PDA

View Full Version : Has EQ2 turned into 'online barbie'?


TwistedFaith
10-26-2011, 08:46 PM
<p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds. </p><p>What happened to gaming? </p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

tigressb
10-26-2011, 08:49 PM
<p>Sexist much?  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p>

Finora
10-26-2011, 09:08 PM
<p>If you are looking for true substance in the game the marketplace & holiday events are not the places to look for them. Those places are pretty much pure fluff for those that enjoy that kind of thing. Holiday events have never been the place to find a lot. Some of them have lore & lead-ins to upcoming content but they are there for fluff & fun.</p><p>There is plenty still out there for the times when fluff isn't what you need or want.</p>

Raknid
10-26-2011, 09:28 PM
<p>While I wouldn't necessarily be as strident in tone, I do have to agree that it is disappointing to see so many resources plowed into things that really aren't at the core of a game, as opposed to an RPG version of the SIMS.</p>

The_Cheeseman
10-26-2011, 10:50 PM
<p>There are many different gamer psychographics, and each one is drawn to different aspects of an MMO. Just because you don't enjoy a particular facet of the game it doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to others. The game is not all about you. There is plenty of adventuring content in the game, and more is being added every GU. Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p>

WeatherMan
10-26-2011, 11:16 PM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There are many different gamer psychographics, and each one is drawn to different aspects of an MMO. Just because you don't enjoy a particular facet of the game it doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to others. The game is not all about you. There is plenty of adventuring content in the game, and more is being added every GU. Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p></blockquote><p>+1</p><p>I have exactly <em>zero</em> ability at home decoration, even though my wife is a wizard at it.  To me, home decoration is a pain in the tush and a waste of time.  More often than not, my character's houses are dumping grounds for trophies, books, and so forth, all haphazardly tossed inside after aquiring them.  I have exactly <em>one</em> character that has an awesome interior decorating job, and it goes without saying that it was my wife that did it, simply because the spirit moved her.  Interior decoration interests me less than not at all.</p><p>But there are hundreds of people who absolutely <em>love</em> it.  And the devs know this.  And the game needs to appeal to as broad a base as it can, and interior decorating is one facet of this.  I have zero business complaining about items for home decoration, and similarly, no one should waste time complaining about clothes that they have introduced.  Heck, I'd love for them to cater to my tastes exclusively, who wouldn't?  But that's not in the cards, ever.</p>

Cratoh
10-27-2011, 01:26 AM
<p>To the OP - sadly yes.</p><p>Constant house/appearance updates, and constant repatches to 'fix' broken core game.</p>

Eugam
10-27-2011, 02:18 AM
<p>Housing is not the problem and doesnt conflict with adventuring. I do some instances only for appearance or housing items tbh. My house and the trophys are sometimes the only things keeping me playing.</p><p>The instances are the problem. They are not dungeons anymore. The group content is utterly broken since TSO. The "micro console raid" design prevents solo to trio groups to play them. Even the most easy ones like Erudin Library have silly debuffs or dps checks and so nobody is playing them at all. Over 20 80-90 instances of wasted server space. There are more people in Fallen Gate then in all dungeons from TSO to SF.</p><p>2nd problem is the huge inflation of ingame currency. Its so bad that even basic adorning is to expensive. Money, in or out of game, has become a playing element. </p><p>Its not all fluff. To put it a bit into sarcasm, the game is like a sports league with (raid) players and bored player wifes <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> and follows the same rules, having the same problems the leagues have. And as in real life, where people stop caring and turning to basic sports it happens to mmo's too. Hence the exodus and top headed stagnation.</p>

Ruut Li
10-27-2011, 03:16 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There are many different gamer psychographics, and each one is drawn to different aspects of an MMO. Just because you don't enjoy a particular facet of the game it doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to others. The game is not all about you. There is plenty of adventuring content in the game, and more is being added every GU. Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is its so much easier for the devs to make money from fluff and the decorating customers: of course they are focusing on that then. The classic adventurer customer gets broken content and bugs that are never fixed. For the adventurers times were much better before the big decorating/fluff hype. Its said that decorating/fluff dont take resources from the adventuring part of the game (which to me is the real game)...really? How come the only fully functioning quality stuff that goes live is content for decorators and online barbie players? How come they dont manage to deliver quality content to adventurers anymore? Of course its about allocating focus on different areas. One area does steal from the other, the proof is right in front of us.</p>

Golbezz
10-27-2011, 04:01 AM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds. </p><p>What happened to gaming? </p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>I would have to agree with most of these comments.</p><p>Maybe the adventure content suffers as a result of too much time and money spent in other areas. Strange that the original EQ never had these sorts of problems until EQ2 and other competing games caused a large population decrease. There is simply too much focus on things that are not core to the adventure side of the game that are stealing resources.</p><p>Raiding seems ok for the majority of content, but there are still quite a few encounters that need some mechanics work. Group content seems to have serious problems from the number of complaints in other threads or maybe it's a case of the roleplayers and decorators trying to run zones knowing nothing about proper group setups, cast orders and AA builds.</p><p>Think of how much better the adventure side of the game could be if devs weren't busy with all the non-adventure side content. SOE might actually be adding servers rather than needing to merge them and things like the dungeon finder wouldn't even be needed.</p>

Golbezz
10-27-2011, 04:20 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There are many different gamer psychographics, and each one is drawn to different aspects of an MMO. Just because you don't enjoy a particular facet of the game it doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to others. The game is not all about you. There is plenty of adventuring content in the game, and more is being added every GU. Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p></blockquote><p>I think the proof that not enough resources are going towards the adventure side is shown in the volume of posts complaining about the adventure content being broken, too hard or simply not fun in some way or another.</p><p>The problem isn't quantity of content so much as it is the quality of content. If the devs actually allocated more resources to developing and testing adventuring content rather than appearance items people might actually enjoy playing the adventuring side more without needing to post about all the complaints about the poor quality of the content.</p><p>It's very obvious there are resource allocation problems when serious bugs exist and remain unresolved yet shiny new items keep popping up in the marketplace. Sure they might be different devs but the question needs to be asked why devs were even hired for those positions when there are clearly not enough devs in adventure content. The marketplace might not even be needed if the effort was put into keeping the core adventure side players interested in the game.</p><p>Maybe real expansions could actually be released if the dev allocation was corrected to be more adventure content focused.</p>

Cloudrat
10-27-2011, 04:47 AM
<p>That gane is still here and then some!  I remember adventuring with friends questing and crafting and helping each other.  I also decorated my house with the things my carpenter could make so that it looked nice when people came to shop there. I don't know where you live irl but after a hard day's work it's nice to rest and have some social time in a comfortable atmosphere.  This is  a ciomplete world, the best of it's kind and while there issues that might slow it's growth, being able to beter customize our toons and our environment does not deter from it, but enhances it.</p>

Golbezz
10-27-2011, 05:26 AM
<p><cite>Cloudrat wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That gane is still here and then some!  I remember adventuring with friends questing and crafting and helping each other.  I also decorated my house with the things my carpenter could make so that it looked nice when people came to shop there. I don't know where you live irl but after a hard day's work it's nice to rest and have some social time in a comfortable atmosphere.  This is  a ciomplete world, the best of it's kind and while there issues that might slow it's growth, being able to beter customize our toons and our environment does not deter from it, but enhances it.</p></blockquote><p>Not surprising to see these comments considering which gameplay style you seem to fit into. Something tells me you would be perfectly happy in a game without the adventuring side.</p><p>For the rest of us unhappy with the game's direction it is very clear that resource allocation is all screwed up. Rather than making the adventure side so good that it attracts new players SOE seems to be clueless why adventurers (those who actually PLAY the adventure content) are unhappy with the direction the game has been going and try adding in fixes like dungeon finder to fix a problem that is really content and mechanics related. In short players would group if the content was actually fun which for the most part it is not either due to broken content or other mechanics issues.</p><p>So be happy with your online barbie game but keep in mind as the adventurers leave for other games and funding dries up eventually even the online barbie SC game will become unprofitable when enough players leave due to management's decision to not allocate enough resources to the core of the game which is the adventure side.</p><p>SOE management is really trying to hold onto adventurers with the beastlord class but even that tactic will have little power in keeping players happy with the game when the problems remain with the adventuring core of the game. It's too bad not enough resources are there to fix the core of the game so it could actually attract new players but it is even worse when these resources are wasted in areas that do not help the core part of the game which is adventuring in solo/group/raid forms.</p>

clairebear
10-27-2011, 05:57 AM
<p>I for one am a gamer who enjoys both sides. I raid regularly with my guild, but I also enjoy house decorating. There is nothing wrong with catering to both and to be honest it does not significantly affect the adventure side, only adds another aspect for people to enjoy the game with. You may not appreciate but they are many who do - changing codes in the editor to reposition things in a way that cannot be done naturally, the inspiration and thought that goes into certain houses, and once you are finished having others come and rate your work highly - the achievement is similar to taking down a new HM mob to me!</p><p>In no way do I believe that the adventuring problems are due to the devs spending more time on the housing and appearance side. Developing new outfits based on current models would not take that much time and would not have any major bug problems. The adventuring bugs they have would unfortunately be there whether or not there was the other facet to the game. That seems more to do with the way in which they handle testing feedback than anything.</p>

darwich
10-27-2011, 07:48 AM
I love the appearence , and definately the housing system... this is the best game out there in my opinion because of things like this... and no im not a sit at home mom, sexist much?

Edith
10-27-2011, 08:38 AM
<p><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva; font-size: x-small;">Adventuring and "dress-up Barbie" are <em>NOT</em> mutually exclusive.  I spend the lion's share of my in-game time raiding, however, I enjoy selecting my outfits for each week's raids.  I generally stick with items that can be acquired through adventuring or crafting, but I like my complete collection of SC petamorph wands.  I, for one, shudder when I consider the days before appearance armour.  I distinctly remember my defiler looking like he had dressed out of a church jumble sale--the best pants he could get at the time were a purple and green pantaloon affair.  He looked like he was auditioning for a kerra circus.  Furthermore, I can't think of one person in my guild's raid force that does not pay at least a little attention to how they look.  </span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva; font-size: x-small;">So yes, bugs should be fixed and game mechanics should be adjusted as needed, though I'd wager--opinions being like a$$holes-- that you might have an argument about just what things are actually broken and how they should be repaired.  At any rate, it does no good to come insult people with interests different than your own.  There is a wide range of people that play this game, some only adventure, some only decorate and play dress-up, but quite a few do all three.</span></p>

Felynx
10-27-2011, 09:35 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p></blockquote><p>Most of the complaints on these forums are hyperbole. </p>

thesiren
10-27-2011, 09:45 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There are many different gamer psychographics, and each one is drawn to different aspects of an MMO. Just because you don't enjoy a particular facet of the game it doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to others. The game is not all about you. There is plenty of adventuring content in the game, and more is being added every GU. Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p></blockquote><p>Agreed.</p><p>For years, my homes largely consisted of the original 1-room apartments, completely devoid of furnishings apart from a then-required bulletin board so that I could sell my crud.  I thought I was going places when SOE converted them into 2-room apartments one day.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Even my Mistmoore Crags has sat virtually empty for a year now.  And still I think the OP is being backward and chauvenistic to say the least in both his post title and his actual post.   And besides that, no one died and made him god of all gamers who can decide what everyone should like or do.</p><p>And he's going out of his way to complain about facets he doesn't like instead of finding ones he does, and drawing some imaginary line in the sand about what is acceptable and what is not in the world of digital pixels we are all playing with.</p><p>OP:  Egomaniacal much?</p>

Trynt
10-27-2011, 09:52 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There are many different gamer psychographics, and each one is drawn to different aspects of an MMO. Just because you don't enjoy a particular facet of the game it doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to others. The game is not all about you. There is plenty of adventuring content in the game, and more is being added every GU. Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p></blockquote><p>This might have been an accurate post if we hadn't all witnessed an overwhelmingly offensive number of broken patches, broken fixes to patches, and completely ignored testing/bug/feedback relationships over the course of the expansion.  Through that prism, the OP is only partial hyperbole.</p>

Valonia
10-27-2011, 11:03 AM
<p>Without the ton of apperance stuff (and my 1pt AA illusion on my Tigress .. uhm warden! <3) I would have bid this game farewell years ago. While being okish, the endgame in the group and solo department is rather lackluster and basically the same as in other games. But what makes EQ2 still shine for me is the ton of fluff and fun stuff around that can keep me entertained while I'm not collecting gear. And this is where other games (even the evil snowstorm's one)  fail for me.</p>

TwistedFaith
10-27-2011, 11:23 AM
<p>I don't think my post was sexist whatsoever, it's the truth. It may not be 'PC' but it's certaintly the truth. This game has completely lost focus, it used to be about adventuring and questing on a large epic scale. Over the course of the last year it has become more and more like Sim Barbie than anything else.</p><p>SOE seem to have latched on to the whole housing theme and are just throwing resources at it whilst abandoning the adventuring side of the game. Let's release another house via station cash that will sell, don't worry about fixing broken gameplay issue the money is with the stay at home moms who like to play in their virtual barbie houses and decorate them.</p><p>What's next for EQ2, the in game ability to have a virtual tea party for you and all your friends at my new house?</p>

Tylia
10-27-2011, 11:46 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Adventuring and "dress-up Barbie" are <em>NOT</em> mutually exclusive.  I spend the lion's share of my in-game time raiding, however, I enjoy selecting my outfits for each week's raids.  I generally stick with items that can be acquired through adventuring or crafting, but I like my complete collection of SC petamorph wands.  I, for one, shudder when I consider the days before appearance armour.  I distinctly remember my defiler looking like he had dressed out of a church jumble sale--the best pants he could get at the time were a purple and green pantaloon affair.  He looked like he was auditioning for a kerra circus.  Furthermore, I can't think of one person in my guild's raid force that does not pay at least a little attention to how they look.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">So yes, bugs should be fixed and game mechanics should be adjusted as needed, though I'd wager--opinions being like a$$holes-- that you might have an argument about just what things are actually broken and how they should be repaired.  At any rate, it does no good to come insult people with interests different than your own.  There is a wide range of people that play this game, some only adventure, some only decorate and play dress-up, but quite a few do all three.</span></p></blockquote><p>I agree with this.  I also spend a big share of my game time raiding.  My main is fully raid geared and two of my alts are close to that.  I have three 90/300 characters,  4 level 90 crafters and a 5th crafter that is over half way there.  I also have numerous homes and thoroughly enjoy decorating them.  I enjoy all of the holiday and special events as well as questing, grouping, and raiding.  I also have several bank boxes full of "outfits" on each character and enjoy "dressing up" when the mood hits me.</p><p>To me, this game has so much to offer, no matter what your playstyle.  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

screenid
10-27-2011, 11:56 AM
<p>I enjoy all aspects of this game , and am glad they try to enhance all of it. </p><p>Your post</p><p>= same as a casual player crying about SOE only catering to raiders and end game content</p><p>= same as raiders crying about SOE only catering to the casual adventurer</p><p>= same as crafters crying about SOE only caring about the advernture side of the game</p><p>I guess when your focus is on  one aspect of the game ....everything else seems pointless...</p>

