted Brad McQuaid. I think I may look for it when I am bored at work on Tuesday just so everyone else can share in the irony of this post.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, he asked me where I got my opinion from and I showed him. I never said it was factual, I simply stated my reference. Brad McQuaid is well versed in MMOs, even if as he says at the bottom of the article:</P> <P><EM>The rest of all of this? Just my opinion – take it or leave it. Am I an expert? Sure, in a relatively new gamespace whose collective knowledge doesn’t amount to squat So take everything with a grain of salt, tell me where I’m full of it, but let me know what you think in general too.</EM></P> <P>So in all honesty you aren't going to have any "proof" or "fact" to quote when talking about this subject anyway.</P> <P>No, Brad McQuaid works for Sigil. He was previously with SOE, then Varant and then SOE again.</P> <P>I wasn't mocking anyone, we were talking about the archetype system in Vanguard and I actually quoted Brad myself. I simply said people were misunderstanding what Brad was saying.</P> <P>Now, I have posted quite a few times that I don't like the majority of Brad's opinions. I feel he is very stubborn and rather narrow minded.</P>

Grumpy_Warrior_01

01-01-2006, 01:10 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Greytoon wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Interesting Giage, When someone posts that it is obvious to them that EQ2 subscriptions have declined. You call it an opinion.</P> <P>When Brad posts that something is obvious to him. You call it proof of your argument.</P> <P>Does Brad McQuaid work for Blizzard?</P> <P>BTW I do remember a post by you mocking people who quoted Brad McQuaid. I think I may look for it when I am bored at work on Tuesday just so everyone else can share in the irony of this post.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, he asked me where I got my opinion from and I showed him. I never said it was factual, I simply stated my reference. Brad McQuaid is well versed in MMOs, even if as he says at the bottom of the article:</P> <P><EM>The rest of all of this? Just my opinion – take it or leave it. Am I an expert? Sure, in a relatively new gamespace whose collective knowledge doesn’t amount to squat So take everything with a grain of salt, tell me where I’m full of it, but let me know what you think in general too.</EM></P> <P>So in all honesty you aren't going to have any "proof" or "fact" to quote when talking about this subject anyway.</P> <P>No, Brad McQuaid works for Sigil. <FONT color=#ff6600>He was previously with SOE, then Varant and then SOE again.</FONT></P> <P>I wasn't mocking anyone, we were talking about the archetype system in Vanguard and I actually quoted Brad myself. I simply said people were misunderstanding what Brad was saying.</P> <P>Now, I have posted quite a few times that I don't like the majority of Brad's opinions. I feel he is very stubborn and rather narrow minded.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually he initially worked for Sony Interactive Studios America, which would later be known as 989 Studios. (For those of us who were actually playing these games way back when, remember we used to pay $9.89 per month <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> SOE was not formed until a couple of years after SISA was started. And it's spelled Verant, by the way, not Varant. 989 Studios spawned Redeye Interactive, which became Verant Interactive within just a few weeks.</P> <P><BR> </P>