Rijacki
10-27-2011, 11:58 AM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think my post was sexist whatsoever, it's the truth. It may not be 'PC' but it's certaintly the truth. This game has completely lost focus, it used to be about adventuring and questing on a large epic scale. Over the course of the last year it has become more and more like Sim Barbie than anything else.</p><p>SOE seem to have latched on to the whole housing theme and are just throwing resources at it whilst abandoning the adventuring side of the game. Let's release another house via station cash that will sell, don't worry about fixing broken gameplay issue <span style="color: #ff0000;">the money is with the stay at home moms who like to play in their virtual barbie houses and decorate them.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What's next for EQ2, the in game ability to have a virtual tea party for you and all your friends at my new house?</span></p></blockquote><p>And you don't think you're being sexist at all? Gads. Are you back in the 50s?</p><p>I am a woman who works full-time at a job which is not secretarial and for which I actually make a decent salary. I raid as one of my primary activities in game (and we're 9th or 10th in progression on the most populous server). I also solo and do heroic adventuring with various alts of different levels. I even like changing outfits on one of my characters 'cause it suits her personality (yes, I roleplay). I craft (a few 90s there, too) and I even do a bit of house decorating (though I run out of time too much to do a lot). I also socialise with friends online (though I am not too fond of the "virtual tea parties" 'cause I like being more active in-game than that). I know players of both genders who likewise play through the variety of content including the "fluff" aspects (my boyfriend spends A LOT more time at the "virtual tea parties" than I do.. he spends more time at them then I spend raiding each week, but he likes that aspect of game play more than I do).</p><p>It is your characterising of everything YOU don't like as being only suitable for "stay at home moms" that's sexist and denigrating. Not only are you insulting the content not being what you want, you're dismissing female players as something you infer is worthless and implying any player who does enjoy that content as likewise worthless.</p><p>So, yes, you are being sexist.</p>

rowanC7276
10-27-2011, 12:11 PM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think my post was sexist whatsoever, it's the truth. It may not be 'PC' but it's certaintly the truth. This game has completely lost focus, it used to be about adventuring and questing on a large epic scale. Over the course of the last year it has become more and more like Sim Barbie than anything else.</p><p>SOE seem to have latched on to the whole housing theme and are just throwing resources at it whilst abandoning the adventuring side of the game. Let's release another house via station cash that will sell, don't worry about fixing broken gameplay issue <span style="color: #ff0000;">the money is with the stay at home moms who like to play in their virtual barbie houses and decorate them.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What's next for EQ2, the in game ability to have a virtual tea party for you and all your friends at my new house?</span></p></blockquote><p>And you don't think you're being sexist at all? Gads. Are you back in the 50s?</p><p>I am a woman who works full-time at a job which is not secretarial and for which I actually make a decent salary. I raid as one of my primary activities in game (and we're 9th or 10th in progression on the most populous server). I also solo and do heroic adventuring with various alts of different levels. I even like changing outfits on one of my characters 'cause it suits her personality (yes, I roleplay). I craft (a few 90s there, too) and I even do a bit of house decorating (though I run out of time too much to do a lot). I also socialise with friends online (though I am not too fond of the "virtual tea parties" 'cause I like being more active in-game than that). I know players of both genders who likewise play through the variety of content including the "fluff" aspects (my boyfriend spends A LOT more time at the "virtual tea parties" than I do.. he spends more time at them then I spend raiding each week, but he likes that aspect of game play more than I do).</p><p>It is your characterising of everything YOU don't like as being only suitable for "stay at home moms" that's sexist and denigrating. Not only are you insulting the content not being what you want, you're dismissing female players as something you infer is worthless and implying any player who does enjoy that content as likewise worthless.</p><p>So, yes, you are being sexist.</p></blockquote><p><p><span style="font-family: "><p><span style="font-family: "><span style="color: #ffffff;">I agree 100%!!!! As a fellow female player I take great offense to your statements as I am sure a lot of other female players do. Maybe once a long time ago men may have dominated the mmo gaming world, but that has changed. A lot of players in most of the top mmo's are now female. To make a comment that claiming the game is being ruined by "stay at home moms" shows just how out of touch you are. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "><span style="color: #ffffff;">I enjoy raiding, soloing, crafting, and yes I also enjoy decorating. Heck I even enjoy taking a day and doing nothing but harvesting. Are there areas of the game I think need work, yes. But to blame someone else's play style for what you feel is lacking in the game is very childish.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "><span style="color: #ffffff;">And to say one facet of the game takes away from others also makes little since to me. I highly doubt that every department working on the eq2 game spends all their time coming up with new "fluff" stuff. They have departments which work on different areas of the game like most business do. If one department is handling the decorating aspect of the game and another team is dealing with raiding/adventurer content then it makes no sense to blame the decorating, etc  for the what you see as broken with the game.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;"> </span></p><span style="color: #000000;"> </span></span></p></p>

rowanC7276
10-27-2011, 12:28 PM
<p><cite>Malleria wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BMonkeeus wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Uhh, what?  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> Reading comprehension for $100 Alex.</p></blockquote><p>Uhh, what? Indeed.</p><p>What, if not the barbie or female player references, do you find sexist about the OP?</p></blockquote><p>But that is just it. The OP didn't say 'hello kitty' and 'out of work bums'. He was very specific in his wording and you know the old saying --- "Say what you mean and mean what you say..."</p>

TwistedFaith
10-27-2011, 12:29 PM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think my post was sexist whatsoever, it's the truth. It may not be 'PC' but it's certaintly the truth. This game has completely lost focus, it used to be about adventuring and questing on a large epic scale. Over the course of the last year it has become more and more like Sim Barbie than anything else.</p><p>SOE seem to have latched on to the whole housing theme and are just throwing resources at it whilst abandoning the adventuring side of the game. Let's release another house via station cash that will sell, don't worry about fixing broken gameplay issue <span style="color: #ff0000;">the money is with the stay at home moms who like to play in their virtual barbie houses and decorate them.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What's next for EQ2, the in game ability to have a virtual tea party for you and all your friends at my new house?</span></p></blockquote><p>And you don't think you're being sexist at all? Gads. Are you back in the 50s?</p><p>I am a woman who works full-time at a job which is not secretarial and for which I actually make a decent salary. I raid as one of my primary activities in game (and we're 9th or 10th in progression on the most populous server). I also solo and do heroic adventuring with various alts of different levels. I even like changing outfits on one of my characters 'cause it suits her personality (yes, I roleplay). I craft (a few 90s there, too) and I even do a bit of house decorating (though I run out of time too much to do a lot). I also socialise with friends online (though I am not too fond of the "virtual tea parties" 'cause I like being more active in-game than that). I know players of both genders who likewise play through the variety of content including the "fluff" aspects (my boyfriend spends A LOT more time at the "virtual tea parties" than I do.. he spends more time at them then I spend raiding each week, but he likes that aspect of game play more than I do).</p><p>It is your characterising of everything YOU don't like as being only suitable for "stay at home moms" that's sexist and denigrating. Not only are you insulting the content not being what you want, you're dismissing female players as something you infer is worthless and implying any player who does enjoy that content as likewise worthless.</p><p>So, yes, you are being sexist.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah yeah you're a strong independant women *yawn* heard it all before.</p><p>Point being that the vast majority of people I know who are all into the decorating side of the game are stay at home moms. Sorry if that hurts your feelings but it's true.</p><p>Either way the emphasis on this game has shifted dramtically over the last 18 months, more and more time is being spent on fluff content rather than what used to be the core gaming elements of EQ2. </p>

Malleria
10-27-2011, 12:31 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Malleria wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BMonkeeus wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Uhh, what?  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> Reading comprehension for $100 Alex.</p></blockquote><p>Uhh, what? Indeed.</p><p>What, if not the barbie or female player references, do you find sexist about the OP?</p></blockquote><p>But that is just it. The OP didn't say 'hello kitty' and 'out of work bums'. He was very specific in his wording and you know the old saying --- "Say what you mean and mean what you say..."</p></blockquote><p>That would be true if the intention of the OP was to attack women. But it isn't. It's a complaint about adventure content not receiving the attention housing/appearance content does. So the fact they mentioned women, while maybe being a poor choice, isn't sexist unless you misinterpret the intent of the poster.</p><p>Choosing to focus on the poor wording and not on the actual issue is your problem, not theirs.</p>

Laenai
10-27-2011, 12:31 PM
<p>I think several folks who are talking about the enjoyment of multi-faceted games are missing the actual point of the OP.</p><p>Yes, there's lots of fun stuff to do in EQ2 including raiding, soloing, grouping, house decorating, crafting, role-play...whatever. No, they are not mutually exclusive of each other, but entirely symbiotic. I myself do all of those things.</p><p>HOWEVER</p><p>If you want to see where the red names post, check the housing and "fluff" item forums.</p><p>If you want to see answers to bugs/glitches/problems with the game, you'll see them only in those places.</p><p>Ongoing bugs with classes and adventure content go without simple acknowledgement for months, yet the "fluff" side is acknowledged within hours and fixed within the next hotfix or two.</p><p>Ask me how long my shaman pet has been broken, how many ongoing threads on the forums are started each day with the same pet issues, and if a red name has even said "Oh, snap. We need to look at that." Or how long AA mirrors are forgetting specs and whether or not there's a fix in the works. How long did challenge mode raid encounter double up on casting AEs before those were fixed?</p><p>And while devs might be working on these things? The public face shows something very different. The public face- the posting of devs- has to do with "fluff." Not with mechanics, not with content, and not with the "adventuring" side. But with house decorating, furniture, and appearance items.</p>

SOE-MOD-02
10-27-2011, 12:31 PM
<p>Stay on topic please.  Everyone has their own reasons for playing this game, wether is it questing, decoating, raiding, roleplaying, crafting or soloing....  they are all valid reasons to play this game.  </p>

Trynt
10-27-2011, 12:38 PM
<p><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think several folks who are talking about the enjoyment of multi-faceted games are missing the actual point of the OP.</p><p>Yes, there's lots of fun stuff to do in EQ2 including raiding, soloing, grouping, house decorating, crafting, role-play...whatever. No, they are not mutually exclusive of each other, but entirely symbiotic. I myself do all of those things.</p><p>HOWEVER</p><p>If you want to see where the red names post, check the housing and "fluff" item forums.</p><p>If you want to see answers to bugs/glitches/problems with the game, you'll see them only in those places.</p><p>Ongoing bugs with classes and adventure content go without simple acknowledgement for months, yet the "fluff" side is acknowledged within hours and fixed within the next hotfix or two.</p><p>Ask me how long my shaman pet has been broken, how many ongoing threads on the forums are started each day with the same pet issues, and if a red name has even said "Oh, snap. We need to look at that." Or how long AA mirrors are forgetting specs and whether or not there's a fix in the works. How long did challenge mode raid encounter double up on casting AEs before those were fixed?</p><p>And while devs might be working on these things? The public face shows something very different. The public face- the posting of devs- has to do with "fluff." Not with mechanics, not with content, and not with the "adventuring" side. But with house decorating, furniture, and appearance items.</p></blockquote><p>This.</p>

Velenda
10-27-2011, 12:41 PM
<p>I guess we need a 'manly man' update, for manly men only.</p><p>Actually, that would be a pretty epic name for a content expansion.</p>

Raknid
10-27-2011, 12:41 PM
<p><cite>Trynt wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Karimonster wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think several folks who are talking about the enjoyment of multi-faceted games are missing the actual point of the OP.</p><p>Yes, there's lots of fun stuff to do in EQ2 including raiding, soloing, grouping, house decorating, crafting, role-play...whatever. No, they are not mutually exclusive of each other, but entirely symbiotic. I myself do all of those things.</p><p>HOWEVER</p><p>If you want to see where the red names post, check the housing and "fluff" item forums.</p><p>If you want to see answers to bugs/glitches/problems with the game, you'll see them only in those places.</p><p>Ongoing bugs with classes and adventure content go without simple acknowledgement for months, yet the "fluff" side is acknowledged within hours and fixed within the next hotfix or two.</p><p>Ask me how long my shaman pet has been broken, how many ongoing threads on the forums are started each day with the same pet issues, and if a red name has even said "Oh, snap. We need to look at that." Or how long AA mirrors are forgetting specs and whether or not there's a fix in the works. How long did challenge mode raid encounter double up on casting AEs before those were fixed?</p><p>And while devs might be working on these things? The public face shows something very different. The public face- the posting of devs- has to do with "fluff." Not with mechanics, not with content, and not with the "adventuring" side. But with house decorating, furniture, and appearance items.</p></blockquote><p>This.</p></blockquote><p>Not to mention that in the thread about the new pathing when someone asked if pet pathing was going to be fixed that the dev thought they meant HOUSE pets...lol</p>

Gwyrdd
10-27-2011, 12:56 PM
<p>Without getting into the offensive tone, gender bias, and word choice issues:</p><p>The "fluff stuff" such as houses, house items, plushies is almost all art. Mesh. Texture. Jointing. Scaling. I gather that appearance things like mounts and clothing/armor are more complex because of different models and animation issues, but it's still quintessentially art.</p><p>I doubt that many in the art department are engaged with itemization, encounter design, class skills and the other parts of the adventure content, the flaws in which seem the core of the OP's lament.</p><p>Why are resources being devoted to an art department, instead of adding to the staff who work on the complex gameplay mechanics? Perhaps because it makes little sense to lay off an entire department, hire temps who are supposed to work with the maths behind adventure content proficiently, then let the temps go to hire graphic artist temps expected to produce high quality visuals when new zone art etc. are required. EQ2 is, after all, a graphical MMO. There are still some very nice text based games out there, with no art departments at all. Perhaps these would be preferable for those who object to resources directed at graphical elements. Of course, those games rely heavily on writing. (Are the writers on staff as objectionable as the graphic artists, I wonder?) There are fewer choices for pure ASCII hack-n-slash.</p><p>Since he is not interested in, even offended by, the new material, I am unsure whether the OP is aware that we receive limited new content in the housing department. The new prestige homes (which must be purchased with real dollars) generally consist of existing zone components repurposed for an enclosed housing use. I don't know if the one raid acquired prestige home is unique or not.</p><p>Many of the house items released for purchase with real dollars are also conversions of other assets that first appear in the adventuring arena. In this category, there is a bit more novelty - and the artists producing the unique new things do a good job. Then there are mounts and appearance wear. Considering that choices for level 90 adventuring gear are all blue on blue as far as I've seen, and adventure/tradeskill flying mounts consist of five gryphon breeds, it is unsurprising that many players crave variety, and there is more and more of that being produced. It is profoundly unfortunate that this variety, in large part, is only available for cash, not through playing the game in one way or another. It seems obvious, however, that revenue from this business model justifies resources given to it, from a profit/loss point of view, and those who prioritize this point of view often consider us gamers just another market. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Gorpier
10-27-2011, 01:29 PM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds.</p><p>What happened to gaming?</p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>OP, Believe it or not this post is not intended as a flame of any sort.  Its a question of which I am curious the answer.  Could you be specific?  The reason, in my opinion, that posts like yours are often ignored or flamed is because the posters tend to say what is wrong, but don't offer suggestions as to what needs to happen to make them right again.  What would you suggest?  Maybe your ideas would be met by devs who are happy to assist?</p>

Barathos
10-27-2011, 01:41 PM
<p><cite>Gorpier wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds.</p><p>What happened to gaming?</p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>OP, Believe it or not this post is not intended as a flame of any sort.  Its a question of which I am curious the answer.  Could you be specific?  The reason, in my opinion, that posts like yours are often ignored or flamed is because the posters tend to say what is wrong, but don't offer suggestions as to what needs to happen to make them right again.  What would you suggest?  Maybe your ideas would be met by devs who are happy to assist?</p></blockquote><p>Must've missed the part where everybody was flaming him...I think he wants more raid / group content then fluff stuff, is what i'm getting... Like how WoW issues new tiers of raid every 2-4 months...</p>

Rijacki
10-27-2011, 01:47 PM
<p><cite>[email protected]_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The "fluff stuff" such as houses, house items, plushies is almost all art. Mesh. Texture. Jointing. Scaling. I gather that appearance things like mounts and clothing/armor are more complex because of different models and animation issues, but it's still quintessentially art.</p><p>I doubt that many in the art department are engaged with itemization, encounter design, class skills and the other parts of the adventure content, the flaws in which seem the core of the OP's lament.</p><p>Why are resources being devoted to an art department, instead of adding to the staff who work on the complex gameplay mechanics?</p></blockquote><p>If the OP's protest is about the number of 'red name' POSTS one facet of game play gets vs another..</p><p>So there is an artist who likes interacting with players. The work he does is very visual and very creative. Often he (or others of his team) need to actually converse with players to 'see' through the players' eyes when the issue with mesh, texture, jointing, scaling, tearing, etc isn't readily apparent with their own set up. Those artists don't put stats on -anything-, they don't link art assets to dropped or sold items (and sometimes are baffled and annoyed when assets they spent long hours on aren't linked into in-game stuff at all).</p><p>One of the more prolific posters in the programming side of the game had been out for the birth of twins (and his wife, the official CM for EQ2, is still out on maternity leave with those twins). But he isn't a one man show. He's just the more verbose and interactive with the players.</p><p>Of the developers, one of the more prolific posters had a job change a few months ago with a massive workload increase. She used to post more frequently in the 'fluff' areas but now they've gone incredibly quiet as her job has taken her away from a focus on those. Yes, someone who used to do 'fluff' and communicate with the players about that 'fluff' is no longer involved in it directly. She was moved into working more with non-fluff. AND there hasn't been anyone hired to replace her position there. There is no longer a 'dedicated' crafting and housing designer (and, aside from re-used art assets being sold for SC, there hasn't been anything added or fixed or improved in those areas either).</p><p>As for other developers, designers, and programmers posting? The villification by some of the player base make that an exercise in futility too often. Put yourself into their shoes and assess the insults slung against them on these forums (worse on others), would you like to have that kind of bullying and abuse in your workplace? Would you go out of your way to communicate with customers if, no matter what you were doing, there were a loud verbose bunch who did nothing but sling irrational insults at you?</p><p>However, the amount of posting by the developers, designers, programmers, artists, and even community reps has aabsolutely no bearing on how much work they're doing in or for the game. In fact, they generally do get a bit silent a month or two before an expansion beta (and/or a week or three before a GU launch).  Look back in the archives of posts, the number of "red name" posts decreases on the main board before each and every expansion launch. There will also be a decrease on this board during the beta even if there is an increase on the beta boards.</p><p>As for SmokeJumper posting, he's the executive producer for all things EverQuest: EQ1, EQ2, EQ Next, etc. He might be a bit busy with 2 expansions (EQ1 and EQ2) launching at nearly the same time. But.. that's not to say a lot of us wouldn't like to hear from him more.</p>

Talathion
10-27-2011, 01:47 PM
<p>We have had enough housing updates the past few months.</p><p>I should hope for more updates for character customization, they're has not been any new character hair styles for...well never.</p><p>The new expansion is pretty ..... erm....</p>

d1anaw
10-27-2011, 01:51 PM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There are many different gamer psychographics, and each one is drawn to different aspects of an MMO. Just because you don't enjoy a particular facet of the game it doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to others. The game is not all about you. There is plenty of adventuring content in the game, and more is being added every GU. Your complaint is pure hyperbole.</p></blockquote><p>But it is all about them, just ask them. They alone know what the game is "supposed" to be. Of course they must be the writers, producers and/or financial backers. Otherwise how would they alone have such insight as to what the game is supposed to be and what it isn't?</p>

d1anaw
10-27-2011, 01:58 PM
<p><cite>Eugam wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Housing is not the problem and doesnt conflict with adventuring. I do some instances only for appearance or housing items tbh. My house and the trophys are sometimes the only things keeping me playing.</p><p>The instances are the problem. They are not dungeons anymore. The group content is utterly broken since TSO. The "micro console raid" design prevents solo to trio groups to play them. Even the most easy ones like Erudin Library have silly debuffs or dps checks and so nobody is playing them at all. Over 20 80-90 instances of wasted server space. There are more people in Fallen Gate then in all dungeons from TSO to SF.</p><p>2nd problem is the huge inflation of ingame currency. Its so bad that even basic adorning is to expensive. Money, in or out of game, has become a playing element. </p><p>Its not all fluff. To put it a bit into sarcasm, the game is like a sports league with (raid) players and bored player wifes <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> and follows the same rules, having the same problems the leagues have. And as in real life, where people stop caring and turning to basic sports it happens to mmo's too. Hence the exodus and top headed stagnation.</p></blockquote><p>I have to agree about instances that are overkill. Having several level 90s, level 80 instances shouldn't be that difficult to complete. And I don't want to hear from the "I can solo every instance in the game" crowd. I don't give a big rat's behind. I don't want to raid or large group because I cannot stand the egos that accompany such groups. I'd do more if it wasn't a colossal PIA. I don't find fun in dying. I don't find fun in listening to egomanics tell me how to play a character type they've never played or how great or uber they are. I don't get my satisfaction in life from a video game. So I'm not going to kill myself trying to make myself "uber". Maybe with the introduction of the mercenaries, that will work better for those of us who prefer to not deal with all the egomania out there.</p>

Nrgy
10-27-2011, 02:15 PM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="color: #ff0000;"> </span><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /> I disagree with 100% of this statement</blockquote><p>If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck</p><p>and to be perfectly honest .. this game was designed around "Questing" not raids and not heroic instances exclusivily.  How many "quests" do raiders do in comparison to TS'ers or Home Decorators.  How many quests are completed by raiders in comparison to their hours played?  </p><p>We get it, you think SOE is working too hard on "dress up" and not hard enough on grouping / raiding adventure content.  But nobody is dumb enough to think the "art" team is responsible for code mechanics.  The time involved reskinning a skeleton into a plushie is miniscual compared to building a raid instance.  Nice Try though.... you can move along and troll somewheres else.</p><p>Furthermore, although I'm certain you'll not admit it, but SOE is currently very hard at work on adventure and mechanics issues in support of the AoD X-pack.  That content is the exact stuff you want them working on, isn't it?  Game design and Group/Raid mechanics?  How much work do you think it is to restructure an entire class from 1 to 90 with Epics, Spells-CA's, group and class balance ... all for the Adventuring grouping and raiding customer.  How much work do you think they are doing in support of Mercs that will be allowed in groups and presumably raids?  That is a huge amount of SOE's efforts dedicated to coding raiding and heroic grouping game mechanics.  But I am 100% sure that all of that is just one more thing in the game you do not care about.</p><p><span style="color: #808080; font-size: xx-small;">(got ninja Mod'ed for lauguage I'm sure)</span></p>

darwich
10-27-2011, 02:21 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="color: #ff0000;"> </span><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></blockquote><p>If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck</p></blockquote><p>Or a very confused Kitten!</p>

Brigh
10-27-2011, 02:23 PM
<p><cite>d1anaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Eugam wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Housing is not the problem and doesnt conflict with adventuring. I do some instances only for appearance or housing items tbh. My house and the trophys are sometimes the only things keeping me playing.</p><p>The instances are the problem. They are not dungeons anymore. The group content is utterly broken since TSO. The "micro console raid" design prevents solo to trio groups to play them. Even the most easy ones like Erudin Library have silly debuffs or dps checks and so nobody is playing them at all. Over 20 80-90 instances of wasted server space. There are more people in Fallen Gate then in all dungeons from TSO to SF.</p><p>2nd problem is the huge inflation of ingame currency. Its so bad that even basic adorning is to expensive. Money, in or out of game, has become a playing element.</p><p>Its not all fluff. To put it a bit into sarcasm, the game is like a sports league with (raid) players and bored player wifes <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> and follows the same rules, having the same problems the leagues have. And as in real life, where people stop caring and turning to basic sports it happens to mmo's too. Hence the exodus and top headed stagnation.</p></blockquote><p>I have to agree about instances that are overkill. Having several level 90s, level 80 instances shouldn't be that difficult to complete. And I don't want to hear from the "I can solo every instance in the game" crowd. I don't give a big rat's behind. I don't want to raid or large group because I cannot stand the egos that accompany such groups. I'd do more if it wasn't a colossal PIA. I don't find fun in dying. I don't find fun in listening to egomanics tell me how to play a character type they've never played or how great or uber they are. I don't get my satisfaction in life from a video game. So I'm not going to kill myself trying to make myself "uber". Maybe with the introduction of the mercenaries, that will work better for those of us who prefer to not deal with all the egomania out there.</p></blockquote><p>I don't know what the hell kind of people you group with but in 12 years of playing I have yet to find such personalities the norm.</p>

MurFalad
10-27-2011, 02:30 PM
<p>I feel that there is too much desire to cater to everyone, so too often events and content that should be challenging - exciting since we are playing for a good reward with a risk of not getting it instead just feels a bit flat.  So by trying to cater to everyone they probably only really satisfy a small proportion.</p><p>The recent nights of the dead instance felt like that, it was implemented fairly well, but it could have been something tailored to multiple difficulty levels each giving a worthwhile reward, instead I completed it with no real effort and got a devalued reward.</p><p>It would be a bold move to see some new content that we actually can fail on appeared, and it would be refreshing if this content wasn't just a gear check (or a test of how good your log parsers are, those sort of fights are sucky for gameplay imo since I believe ideally in a graphical game everything should be represented graphically).</p>

Talathion
10-27-2011, 02:34 PM
<p><cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I feel that there is too much desire to cater to everyone, so too often events and content that should be challenging - exciting since we are playing for a good reward with a risk of not getting it instead just feels a bit flat.  So by trying to cater to everyone they probably only really satisfy a small proportion.</p><p>The recent nights of the dead instance felt like that, it was implemented fairly well, but it could have been something tailored to multiple difficulty levels each giving a worthwhile reward, instead I completed it with no real effort and got a devalued reward.</p><p>It would be a bold move to see some new content that we actually can fail on appeared, and it would be refreshing if this content wasn't just a gear check (or a test of how good your log parsers are, those sort of fights are sucky for gameplay imo since I believe ideally in a graphical game everything should be represented graphically).</p></blockquote><p>Lawl difficulty?</p><p>I went AFK by the girl and came back to victory! It seems my procs from being hit by zombies killed the zombies!</p>

Ser_Chi
10-27-2011, 02:42 PM
<p>Essentially its what most MMO's are.  Your own digital action figure/doll to play with, because sitting down and playing with an actual action figure/doll that you can pick up at Toys R' Us at your age is too much for that ultra vain ego to bear, you may be labeled a nerd or freak and be told to get a life and grow up if someone sees you, unless you have kids and are playing with them! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> </p><p> Anyways, looking at it that way, maybe I will go back to the old days and start buying action figures and toys again (and no I dont have kids) and using my own imagination instead of the developers.  I wont have to be concerned about passwords, getting hacked, monthly fees, $40 "expansions", server crashes, maintenance, guild and chat channel drama, or spending too much time online.  Plus, when I get done playing with my real action figure I can actually sell them without hassle! (or even donate it to a kids charity)</p>

Ruut Li
10-27-2011, 02:52 PM
<p>Im also a female player, who used to decorate back when it took some imagination. I do not decorate anymore, its a tainted activity hehe. However I do like appearance/fluff To Some Extent. The game is still about adventuring for me. And I do not think the op is wrong in claiming its "thanks to" the housewives that we have a decofluff boom. Nobody believes that the male population has pushed for this change lol, dont be so touchy jeez! Its not sexist, its fact. Facts ignore pc, so hate the fact not the person.</p>

scruffylookin
10-27-2011, 03:00 PM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think my post was sexist whatsoever, it's the truth. It may not be 'PC' but it's certaintly the truth. This game has completely lost focus, it used to be about adventuring and questing on a large epic scale. Over the course of the last year it has become more and more like Sim Barbie than anything else.</p><p>SOE seem to have latched on to the whole housing theme and are just throwing resources at it whilst abandoning the adventuring side of the game. Let's release another house via station cash that will sell, don't worry about fixing broken gameplay issue <span style="color: #ff0000;">the money is with the stay at home moms who like to play in their virtual barbie houses and decorate them.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What's next for EQ2, the in game ability to have a virtual tea party for you and all your friends at my new house?</span></p></blockquote><p>And you don't think you're being sexist at all? Gads. Are you back in the 50s?</p><p>I am a woman who works full-time at a job which is not secretarial and for which I actually make a decent salary. I raid as one of my primary activities in game (and we're 9th or 10th in progression on the most populous server). I also solo and do heroic adventuring with various alts of different levels. I even like changing outfits on one of my characters 'cause it suits her personality (yes, I roleplay). I craft (a few 90s there, too) and I even do a bit of house decorating (though I run out of time too much to do a lot). I also socialise with friends online (though I am not too fond of the "virtual tea parties" 'cause I like being more active in-game than that). I know players of both genders who likewise play through the variety of content including the "fluff" aspects (my boyfriend spends A LOT more time at the "virtual tea parties" than I do.. he spends more time at them then I spend raiding each week, but he likes that aspect of game play more than I do).</p><p>It is your characterising of everything YOU don't like as being only suitable for "stay at home moms" that's sexist and denigrating. Not only are you insulting the content not being what you want, you're dismissing female players as something you infer is worthless and implying any player who does enjoy that content as likewise worthless.</p><p>So, yes, you are being sexist.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah yeah you're a strong independant women *yawn* heard it all before.</p><p>Point being that the vast majority of people I know who are all into the decorating side of the game are stay at home moms. Sorry if that hurts your feelings but it's true.</p><p>Either way the emphasis on this game has shifted dramtically over the last 18 months, more and more time is being spent on fluff content rather than what used to be the core gaming elements of EQ2. </p></blockquote><p>Firstly, (and I'm talking about your statements, not about you personally) your statements are incredily sexist. For the record, I'm a man, happily married to a woman that happens to despise decorating, and I love the gameplay elements and I enjoy the artistic side of decorating in this game. The original comment was inaccurate and extremely sexist and the tone and assumptive nature of this reply is completely inaccurate and, yes, very sexist. Browse the Norrathian Homeshow for a day or even just talk to people that have houses up for show in game. The "vast majority" are not stay at home moms. The decorators I know range from every sex and every professional, but the one thing they have in common is an inclination toward the arts. I'm not saying every artist likes decorating, but many of the decorators love art. As for content, none of us know what resource is finite and which pools resources come from. Even if there were an increase in fluff items and a descrease in adventuring content, the assumption that one is responsible for the other is completely flawed, and connecting them is just creating a villain to blame for your complaints. The complaint should be that the game needs more adventure content. Period. It should NEVER be to remove content many people obviously enjoy. The assumption that one is causing the other is, again, completely flawed. And the sexist nature and tone of your posts completely obscure any valid complaint you might have. I agree that I'd love to see more content, but you'll never see me wanting less of ANYTHING in this game.</p>

Nrgy
10-27-2011, 03:08 PM
<p>The simple fact is that > 90% of the games content IS designed around adventuring and grouping/raiding, don't be so blinded by greed.  It IS the fluff that makes all aspects of the game what we have all come to expect and enjoy.  The vast majority of those are indeed focused around adventuring.</p><ul><li>Shield Bashing animations - adventuring</li><li>Kicking animations - adventuring</li><li>Spell cast animations - adventuring</li><li>Vision Modifiers - adventuring</li><li>Run Speed Modifiers - adventuring</li><li>Merchants and Menders - adventuring</li><li>Quest Rewards - adventuring</li><li>Class Mechanics - adventuring</li><li>Debuffs - adventuring</li><li>Travel Methods - adventuring</li><li>LEVELS - adventuring</li><li>AA's - adventuring</li><li>Mentoring - adventuring</li><li>100's of zones - adventuring</li><li>Tiered DPS - adventuring</li><li>Class Variances - adventuring</li></ul><p>>> The OP'ers argument is in fact backwards and in being so deands more "fluf" not less.</p>

Amitee
10-27-2011, 04:11 PM
<p>Many of you posting only have the ability to see what is in front of you.  Perspectives need to be widened.  Let me attempt to widen the angle here a bit:</p><p>1. Sony suffered major monetary losses over the hackings that have gone on this year.  I think last figure I heard in the media was around 200-300 million to update security and pay for player credit checks for a year. </p><p>2. If anyone remembers prior to that, Sony had started a series of lay-offs and started shuffling devs and others from and to different projects.  </p><p>3.  SoE has had to shut down production on several other projects.  Think the Agency was one.  </p><p>4. Lucas Arts yanked the Star Wars license from Sony concerning Star Wars Galaxies, resulting in it shutting down. (Not sure why they didn't cancel the Clone Wars MMO license, but a topic for a different day.)  </p><p>5.  Star Wars: The Old Republic is due for release on Dec 20th-22nd worldwide.  Already, it has garnered more attention than any other MMO outside of WoW.  Many in the community are playing beta and find the game fun enough to jump to ToR with it releases, not just in EQ2, but in WoW and other MMOs.</p><p>6.  Sony is rushing out an expansion that has the players dubious for many reasons. One, Sony promised to never release another expansion in the Christmas season since devs go on holiday and bugs sit around through that time.  </p><p>It's conjucture from looking at the above, but my guess is Sony Online Entertainment is hurting financially.  Let's take another look here at some other things:</p><p>A.  MMO developers across the genre are starting to realize that catering to the hardcore PvE/raider is more costly development-wise than other aspects of a game.  These type of players blow through content, want more, then usually either result in players getting publicly negative and pushing about more/better content, or they stopped subbing and move to another game until new content is released.  We can also probably bet this is why SoE moved to instead of releasing all content on an expansion, they've started releasing content every few months, hoping to keep these players happy.  I'm also guessing that Sony putting the dungeon builder into the game is what they hope is a solution to keep this set of players going.</p><p>B.  On the other hand, you have (let's use one of the OP's examples here) the decorator.  This type of player only requires "upfront content" (tools) and once they obtain them, they are happily making content for themselves and their friends. Let me explain.  Someone who enjoys decorating makes a carpenter. They get them to 90, do all the factions and quests so they have access to making or buying what they can.  They are then given a blank canvass to use these tools on (housing).  Within their imaginations, maybe they've decided to decorate homes for their toons first. Then they decide they want to build a pub, restaurant, pirate ship, grotto, theater, or ... the list is only limited by a player's imagination here.  Then that player decides they want to share their work with others and brings in friends that may or may not be roleplayers, and they all in turn start socializing in these player-created structures, and once again here, we have players making their own content with the tools given to them by the dev team.  </p><p>Fact on the above:  Players in the A category cost large amounts of cash in development and brain-storming.  Players in the B category are very cheap to create content for and tend to be happy with the tools given to them.  Another financial thought.  Paying out devs to create raid and instance zones would be heaps.  Paying out the art team to create new clothing, furniture and housing wouldn't be very much.  Toss much of that stuff on the Station market, then the target audience is spending cash on it. </p><p>Many of you just have to look at the reality of business here to get your answers.</p><p>On a personal note? I've been MMOing since UO came out. I burnt out on raiding in ANY game by playing EQ1 for six years.  Those 72-man, 8 hr raids (corspse runs) with carrot dangling loot finally burnt me to where I don't want to step foot into another raid. Ever.  In any game.  I used to not mind grouping until I played WoW.  Coming across so many abusive people on the internet in one place made me shy away from PvEing with strangers and now it's something I only do with people I know.  </p><p>Also of note, since PvE/raid content is all about equiping and making your toon more powerful in stages (or is generally), when you get to the top, where is there to go?  Then I would end up like players in Category A, get bored and leave until another expansion.  But since I enjoy roleplaying, crafting, decorating, etc, it keeps me entertained with the tools the devs give me to create what I want.  </p><p>To finish this long post off (pfft), you guys tell me now from the state that SoE may be in, why it's more financially sound to invest in those that enjoy their sim/barbie/real life simulator, etc.  </p>

Nrgy
10-27-2011, 04:45 PM
<p><cite>Amitee wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Many of you posting only have the ability to see what is in front of you.  Perspectives need to be widened.  Let me attempt to widen the angle here a bit:<span style="color: #ff0000;"> I don't think you "widen" anything other than attempting to share additional unfounded opinions.  This does however, make some interesting observations which might be true in part, but they'd never be able to be confirmed.</span></p><p>1. Sony suffered major monetary losses over the hackings that have gone on this year.  I think last figure I heard in the media was around 200-300 million to update security and pay for player credit checks for a year. <span style="color: #ff0000;">No press is Bad press ... Hmmm Sony got hacked, didn't "really" lose anyones CC info, "gave" "everyone" free <span style="text-decoration: underline;">protection</span>, and was able to push a 200-300 million dollar lose on their balance sheet for da' Tax-Man.  Al to update a security systems, which they ALREADY knew needed to be replaced... hmmm.  A multi-billion dollar global company.  All of that without having to spend one red cent on advertising or get people talking about their product.... with its super enhanced security.  Yeah .. I'm sure they "lost" a lot.  "Gave" as in made a deal with a Identify company that nobody knows the details of, I'm sure that company hated to add > 1 million customers to there business.  "Everyone" to loose, what percentage of people offered actually signed up for the service, 20%? 50%? cetain not 100%!</span></p><p>2. If anyone remembers prior to that, Sony had started a series of lay-offs and started shuffling devs and others from and to different projects.  <span style="color: #ff0000;">Shifting talented people from dead projects to live ones and booting dead weight out the door is a business practive often found / used in cutting edge technology companies, not all companies are being strangled by unions and we can't all be teachers or truck drivers (note they have strong unions, its not an insult in anyway).</span></p><p>3.  SoE has had to shut down production on several other projects.  Think the Agency was one.  <span style="color: #ff0000;">It is far from unusualy to dump projects before they launch.  Multi-year projects often get canned years into development.  Its quite common.</span></p><p>4. Lucas Arts yanked the Star Wars license from Sony concerning Star Wars Galaxies, resulting in it shutting down. (Not sure why they didn't cancel the Clone Wars MMO license, but a topic for a different day.)  <span style="color: #ff0000;">I don't know all the details, but I'd be very suprised is the only thing that happened here was the contract between Lucas Arts and Sony expired and was simply not renewed.  Which very well and most likely becasue ToR was ALREADY in development, illegally to some degree.  How would it be possible to Trion can have a licensed product available on 12/21 when they "just" got the licensing.  So, SOE SWG ends 12/15 and Trion SWtOR begins 12/21.  WOW! Seven whole days.</span></p><p>5.  Star Wars: The Old Republic is due for release on Dec 20th-22nd worldwide.  Already, it has garnered more attention than any other MMO outside of WoW.  Many in the community are playing beta and find the game fun enough to jump to ToR with it releases, not just in EQ2, but in WoW and other MMOs. <span style="color: #ff0000;">So did Rift .. and it flashed already</span></p><p>6.  Sony is rushing out an expansion that has the players dubious for many reasons. One, Sony promised to never release another expansion in the Christmas season since devs go on holiday and bugs sit around through that time.  <span style="color: #ff0000;">I'm guessing it is already a month late, but thats just me.  I don't think they are rushing anything.  If anything they have lost focus and fore-though.  I don't think they know what road they are traveling down ATM, but hopefully some of them will pull over and ask for directions soon.</span></p><p>It's conjucture from looking at the above, but my guess is Sony Online Entertainment is hurting <span style="color: #ff0000;">financially</span>.  Let's take another look here at some other things: <span style="color: #ff0000;">I doubt it .. even with low subscriptions guesses they are still ing the 20+ million a year range and most likely have under 50 employees.  I'd say they have a very attractive balance sheet.</span></p><p>A.  MMO developers across the genre are starting to realize that catering to the hardcore PvE/raider is more costly development-wise than other aspects of a game.  These type of players blow through content, want more, then usually either result in players getting publicly negative and pushing about more/better content, or they stopped subbing and move to another game until new content is released.  We can also probably bet this is why SoE moved to instead of releasing all content on an expansion, they've started releasing content every few months, hoping to keep these players happy.  I'm also guessing that Sony putting the dungeon builder into the game is what they hope is a solution to keep this set of players going. <span style="color: #ff0000;">These types of players can not be "retained" by any single company or game.  They tend to travel in packs and use up content at alarming rates.  My guess is that companies know all about these types of people and have Boxed sales specifically in mind when dealing with them.  They actually are good for companies, they talk about the differences in products, they talk about what they like and don't like in a multitude of formats.  They spread the word.  Its OK to "run out of Content" as long as more is on the burners ready to be reelased down the road, as long as its a short road.</span></p><p>B.  On the other hand, you have (let's use one of the OP's examples here) the decorator.  This type of player only requires "upfront content" (tools) and once they obtain them, they are happily making content for themselves and their friends. Let me explain.  Someone who enjoys decorating makes a carpenter. They get them to 90, do all the factions and quests so they have access to making or buying what they can.  They are then given a blank canvass to use these tools on (housing).  Within their imaginations, maybe they've decided to decorate homes for their toons first. Then they decide they want to build a pub, restaurant, pirate ship, grotto, theater, or ... the list is only limited by a player's imagination here.  Then that player decides they want to share their work with others and brings in friends that may or may not be roleplayers, and they all in turn start socializing in these player-created structures, and once again here, we have players making their own content with the tools given to them by the dev team.  <span style="color: #ff0000;">Base ... sustainable customer, as you describe them .. this type of players only exsits in EQ2, out of every and all MMO environments.</span></p><p>Fact on the above:  Players in the A category cost large amounts of cash in development and brain-storming.  Players in the B category are very cheap to create content for and tend to be happy with the tools given to them.  Another financial thought.  Paying out devs to create raid and instance zones would be heaps.  Paying out the art team to create new clothing, furniture and housing wouldn't be very much.  Toss much of that stuff on the Station market, then the target audience is spending cash on it. </p><p>Many of you just have to look at the reality of business here to get your answers.</p><p>On a personal note? I've been MMOing since UO came out. I burnt out on raiding in ANY game by playing EQ1 for six years.  Those 72-man, 8 hr raids (corspse runs) with carrot dangling loot finally burnt me to where I don't want to step foot into another raid. Ever.  In any game.  I used to not mind grouping until I played WoW.  Coming across so many abusive people on the internet in one place made me shy away from PvEing with strangers and now it's something I only do with people I know.  </p><p>Also of note, since PvE/raid content is all about equiping and making your toon more powerful in stages (or is generally), when you get to the top, where is there to go?  Then I would end up like players in Category A, get bored and leave until another expansion.  But since I enjoy roleplaying, crafting, decorating, etc, it keeps me entertained with the tools the devs give me to create what I want.  </p><p>To finish this long post off (pfft), you guys tell me now from the state that SoE may be in, why it's more financially sound to invest in those that enjoy their sim/barbie/real life simulator, etc.  </p></blockquote><p>I will just say .. SOE and EQ2 have in the past ... try hard in the present ... and hopefully will again in the future ... and that goes for both of you!!</p>

Writer Cal
10-27-2011, 05:16 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I don't know all the details, but I'd be very suprised is the only thing that happened here was the contract between Lucas Arts and Sony expired and was simply not renewed.  Which very well and most likely becasue ToR was ALREADY in development, illegally to some degree.  How would it be possible to Trion can have a licensed product available on 12/21 when they "just" got the licensing.  So, SOE SWG ends 12/15 and Trion SWtOR begins 12/21.  WOW! Seven whole days.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Just a note, you've got the wrong company there.  Trion has nothing to do with SW:TOR.  Trion did Rift.  SW:TOR is a Bioware game.</p>

Felshades
10-27-2011, 05:48 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If you are looking for true substance in the game the marketplace & holiday events are not the places to look for them. Those places are pretty much pure fluff for those that enjoy that kind of thing. Holiday events have never been the place to find a lot. Some of them have lore & lead-ins to upcoming content but they are there for fluff & fun.</p><p>There is plenty still out there for the times when fluff isn't what you need or want.</p></blockquote><p>I like you.</p>

Felshades
10-27-2011, 06:06 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite> Base ... sustainable customer, as you describe them .. this type of players only exsits in EQ2, out of every and all MMO environments.</p><blockquote></blockquote><p>Wait what?</p><p>There are sustainable customers in other games. Most of the people I know personally that play WoW have been playing Blizzard games since before SoE got their hands on EQ.</p>

Nrgy
10-27-2011, 06:20 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite> Base ... sustainable customer, as you describe them .. this type of players only exsits in EQ2, out of every and all MMO environments.</p><p>Wait what?</p><p>There are sustainable customers in other games. Most of the people I know personally that play WoW have been playing Blizzard games since before SoE got their hands on EQ.</p></blockquote><p>I was really referring to the way the OP described this type of player, the "Decorator", but regardless to some extent we are all decorators if we own a house in EQ2 or have ever "Placed" an item in the gaming world.  Even if we only use it as a travel hub.  I was merely pointing out that the EQ2 model is the only model where you have the sandbox abilities to even be allowed to interact with the Gaming Environment in any way, shape or form.  That Sandbox template "could" be adopted by other games, so with the simple fact that EQ2 is really the only one that lets its players interact to such a degree with the live action gaming world I would say it is the best, by default.</p><p>Of course there is a sustainable base customer in every game  .. but by the OP's definitions that would have been player type "C" which was left out.</p><p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Amitee wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>B.  On the other hand, you have (let's use one of the OP's examples here) the decorator.  This type of player only requires "upfront content" (tools) and once they obtain them, they are happily making content for themselves and their friends. Let me explain.  Someone who enjoys decorating makes a carpenter. They get them to 90, do all the factions and quests so they have access to making or buying what they can.  They are then given a blank canvass to use these tools on (housing).  Within their imaginations, maybe they've decided to decorate homes for their toons first. Then they decide they want to build a pub, restaurant, pirate ship, grotto, theater, or ... the list is only limited by a player's imagination here.  Then that player decides they want to share their work with others and brings in friends that may or may not be roleplayers, and they all in turn start socializing in these player-created structures, and once again here, we have players making their own content with the tools given to them by the dev team.  <span style="color: #ff0000;">Base ... sustainable customer, as you describe them .. this type of players only exsits in EQ2, out of every and all MMO environments.</span></p></blockquote><p>I will just say .. SOE and EQ2 have in the past ... try hard in the present ... and hopefully will again in the future ... and that goes for both of you!!</p></blockquote>

SOE-MOD-07
10-27-2011, 07:33 PM
<p>Let's make sure to leave the sexism, overt and otherwise, off these forums.</p>

Malleria
10-27-2011, 09:46 PM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p>If the OP's protest is about the number of 'red name' POSTS one facet of game play gets vs another..</p></blockquote><p>The lack of red name responses would be acceptable if major bugs were being fixed in a reasonable time frame. If they're too busy to read the forums, and too busy to fix bugs, and too busy to test new content... what are they doing?</p>

Gennyfer
10-27-2011, 09:54 PM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds. </p><p>What happened to gaming? </p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Whaaaat?!?!?!?!  Get rid of your negative attitude and you might have fun in the game. I have so much to do in game, I don't even have any time to decorate my houses. And...most stay-at-home moms actually have too much to do in RL and don't really have time to play a game.</p>

millie
10-27-2011, 10:36 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite> Base ... sustainable customer, as you describe them .. this type of players only exsits in EQ2, out of every and all MMO environments.</p><p>Wait what?</p><p>There are sustainable customers in other games. Most of the people I know personally that play WoW have been playing Blizzard games since before SoE got their hands on EQ.</p></blockquote><p>ROFLMAO, EQ was always sony.  They had a front company for a while but QEYNOS is QEYNOS for a reason spell it backwards and you will get the point.</p>

Nrgy
10-27-2011, 10:54 PM
<p><cite>SOE-MOD-07 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Let's make sure to leave the sexism, overt and otherwise, off these forums.</p></blockquote><p>If that is the stance of the forums, them might I suggest someone reviews the original post, it might have been missed by accident, and not get "lost in the weeds" as entire thread is a waterfall of what it is you pointed out.  IMO it should have been locked and moved before a single reply was posted, thats what I would have done.  I'm not questioning anyone, not even the OP who seeming has nothing to do in a game that makes them happy.  sad really, when a game isn't fun for someone.</p>

millie
10-28-2011, 01:51 AM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>SOE-MOD-07 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Let's make sure to leave the sexism, overt and otherwise, off these forums.</p></blockquote><p>If that is the stance of the forums, them might I suggest someone reviews the original post, it might have been missed by accident, and not get "lost in the weeds" as entire thread is a waterfall of what it is you pointed out.  IMO it should have been locked and moved before a single reply was posted, thats what I would have done.  I'm not questioning anyone, not even the OP who seeming has nothing to do in a game that makes them happy.  sad really, when a game isn't fun for someone.</p></blockquote><p>lots of folk in the game not having fun, they seem to use it as some sort of RL time sink.  Dont understand it myself if I am not having fun then I will move on to something else.  There is lots of 'something else' in this game.  Decorating being one of the possibilites.  I like doing that and I am neither ___ or female.</p>

millie
10-28-2011, 01:55 AM
<p>(post went to wrong thread)</p>

Ruut Li
10-28-2011, 02:08 AM
<p><cite>Gennyfer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds. </p><p>What happened to gaming? </p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Whaaaat?!?!?!?!  Get rid of your negative attitude and you might have fun in the game. I have so much to do in game, I don't even have any time to decorate my houses. And...most stay-at-home moms actually have too much to do in RL and don't really have time to play a game.</p></blockquote><p>Oh but they make time! During my six years of playing eq2 Ive met many housewives/stay at home moms. I sometimes use " " when talking about them bc they certainly arent playing the part. They are online seemingly constantly, crafting and/or decorating, also questing, and chatting of course. They take a break to send the kids off to school, meet them at the buss in the afternoon, break to feed the kids, break for the kids bed time. They are 99% dedicated to eq2 and are the hardcores of their playstyles.</p><p>I have met male players that have decorated their own house, and left it that. The hardcore decorators are females (exceptions confirm the rule), and many of them "housewives". Dont hate me for it, I cant help that I meet and see these people <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" /></p>

Gladiolus
10-28-2011, 03:31 AM
<p>It's sad, but somehow not surprising, that the main criticism of the OP's post is that he suggested that most housespouses are mothers. He has valid complaints and although I enjoy the housing and decorating part of the game, I agree that I'd prefer to see some of that dev time being spent on adventuring issues such as itemisation. The trouble is that SOE doesn't seem able to find moderation in anything, as demonstrated by their "flavour of the month" style of class balancing and the fact that they seem to cater to hardcore raiders on the one hand and hardcore decorators on the other, whilst neglecting the majority in between.</p>

CorpseGoddess
10-28-2011, 04:14 AM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't think my post was sexist whatsoever, it's the truth. It may not be 'PC' but it's certaintly the truth. This game has completely lost focus, it used to be about adventuring and questing on a large epic scale. Over the course of the last year it has become more and more like Sim Barbie than anything else.</p><p>SOE seem to have latched on to the whole housing theme and are just throwing resources at it whilst abandoning the adventuring side of the game. Let's release another house via station cash that will sell, don't worry about fixing broken gameplay issue <span style="color: #ff0000;">the money is with the stay at home moms who like to play in their virtual barbie houses and decorate them.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What's next for EQ2, the in game ability to have a virtual tea party for you and all your friends at my new house?</span></p></blockquote><p>And you don't think you're being sexist at all? Gads. Are you back in the 50s?</p><p>I am a woman who works full-time at a job which is not secretarial and for which I actually make a decent salary. I raid as one of my primary activities in game (and we're 9th or 10th in progression on the most populous server). I also solo and do heroic adventuring with various alts of different levels. I even like changing outfits on one of my characters 'cause it suits her personality (yes, I roleplay). I craft (a few 90s there, too) and I even do a bit of house decorating (though I run out of time too much to do a lot). I also socialise with friends online (though I am not too fond of the "virtual tea parties" 'cause I like being more active in-game than that). I know players of both genders who likewise play through the variety of content including the "fluff" aspects (my boyfriend spends A LOT more time at the "virtual tea parties" than I do.. he spends more time at them then I spend raiding each week, but he likes that aspect of game play more than I do).</p><p>It is your characterising of everything YOU don't like as being only suitable for "stay at home moms" that's sexist and denigrating. Not only are you insulting the content not being what you want, you're dismissing female players as something you infer is worthless and implying any player who does enjoy that content as likewise worthless.</p><p>So, yes, you are being sexist.</p></blockquote><p>Very well put, Rijacki; I fit your description to a T as well.  And you can add me to the female, not "stay at home mom" list of players.  I play *all* aspects of this game, thank you very much.  And I'm a bruiser, to boot--so if you think I'm sitting here at home in my A-line dress and pearls, having tea parties, well...Streppoch might have a thing or two to say about that in-game.  With her bruisery fists.  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /></p>

clairebear
10-28-2011, 05:30 AM
<p>I think this thread really needs to be closed; no good can come from the way in which the first post was worded and the way in which this thread is developing.</p><p>Different people enjoy different aspects of the game and no one can change that. Debating as to "who" these people are gains nothing but negativity.</p>

Golbezz
10-28-2011, 06:21 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think this thread really needs to be closed; no good can come from the way in which the first post was worded and the way in which this thread is developing.</p><p>Different people enjoy different aspects of the game and no one can change that. Debating as to "who" these people are gains nothing but negativity.</p></blockquote><p>The OP's point was more about this game moving away from the core of adventuring and including things that are not really enhancing the adventuring side of the game.</p><p>I suspect the comments are in reality not far off. Of course those who are the exception to the OP's comments complain, but those who fit what was described continue doing their thing and buying more SC items probably not even caring about what is being discussed here.</p><p>You don't have to look beyond the marketplace and how often new items pop up to see this is true while so much adventure content remains broken. There is a real resource problem right now and more resources need to be moved from making SC items to actually fixing broken content.</p>

scruffylookin
10-28-2011, 07:00 AM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think this thread really needs to be closed; no good can come from the way in which the first post was worded and the way in which this thread is developing.</p><p>Different people enjoy different aspects of the game and no one can change that. Debating as to "who" these people are gains nothing but negativity.</p></blockquote><p>The OP's point was more about this game moving away from the core of adventuring and including things that are not really enhancing the adventuring side of the game.</p><p>I suspect the comments are in reality not far off. Of course those who are the exception to the OP's comments complain, but those who fit what was described continue doing their thing and buying more SC items probably not even caring about what is being discussed here.</p><p>You don't have to look beyond the marketplace and how often new items pop up to see this is true while so much adventure content remains broken. There is a real resource problem right now and more resources need to be moved from making SC items to actually fixing broken content.</p></blockquote><p>I can respect that it might appear that way, but it's really not an accurate view. Look at the last 20 Game Update notes and hotfix notes. 99% of the information (at least 99%; probably more) on those updates is about gameplay. Most of it goes unmentioned or unnoticed. Or it's just fixes to this or that and isn't really what the OP is talking about. But my point is that the vast majority of dev time is still spent on the adventuring side of this game. I just looked at the last several update notes and they all were completely about gameplay. There's never been a decorating expansion. Even this expansion - which doesn't even come with any known new content - is still almost exclusively about adventuring. New class. Mercenaries. AA cap increase. I'm not saying the changes are good or the new expansion rocks. I'm just saying that just reading the last 20 update notes and I think you'll find that at least 99% of it is about adventuring in one way or another. I think it's very flawed to assume that housing hurts adventuring. Frankly, we don't have the information to make that conclusion, and if you look at ALL the devs' work, not just the stuff folks like, it's pretty obvious that the core of this game is still adventuring.</p>

Malleria
10-28-2011, 07:26 AM
<p><cite>scruffylookin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think it's very flawed to assume that housing hurts adventuring. Frankly, we don't have the information to make that conclusion</p></blockquote><p>It's not flawed at all. You just have to ask one question: does SOE have unlimited resources?</p><p>The answer is obviously no, therefore any resources spent on one project is at the expense of another. Be it $5 or $5M. 1 artist or 100.</p>

Ruut Li
10-28-2011, 07:29 AM
<p>I think its flawed to think that the increase of fluff, housing and house items arent stealing focus from releasing Functioning quality adventuring content. As the fluffdecor boom has grown bigger the adventuring part has drastically declined in quality. The bandaid has been quantity of bad adventuring content. Yes we cant prove it with numbers (although I think the result that we see is proof enough), but you cant prove its not like that either.</p>

scruffylookin
10-28-2011, 07:41 AM
<p><cite>Malleria wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>scruffylookin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think it's very flawed to assume that housing hurts adventuring. Frankly, we don't have the information to make that conclusion</p></blockquote><p>It's not flawed at all. You just have to ask one question: does SOE have unlimited resources?</p><p>The answer is obviously no, therefore any resources spent on one project is at the expense of another. Be it $5 or $5M. 1 artist or 100.</p></blockquote><p>I respectfully disagree. It is flawed. We have no idea how the money is divied up. We don't know - at all - how much revenue these decorating items generate in regards to how much they cost the company to make. It's entirely possible (probably even) that the profits they bring greatly outweight the cost to the company. For example, let's say it costs 20 bucks to make something and it makes 100 bucks in profit. We don't know that they don't roll 30 bucks of that back into making more fluff items and 70 dollars into adventure content development. The fluff items could just as easily (and probably, IMO) bring the game far more than they cost the game. You're assuming the lack of adventuring content is the direct result of the increase in decorating content. It could just as easily be the opposite. For all we know, the decorating content could be the only reason we're getting an expansion at all. I'm not saying that's the case. I don't know, because we don't have the information to make that conclusion. It would actually be flawed for me to say that it is the case. Just like it's flawed to say that decorating items use up adventuring resources. For all we know, it is the only reason we're getting any adventuring resources. My point is just because one is increasing does NOT mean (or even suggest or infer) that it's the reason the other is decreasing. That's flawed. It's just as likely that it helps adventuring as much as it hurts it and any conclusions drawn that connects the two is blind speculation that ignores at least a hundred other potential factors.</p>

Gaealiege
10-28-2011, 11:14 AM
<p>Their focus is blatantly on the marketplace.  It makes much more money than the core subscription does.  Anyone recall the SC item charity deal?  The one that went something like if players buy $30,000 worth of this particular item, we'll match that and send it as a donation to help X (don't recall who it was for). </p><p>I recall it.  The mark was met in 2 days.  That means in 2 days on that single item they made that amount of money.  That's not purely because of "good people who just wanted to help."  If they would have simply said "Here's a link ...donate up to $30,000 and we'll match it," I guarantee you it wouldn't have been matched in 2 days.</p>

GussJr
10-28-2011, 11:16 AM
<p>Can we close this thread down now?</p>

Ruut Li
10-28-2011, 02:26 PM
<p><cite>GussJr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Can we close this thread down now?</p></blockquote><p>Why? If you dont like it stop reading it.</p>

GussJr
10-28-2011, 02:37 PM
<p><cite>Ruut Li wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>GussJr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Can we close this thread down now?</p></blockquote><p>Why? If you dont like it stop reading it.</p></blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p>

scruffylookin
10-28-2011, 03:34 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Their focus is blatantly on the marketplace.  It makes much more money than the core subscription does.  Anyone recall the SC item charity deal?  The one that went something like if players buy $30,000 worth of this particular item, we'll match that and send it as a donation to help X (don't recall who it was for). </p><p>I recall it.  The mark was met in 2 days.  That means in 2 days on that single item they made that amount of money.  That's not purely because of "good people who just wanted to help."  If they would have simply said "Here's a link ...donate up to $30,000 and we'll match it," I guarantee you it wouldn't have been matched in 2 days.</p></blockquote><p>I just went back and looked at the last 7 update notes. There were 71 changes/fixes/additions that had to do with adventuring. There were 3 that had to do with decorating/appearance items/house items. 71 to 3. I geneuinely don't understand how you can say it's blatant. Look at every expansion and every game update note. Literally count the features that are about gameplay and then count the ones about marketplace items. And don't skip the stuff that you don't like. Count it all. You're easily going to find a 100 to 1 ratio in favor of adventuring. Probably more.. And more importantly, I don't understand how you can consider the example you gave as evidence that the marketplace is hurting the adventure game. If what you say is true, and they made 30,000 in two days on a single item, then the marketplace is clearly making FAR more money than its costing. Your example strongly suggests that the marketplace is helping the adventure game far more than it's hurting it.</p>

Golbezz
10-28-2011, 03:46 PM
<p><cite>scruffylookin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I can respect that it might appear that way, but it's really not an accurate view. Look at the last 20 Game Update notes and hotfix notes. 99% of the information (at least 99%; probably more) on those updates is about gameplay. Most of it goes unmentioned or unnoticed. Or it's just fixes to this or that and isn't really what the OP is talking about. But my point is that the vast majority of dev time is still spent on the adventuring side of this game. I just looked at the last several update notes and they all were completely about gameplay. There's never been a decorating expansion. Even this expansion - which doesn't even come with any known new content - is still almost exclusively about adventuring. New class. Mercenaries. AA cap increase. I'm not saying the changes are good or the new expansion rocks. I'm just saying that just reading the last 20 update notes and I think you'll find that at least 99% of it is about adventuring in one way or another. I think it's very flawed to assume that housing hurts adventuring. Frankly, we don't have the information to make that conclusion, and if you look at ALL the devs' work, not just the stuff folks like, it's pretty obvious that the core of this game is still adventuring.</p></blockquote><p>The point isn't quantity of updates so much as the quality not being there because devs were hired to fill positions that don't seem to help keep the core of the game working properly.</p><p>Most new fluff items don't include update notes btw so you will usually see just adventure side update notes.</p>

Golbezz
10-28-2011, 03:47 PM
<p><cite>scruffylookin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I just went back and looked at the last 7 update notes. There were 71 changes/fixes/additions that had to do with adventuring. There were 3 that had to do with decorating/appearance items/house items. 71 to 3. I geneuinely don't understand how you can say it's blatant. Look at every expansion and every game update note. Literally count the features that are about gameplay and then count the ones about marketplace items. And don't skip the stuff that you don't like. Count it all. You're easily going to find a 100 to 1 ratio in favor of adventuring. Probably more..And more importantly, I don't understand how you can consider the example you gave as evidence that the marketplace is hurting the adventure game. If what you say is true, and they made 30,000 in two days on a single item, then the marketplace is clearly making FAR more money than its costing. Your example strongly suggests that the marketplace is helping the adventure game far more than it's hurting it.</p></blockquote><p>Again, when was the last time you saw update notes for all the new non-adventure content?</p><p>Somehow it still shows up without update notes... hmm...</p>

Golbezz
10-28-2011, 03:48 PM
<p><cite>GussJr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Can we close this thread down now?</p></blockquote><p>Why?</p><p>Is it because people get upset when someone like the OP points out the truth?</p>

Rijacki
10-28-2011, 06:21 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>scruffylookin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I just went back and looked at the last 7 update notes. There were 71 changes/fixes/additions that had to do with adventuring. There were 3 that had to do with decorating/appearance items/house items. 71 to 3. I geneuinely don't understand how you can say it's blatant. Look at every expansion and every game update note. Literally count the features that are about gameplay and then count the ones about marketplace items. And don't skip the stuff that you don't like. Count it all. You're easily going to find a 100 to 1 ratio in favor of adventuring. Probably more..And more importantly, I don't understand how you can consider the example you gave as evidence that the marketplace is hurting the adventure game. If what you say is true, and they made 30,000 in two days on a single item, then the marketplace is clearly making FAR more money than its costing. Your example strongly suggests that the marketplace is helping the adventure game far more than it's hurting it.</p></blockquote><p>Again, when was the last time you saw update notes for all the new non-adventure content?</p><p>Somehow it still shows up without update notes... hmm...</p></blockquote><p>What new non-adventure content has shown up without update notes? or are you only refering to the Marketplace items added each week?</p><p>Marketplace items are the only non-adventure content that's not in release notes and that's because they get released differently. There are announcements each week with, generally, 3-4 items being added to the Marketplace with a few being put 'on sale'.</p>

Malleria
10-29-2011, 08:42 AM
<p><cite>scruffylookin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Their focus is blatantly on the marketplace.  It makes much more money than the core subscription does.  Anyone recall the SC item charity deal?  The one that went something like if players buy $30,000 worth of this particular item, we'll match that and send it as a donation to help X (don't recall who it was for). </p><p>I recall it.  The mark was met in 2 days.  That means in 2 days on that single item they made that amount of money.  That's not purely because of "good people who just wanted to help."  If they would have simply said "Here's a link ...donate up to $30,000 and we'll match it," I guarantee you it wouldn't have been matched in 2 days.</p></blockquote><p>I just went back and looked at the last 7 update notes. There were 71 changes/fixes/additions that had to do with adventuring. There were 3 that had to do with decorating/appearance items/house items. 71 to 3. I geneuinely don't understand how you can say it's blatant. Look at every expansion and every game update note. Literally count the features that are about gameplay and then count the ones about marketplace items. And don't skip the stuff that you don't like. Count it all. You're easily going to find a 100 to 1 ratio in favor of adventuring. Probably more.. And more importantly, I don't understand how you can consider the example you gave as evidence that the marketplace is hurting the adventure game. If what you say is true, and they made 30,000 in two days on a single item, then the marketplace is clearly making FAR more money than its costing. Your example strongly suggests that the marketplace is helping the adventure game far more than it's hurting it.</p></blockquote><p>All that proves is the adventure content is horribly bugged and not properly tested. And that fluff/decorating content is simplistic.</p>

Gaealiege
10-29-2011, 11:23 AM
<p>I'm not arguing about quantity, Scruffy.  Adventure based additions and fixes are far more common than fluff.</p><p>I AM arguing about quality.  The quality of those 100 adventure fixes is on par with Hello Kitty Online while the 16 new marketplace items that come out in the same time all look amazing and work much better than the adventure content.</p><p>My character's animations when shooting a bow have been bugged since TSO, but I'll be damned if the animations on the SC mounts aren't operating smoothly.</p><p>And yeah the market did make that 30,000 in two days.  However, as it has been pointed out before...the marketplace and subscriptions don't go into a pool together that helps create new content.  Marketplace money goes toward marketplace.  Subscription goes toward game maintenance and content.  Imagine you had a store and you sold two beverages.  One was pepsi and the other is coke.  Pepsi starts outselling coke 3 to 1.  Which product are you going to invest more in? </p>

Rijacki
10-29-2011, 12:08 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My character's animations when shooting a bow have been bugged since TSO, but I'll be damned if the animations on the SC mounts aren't operating smoothly.</p></blockquote><p>Have you submitted a /bug? Have you made a post in the Look and Feel forum explaining the issue or even using pictures to show the problem?</p><p>The SC graphics issues on the mounts have had players posting about those problems to which Ttobey has responded (usually him) and then figured out how to fix. He's also fixed other animation glitches with non-SC stuff and others on the art team have fixed graphics bits on non-SC (and SC) stuff as they have been made aware of them. BUT, what players see on their own screens is sometimes different than how it looks on their internal systems, so they often don't know there is an issue until they get information about how the issue appears in-game to a player.</p>

Gaealiege
10-29-2011, 12:12 PM
<p>In TSO I bug reported it each week.  After TSO, I gave up.  There is a post currently about it, but I don't foresee there being a fix.  There was a post about it back in TSO as well that was ignored.</p>

Katz
10-29-2011, 02:15 PM
<p>You can blame all of EQ2's woes on any convenient scapegoat (housing, tradeskilling, stationcash, fluff items, raiders).  That's pretty easy to do.  I could pick out something to blame and defend my conclusions until the cows come home. </p><p>I've seen the exact same problems that EQ2 has at my work.  The problems are caused by:</p><p>1. Not having a clear plan of what you are aiming towards, not having clear goals.</p><p>2. Changing things without planning, testing, and getting feedback on potential consequences. </p><p>3. Not asking people affected by the changes for feedback before you are committed to the changes. (heaven forbid they point out pitfalls that could be avoided).</p><p>4.  Wasting time and money on half baked plans.</p><p>5. Poor communication.</p><p>6. Focusing on money.  (look at what happened to Apple when the focus turned to money instead of product, it almost went broke)</p><p>An example is the stats consolidation.  It caused all manner of problems with weapons and armor.   I really don't know the complelling reason for doing that.  If that had been done from the beginning fine.  But you don't come into a game this old and do something thats going to cause you to have to go back and fix things in 90 levels.</p><p>The point is this isn't a problem specific to EQ2.  It is, however, a common problem with management of businesses that need to be focused on product.</p>

Ruut Li
10-29-2011, 02:47 PM
<p>They are hiding quality problems (regarding adventuring) with quantity. Rushing out half finished content is faster than releasing one top notch feature. They do however make sure that SC and houseitems are top notch.</p>

Katz
10-29-2011, 04:34 PM
<p>And what sort of coding does it take to make a chair work?   Do you have to balance it with other chairs so it isn't an overpowered chair?  Do the tables rage quit because the chairs are now overpowered?</p><p>Just because it is easy for furniture to look ok doesn't mean that furniture broke the game. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p>

Golbezz
10-29-2011, 04:57 PM
<p><cite>Katz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And what sort of coding does it take to make a chair work?   Do you have to balance it with other chairs so it isn't an overpowered chair?  Do the tables rage quit because the chairs are now overpowered?</p><p>Just because it is easy for furniture to look ok doesn't mean that furniture broke the game. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>I think the point is that there are too many devs doing work on the non adventuing items and not enough around to fix all the problems and develop new content for the core adventuring part of the game.</p><p>So in a way yes, you could say any/all non-adventure content has broken the content of the adventure side because the resources used by non-adventure content devs could be used by devs working on the core adventure content.</p>

Seidhkona
10-29-2011, 05:06 PM
<p>Art resources =/= developer resources. Having the art team create things does not impact what the dev team is doing, so adding costumes and housing items doesn't take away from bug fixes or anything else.</p><p>For many people, getting one's appearance JUST RIGHT is important. I campaigned for years to get Halasian kilts back (and I am not exaggerating!).  Each of my characters has a specific persona and backstory, and I want them to look just so.</p><p>And while housing may not be YOUR cup of tea, raiding may not be someone elses. Or dungeons, or soloing, or PVP, or whatever. EQ2 is a versatile game, that offers something for a lot of different playstyles.  I know people who play EQ2 to wheel and deal on the broker as their primary game activity. I know others who are only here for crafting. There are plenty of raiders who don't want to do anything but raid. No one forces you to be an interior decorator, so if you don't like it, don't do it.</p><p>The real focus of the game is contained in the name: EverQUEST. There are THOUSANDS of quests, and the replayability quality if quite high (I have like a zillion alts and have had fun with all of them). But EQ2 doesn't MAKE you quest. Pick your play style and enjoy it!</p>

Golbezz
10-29-2011, 08:12 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Art resources =/= developer resources. Having the art team create things does not impact what the dev team is doing, so adding costumes and housing items doesn't take away from bug fixes or anything else.</p></blockquote><p>I call BS on this because hiring more devs for the art department is using funding that could have been used to hire content devs to fix adventuring. Each dev also needs equipment to do their work as well. Everything has a cost and it's foolish to think spending in 1 area does not impact another.</p>

Malleria
10-29-2011, 08:21 PM
<p>Not to mention artists don't control the patch schedules, merchant implementations, live event quests etc. An artist may draw the stupid thing, but a dev has to put it into the game and make it work. If they can do that, they could be fixing bugs.</p>

Filly67
10-29-2011, 08:45 PM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><p>Deleted my own post.  What's the point of fighting with the OPs narrow thought process.  They'll be gone if they don't like the game and me and many others will be here, grouping, tradeskilling, raiding, decorating, questing, etc...  Yes many of us do it all.  The game is what you are willing to put into it.  Nothing more nothing less.</p>

Golbezz
10-29-2011, 09:06 PM
<p><cite>Filly67 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><p>Deleted my own post.  What's the point of fighting with the OPs narrow thought process.  They'll be gone if they don't like the game and me and many others will be here, grouping, tradeskilling, raiding, decorating, questing, etc...  Yes many of us do it all.  The game is what you are willing to put into it.  Nothing more nothing less.</p></blockquote><p>You're fooling yourself if you think the rest of the game would stay around if the adventuring core ever falls apart. If too many resources continue to be diverted away from the adventuring content core of the game the day that this game turns into what vanguard is today could be closer than you think.</p><p>The OP has a very valid concern that this game is not properly focused on the adventure-centric core of it's content design and when that core falls apart large numbers of players WILL quit and everything attached to the adventure core will fail with it.</p>

Felynx
10-29-2011, 09:19 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I call BS on this because hiring more devs for the art department is using funding that could have been used to hire content devs to fix adventuring. Each dev also needs equipment to do their work as well. Everything has a cost and it's foolish to think spending in 1 area does not impact another.</p></blockquote><p>Well, you certainly are sticking to your agenda, Golbezz. But, all of your negativity begs the question - If you are so unhappy with the game, why stick around?</p><p>And, please, don't use the tired "All of my friends are here" argument. That thing is counterintuitive at best.</p>

Morghus
10-29-2011, 09:47 PM
<p><cite>Felynx wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I call BS on this because hiring more devs for the art department is using funding that could have been used to hire content devs to fix adventuring. Each dev also needs equipment to do their work as well. Everything has a cost and it's foolish to think spending in 1 area does not impact another.</p></blockquote><p>Well, you certainly are sticking to your agenda, Golbezz. But, all of your negativity begs the question - If you are so unhappy with the game, why stick around?</p><p>And, please, don't use the tired "All of my friends are here" argument. That thing is counterintuitive at best.</p></blockquote><p>Such a typical response. It would be so much easier to just ignore a problem than accept it even exists isn't it? So much better to see those complaining leave, regardless of the validity of their complaints. Why do people complain at all?</p><p>Because they want change.</p><p>Maybe they actually care about the game enough to stick around and continue campaigning for it to improve, and are voicing their complaints in the hopes that someone will eventually take notice, and stop it from continuing down its slippery slope.</p>

Golbezz
10-29-2011, 10:54 PM
<p><cite>Felynx wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Well, you certainly are sticking to your agenda, Golbezz. But, all of your negativity begs the question - If you are so unhappy with the game, why stick around?</p><p>And, please, don't use the tired "All of my friends are here" argument. That thing is counterintuitive at best. </p></blockquote><p>My agenda is to bring attention to the current problems and get some resources moved around to actually fix what is broken, what is YOURS?</p>

Ruut Li
10-30-2011, 05:31 AM
<p><cite>Katz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And what sort of coding does it take to make a chair work?   Do you have to balance it with other chairs so it isn't an overpowered chair?  Do the tables rage quit because the chairs are now overpowered?</p><p>Just because it is easy for furniture to look ok doesn't mean that furniture broke the game. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>missing the point completely are we?</p><p>Here: cut back on the art team and put resources into the adventure team. It is truly needed. It doesnt take 30 secs to create a lightning wolf and castles, plus they dont work for Free - <strong>salaries </strong>are paid.</p><p>6 year player here. The game has been awesome. I see a decline of quality and I am worried and starting to become unhappy. Before I go I will fight for the game I loved. If someone has a problem with that dont read my posts.</p>

Katz
10-30-2011, 09:23 AM
<p>Do you honestly think if they send the artists home, the adventuring game will be fixed? </p><p>I'm not missing the point.  However, latching on to one group and pointing fingers and saying THEY are the problem is typical of what we do.  Blame it on the ..."insert the target".</p><p>The problem is not that simple and the solution is not that simple.  What is simple is chosing a scapegoat and heaping all of our ire on the scapegoat.  I don't care if your scapegoat is "decorators" or "raiders" its still a scapegoat and not the real problem.</p><p>If you eliminated houses and everything associated with decorating does that guarantee the adventuring will be absolutely wonderful?</p><p>All you have to do is go to the forums of all games that don't have decorating and housing (which is the majority of them) and see the exact same things that are complained about in this forum.</p><p>Lack of balance, broken this and that in content, lack of communication.   In some games its the PvP and PvE folks at each others throat, but its the same result in the end.  People looking for the nearest target to heap their frustrations on. </p><p>There are problems with this game and similar problems with pretty much every other game out there.  The underlying problems need to be addressed.  Taking potshots at each other only distracts from the problems.</p>

Zehl_Ice-Fire
10-30-2011, 10:23 AM
<p>Your conclusion is wrong... many of the big spenders are the breadwinners of their household with well paying jobs and sometimes even a life.</p><p>Popularity of MMOs/Social gaming is what happened to gaming, many subscribers are here 50% to game 50% to interact with friends which includes showing off our awesome outfits <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. I'm not a mom or a housewife btw but I love putting together outfits, I don't really have the time & patience for decorating, I just hoard items, but it would be fun if I did. I do think the house rating system is silly, not to mention that they have AA rewards for it that I probably will never get, but whatever, it's done and done.</p><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds. </p><p>What happened to gaming? </p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote>

kaboro
10-30-2011, 10:33 AM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds. </p><p>What happened to gaming? </p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>I agree that the game is not what it used to be, but to blame that on housing, cash shop and housewives is just plain [censored].</p><p>The game is still very good though, actually id go as far as to say its the best on the market right now.</p><p>Mmos have evolved and changed (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse), what is really sad is that some players didnt evolve.</p>

Seidhkona
10-30-2011, 11:40 AM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Art resources =/= developer resources. Having the art team create things does not impact what the dev team is doing, so adding costumes and housing items doesn't take away from bug fixes or anything else.</p></blockquote><p>I call BS on this because hiring more devs for the art department is using funding that could have been used to hire content devs to fix adventuring. Each dev also needs equipment to do their work as well. Everything has a cost and it's foolish to think spending in 1 area does not impact another.</p></blockquote><p>I call BS on your strawman argument. SOE isn't adding people to the art team willy nilly or removing people from the dev team to do art. The art team IS THERE ALREADY.</p><p>It also doesn't require devs doing stuff to implement new clothing.  The art team does all its stuff, gets the files ready, and checks them in. The changes get installed during whatever the next update is.  The point of a game engine is that once the thing is set up, adding items to the game is more a matter of records in a database... it doesn't require a bunch of whanging around with the actual game mechanics, because the mechanics for clothes are already present.</p>

Rijacki
10-30-2011, 12:41 PM
<p><cite>Ruut Li wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Katz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And what sort of coding does it take to make a chair work?   Do you have to balance it with other chairs so it isn't an overpowered chair?  Do the tables rage quit because the chairs are now overpowered?</p><p>Just because it is easy for furniture to look ok doesn't mean that furniture broke the game. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>missing the point completely are we?</p><p>Here: cut back on the art team and put resources into the adventure team. It is truly needed. It doesnt take 30 secs to create a lightning wolf and castles, plus they dont work for Free - <strong>salaries </strong>are paid.</p><p>6 year player here. The game has been awesome. I see a decline of quality and I am worried and starting to become unhappy. Before I go I will fight for the game I loved. If someone has a problem with that dont read my posts.</p></blockquote><p>And you are missing several essential points.</p><ul><li>The Marketplace is helping to fund the SOE and so is helping to pay the salaries of the "adventure team" for EQ2. Without it, the "adventure team" would likely be a lot smaller. </li><li>The players who do stuff other than just adventuring (and especially those who do more than just raiding) are a significant amount of the population. If you removed the aspects of game play you find frivolous, a large percentage of them would leave. Many of them play EQ2 only because it has this wealth of diversity. If you reduced the player base by that much, do you really think SOE would have a financial interest investing more money into the game?</li></ul><p>I've been playing EQ2 since day 1. Yes, I do see changes I don't like and even a "decline of quality" in some areas. I don't, however, see that as a result of having housing (which, by the way, there are a wealth of complaints about housing related things, too), the cash shop, LoN, a responsive art team, crafting (which has had its years of bleak and appears to be back to nearly abandoned), PvP, etc. I do know the development team is smaller than it was at launch. I do know the development team is all (or nearly all) different from the one which was there at launch.  I also know there are A LOT more team members than the ones who actually ever post.  I also know SOE moves team members around to different games as the work load on a specific game warrants it. </p><p>I also know that conspiracy theories such as the one espoused in this thread are nothing but a steaming pile of.. (yeah can't say that and I shouldn't be able to say that on this board, this board -should- be more civil than flamey places). If you believe the 'adventure team' would be increased if the 'art team' was reduced because they would have more resources to spend on them, you're living in a fantasy world and it sure ain't Norrath.</p>

Talathion
10-30-2011, 01:29 PM
<p>What I find funny is the fact that most of the details are actually true, its ironic and hilarious lol.</p><p>P.S. I want more character customization! (More hair choices/skin colors/eye colors plox.)</p>

Gaealiege
10-30-2011, 01:44 PM
<p>Yeah, the original focus of this game was definitely adventuring and raiding, not decorating or making certain your paper doll has the latest Gucci slippers.</p><p>Games evolve, that's for certain, but in the current era of fad gaming that evolution is always toward fluff and retardproofing said game.</p><p>There's absolutely no way to maintain an argument that this game is putting out high quality content even halfway on par with the original 3 expansions and core game.  We went from storyline to "Kill X because I said so."  If you're lucky they'll say 2-3 more sentences about X which is 5 feet away.  We went from difficult overland content and raiding content to removing difficult overland content entirely and splitting up raid content into challenge and absurdly easy.</p><p>The humans themselves at SOE may not be moving from designing adventuring to take up thinktank positions in the art department, but funding has definitely been funnelled more toward art than it has adventuring for quite some time.  The station marketplace was a large contributor to that.  Otaku and housewives guaranteed make up the majority of that market.  Go read Fortune magazine or consumer reports.  The largest percentage of luxury market purchases are in fact made by "homemakers". </p>

WeatherMan
10-30-2011, 02:09 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yeah, the original focus of this game was definitely adventuring and raiding, not decorating or making certain your paper doll has the latest Gucci slippers.</p><p>Games evolve, that's for certain, but in the current era of fad gaming that evolution is always toward fluff and retardproofing said game.</p><p>There's absolutely no way to maintain an argument that this game is putting out high quality content even halfway on par with the original 3 expansions and core game.  We went from storyline to "Kill X because I said so."  If you're lucky they'll say 2-3 more sentences about X which is 5 feet away.  We went from difficult overland content and raiding content to removing difficult overland content entirely and splitting up raid content into challenge and absurdly easy.</p><p>The humans themselves at SOE may not be moving from designing adventuring to take up thinktank positions in the art department, but funding has definitely been funnelled more toward art than it has adventuring for quite some time.  The station marketplace was a large contributor to that.  Otaku and housewives guaranteed make up the majority of that market.  Go read Fortune magazine or consumer reports.  The largest percentage of luxury market purchases are in fact made by "homemakers". </p></blockquote><p>Giving that you acknowledge the resources aren't being funneled from the adventure programmers to the art staff (and they aren't), that's half the discussion gone right there.  Or rather, people - which is pretty much what 'resources' entails.</p><p>If you want to simply point to a general decline in overall quality, that's fine (and that very well may be the case).  But the problem here is people are pointing fingers at a responsive and (perhaps overly) productive art team, and saying that because <em><strong>these</strong></em> people are doing so much, Sony <em><strong>must</strong></em> be deliberately slacking off in other areas.  And the people who happen to benefit from their efforts, home decorators and dress-up sorts (of which I am neither - I have no talent for such things), get to listen to their playstyle choices being unjustly crucified</p><p>The truth of the matter is, none of us know what the situation at SOE is, or what the internal politics there dictate (and you can bet they exist, in spades).  Especially after the colossal hack a few months ago, it's a safe bet that some of their computer jockeys are spending time guarding against another such intrusion.  This very likely takes time away from development for the adventuring core, but if that's the case (and I would be willing to bet it is), the art people have no control over it, and we should stop slapping them around for something that's not their fault in any way, shape, or form.</p>

BriarHaven
10-30-2011, 05:45 PM
<p>I came back to this game because it was a rich varied world:> If I wish to raid it is there> If I wish craft, it is there>If I wish to quest, it is there>There are massive landmasses to explore>There are social events such as holidays or and housing content (it does not take them long to pop these out as they use existing models). MMOGS will change.     Game play will vary.  </p>

Golbezz
10-30-2011, 05:52 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I call BS on your strawman argument. SOE isn't adding people to the art team willy nilly or removing people from the dev team to do art. The art team IS THERE ALREADY.</p><p>It also doesn't require devs doing stuff to implement new clothing.  The art team does all its stuff, gets the files ready, and checks them in. The changes get installed during whatever the next update is.  The point of a game engine is that once the thing is set up, adding items to the game is more a matter of records in a database... it doesn't require a bunch of whanging around with the actual game mechanics, because the mechanics for clothes are already present.</p></blockquote><p>That is exactly why the problem has existed for a while, the art team is larger than it needs to be and the content dev team is too small to keep up with all the fixes.</p><p>Get a clue, the adventure side has gone down in quality as more non-adventure content has been added and those who refuse to admit this probably fit perfectly into the profile described by the OP.</p>

Ruut Li
10-30-2011, 06:01 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yeah, the original focus of this game was definitely adventuring and raiding, not decorating or making certain your paper doll has the latest Gucci slippers.</p><p>Games evolve, that's for certain, but in the current era of fad gaming that evolution is always toward fluff and retardproofing said game.</p><p>There's absolutely no way to maintain an argument that this game is putting out high quality content even halfway on par with the original 3 expansions and core game.  We went from storyline to "Kill X because I said so."  If you're lucky they'll say 2-3 more sentences about X which is 5 feet away.  We went from difficult overland content and raiding content to removing difficult overland content entirely and splitting up raid content into challenge and absurdly easy.</p><p>The humans themselves at SOE may not be moving from designing adventuring to take up thinktank positions in the art department, but funding has definitely been funnelled more toward art than it has adventuring for quite some time.  The station marketplace was a large contributor to that.  Otaku and housewives guaranteed make up the majority of that market.  Go read Fortune magazine or consumer reports.  The largest percentage of luxury market purchases are in fact made by "homemakers". </p></blockquote><p>This.</p>

BriarHaven
10-30-2011, 06:06 PM
<p>To make an mmog you need a good sized art team.    I would not be surprised if the art team has always been larger than the dev team quite frankly.  </p><p>As other's have called out you are assuming the "fluff" is taking away from the development time. </p>

Golbezz
10-30-2011, 06:23 PM
<p><cite>BriarHaven wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>To make an mmog you need a good sized art team.    I would not be surprised if the art team has always been larger than the dev team quite frankly.  </p><p>As other's have called out you are assuming the "fluff" is taking away from the development time.</p></blockquote><p>The fluff IS taking away from development, not in terms of say an artist doing dev work but paying an artist salary instead of a content dev salary.</p><p>Content devs make the game work, when there aren't enough of them the game starts to have more things pop up that do NOT work properly.</p>

Katz
10-30-2011, 06:49 PM
<p>Some of you must have access to information that the rest of us don't.</p><p>Please supply the following information:</p><p>Number of developers each year for years 2005 to present and number of artists for years 2005 to present.</p><p>Once that information is shared with us all then we will be able to see more clearly where the resources were allocated.</p><p>Also, please supply how much money artists have generated via station cash and see if that money has supported the cost of the artists if there is an increase in the number of artists.</p><p>If we have seen that it has shifted so that we have lots more artists than developers as compared to say 2005 and if they are not paying their way via station cash fluff then I will be convinced that the resources have been reallocated to artists.</p>

scruffylookin
10-30-2011, 06:49 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BriarHaven wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>To make an mmog you need a good sized art team.    I would not be surprised if the art team has always been larger than the dev team quite frankly.  </p><p>As other's have called out you are assuming the "fluff" is taking away from the development time.</p></blockquote><p>The fluff IS taking away from development, not in terms of say an artist doing dev work but paying an artist salary instead of a content dev salary.</p><p>Content devs make the game work, when there aren't enough of them the game starts to have more things pop up that do NOT work properly.</p></blockquote><p>But if the art team is bringing more money to the game than it's costing, it's not taking resources from anywhere. Someone said earlier that one item on the marketplace made $30,000 in two days. One item. That suggests that if they remove this art team, it will mean much less money going into the game.  At the very worst, these marketplace items are self-sustaining and not affecting the developmet at all. At the best, they're actually helping to support the adventure development we're getting. For all we know, if they removed the fluff stuff, we'd be getting a lot LESS adventure development because the extra revenue it's bringing in wouldn't be there. This entire thread is based on ignorance. I mean that in a literal way, not an insulting way. I don't mean it's a stupid thread. I'm just saying that there are a LOT of conclusions based on assumption and information that we simply do not have.</p>

Minzi
10-30-2011, 06:51 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BriarHaven wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>To make an mmog you need a good sized art team.    I would not be surprised if the art team has always been larger than the dev team quite frankly.  </p><p>As other's have called out you are assuming the "fluff" is taking away from the development time.</p></blockquote><p>The fluff IS taking away from development, not in terms of say an artist doing dev work but paying an artist salary instead of a content dev salary.</p><p>Content devs make the game work, when there aren't enough of them the game starts to have more things pop up that do NOT work properly.</p></blockquote><p>You are making the assumption that hiring content developers is as easy as hiring art people.  You're also assuming that content developers want to work on new features for a seven year old game, which is in my experience not a good assumption.</p><p>Good developers don't want to be the maintainence guys on a project; they want to work on new and cool things, and they will go to companies that let them work on new and cool things.  The guys who want to work on a seven year old game are doing it because they can't get on to new and cool things or because they've got two kids and a mortgage and they're not hungry enough to keep chasing the new and cool thing.  They're your B and C team, the old guys who you can rely on to show up to work every day and the young kids who you want to give a chance to get some experience on a project where they can't mess things up too badly.</p><p>Your A team, your rockstars, you put them on the high profile project so they don't get bored and quit.  If you have a guy in your B team who turns out to be absolutely amazing, you move them to the high profile project, you don't keep them spinning their wheels on the old and busted.  </p><p>EQ2 is the old and busted right now.  New features like DYOD, the dungeon finder, whatever else they add, those are going to be proofs-of-concept for EQNext.</p><p>If EQNext launches with a broken dungeon finder it is going to be catastrophic, so it only makes sense to test it out in EQ2 first, because it's FINE if there's a dungeon finder that doesn't quite work in EQ2.  Sony knows their attrition rate and as long as it stays at an acceptable level it makes no business sense to devote resources to fixing it.  </p><p>If the attrition rate jumps above a certain threshold, you'll get some more money thrown at EQ2.  EQ1 players got that after the GoD debacle, the next expansion was one of the best in the history of the game.</p><p>Art guys are cheap and plentiful and if they're building stuff for the station store you can QUANTIFY their value.  If you've got a guy you're paying 40K a year and he makes a $20 flying squirrel for the station cash store and you sell 5,000 of them, that guy has just paid his salary and given you an extra $60K that you can put into the development budget for EQNext.  If you've got the same guy and he makes a $20 jumping lizard and nobody buys it, you can quantify that too the next time you're asked to reduce headcount.</p>

Golbezz
10-30-2011, 07:04 PM
<p><cite>Minzi wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Art guys are cheap and plentiful and if they're building stuff for the station store you can QUANTIFY their value.  If you've got a guy you're paying 40K a year and he makes a $20 flying squirrel for the station cash store and you sell 5,000 of them, that guy has just paid his salary and given you an extra $60K that you can put into the development budget for EQNext.  If you've got the same guy and he makes a $20 jumping lizard and nobody buys it, you can quantify that too the next time you're asked to reduce headcount. </p></blockquote><p>While it's possible the art guys may generate income to support their salary or even above it that doesn't fix the problem with broken content driving players away from the game, which I suspect wipes out any gains from that art dev's hot sales item.</p><p>Eventually when enough players leave the game that also eats into the pool of players that could be around to buy the next hot selling marketplace item.</p>

Katz
10-30-2011, 07:23 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Minzi wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Art guys are cheap and plentiful and if they're building stuff for the station store you can QUANTIFY their value.  If you've got a guy you're paying 40K a year and he makes a $20 flying squirrel for the station cash store and you sell 5,000 of them, that guy has just paid his salary and given you an extra $60K that you can put into the development budget for EQNext.  If you've got the same guy and he makes a $20 jumping lizard and nobody buys it, you can quantify that too the next time you're asked to reduce headcount. </p></blockquote><p>While it's possible the art guys may generate income to support their salary or even above it that doesn't fix the problem with broken content driving players away from the game, which I suspect wipes out any gains from that art dev's hot sales item.</p><p>Eventually when enough players leave the game that also eats into the pool of players that could be around to buy the next hot selling marketplace item.</p></blockquote><p>I can agree with you that adventuring needs to be addressed and broken content needs to be fixed. </p><p>What was done right in the past that everyone (or most everyone) can agree on?   Why was it good?  What has gone wrong and why is it wrong?</p>

Minzi
10-30-2011, 07:28 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Minzi wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Art guys are cheap and plentiful and if they're building stuff for the station store you can QUANTIFY their value.  If you've got a guy you're paying 40K a year and he makes a $20 flying squirrel for the station cash store and you sell 5,000 of them, that guy has just paid his salary and given you an extra $60K that you can put into the development budget for EQNext.  If you've got the same guy and he makes a $20 jumping lizard and nobody buys it, you can quantify that too the next time you're asked to reduce headcount. </p></blockquote><p>While it's possible the art guys may generate income to support their salary or even above it that doesn't fix the problem with broken content driving players away from the game, which I suspect wipes out any gains from that art dev's hot sales item.</p><p>Eventually when enough players leave the game that also eats into the pool of players that could be around to buy the next hot selling marketplace item.</p></blockquote><p>Here, I'll post the part that you didn't read again:</p><p>You are making the assumption that hiring content developers is as easy as hiring art people. You're also assuming that content developers want to work on new features for a seven year old game, which is in my experience not a good assumption.</p><p>Good developers don't want to be the maintainence guys on a project; they want to work on new and cool things, and they will go to companies that let them work on new and cool things. The guys who want to work on a seven year old game are doing it because they can't get on to new and cool things or because they've got two kids and a mortgage and they're not hungry enough to keep chasing the new and cool thing. They're your B and C team, the old guys who you can rely on to show up to work every day and the young kids who you want to give a chance to get some experience on a project where they can't mess things up too badly.</p><p>Your A team, your rockstars, you put them on the high profile project so they don't get bored and quit. If you have a guy in your B team who turns out to be absolutely amazing, you move them to the high profile project, you don't keep them spinning their wheels on the old and busted.</p><p>EQ2 is the old and busted right now. New features like DYOD, the dungeon finder, whatever else they add, those are going to be proofs-of-concept for EQNext.</p><p>If EQNext launches with a broken dungeon finder it is going to be catastrophic, so it only makes sense to test it out in EQ2 first, because it's FINE if there's a dungeon finder that doesn't quite work in EQ2. Sony knows their attrition rate and as long as it stays at an acceptable level it makes no business sense to devote resources to fixing it.</p><p>If the attrition rate jumps above a certain threshold, you'll get some more money thrown at EQ2. EQ1 players got that after the GoD debacle, the next expansion was one of the best in the history of the game.</p>

Golbezz
10-30-2011, 07:44 PM
<p><cite>Minzi wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here, I'll post the part that you didn't read again:</p><p>You are making the assumption that hiring content developers is as easy as hiring art people. You're also assuming that content developers want to work on new features for a seven year old game, which is in my experience not a good assumption.</p><p>Good developers don't want to be the maintainence guys on a project; they want to work on new and cool things, and they will go to companies that let them work on new and cool things. The guys who want to work on a seven year old game are doing it because they can't get on to new and cool things or because they've got two kids and a mortgage and they're not hungry enough to keep chasing the new and cool thing. They're your B and C team, the old guys who you can rely on to show up to work every day and the young kids who you want to give a chance to get some experience on a project where they can't mess things up too badly.</p><p>Your A team, your rockstars, you put them on the high profile project so they don't get bored and quit. If you have a guy in your B team who turns out to be absolutely amazing, you move them to the high profile project, you don't keep them spinning their wheels on the old and busted.</p><p>EQ2 is the old and busted right now. New features like DYOD, the dungeon finder, whatever else they add, those are going to be proofs-of-concept for EQNext.</p><p>If EQNext launches with a broken dungeon finder it is going to be catastrophic, so it only makes sense to test it out in EQ2 first, because it's FINE if there's a dungeon finder that doesn't quite work in EQ2. Sony knows their attrition rate and as long as it stays at an acceptable level it makes no business sense to devote resources to fixing it.</p><p>If the attrition rate jumps above a certain threshold, you'll get some more money thrown at EQ2. EQ1 players got that after the GoD debacle, the next expansion was one of the best in the history of the game. </p></blockquote><p>I think it's pretty clear things are getting rushed out and there simply aren't enough people to do the job. The B and C team as you call them have probably been around for years with the top devs moving on long ago and new members being added as other quit, are fired or moved to other projects. DF is exactly the proof that not enough resources are there to get it working right.</p><p>It is NOT fine that DF isn't working right because it was released in such a state that many players won't ever bother with it again (look at the posts complaining about DF for the proof). SOE can never really get an accurate test now that many players are unwilling to mess around with it, even if it does end up getting fixed. It should also be pointed out that with proper dev attention to the adventuring side the DF wouldn't even be needed, yet here we are with tons of broken adventure content and a joke of a DF released.</p><p>The other reason to keep EQ2 working is brand reputation. Fewer players will be willing to trust SOE to produce a good NEW game if they prove unable to keep an existing game running properly.</p><p>Maybe you should post again and assume people didn't read your post, it might make you actually look smart by the 3rd or 4th time you say it.</p>

Malleria
10-30-2011, 08:36 PM
<p>The really sad thing is people truley believe the profit from the marketplace is being put back into their current titles. Get a clue. SOE is notorious for launching new games and abandoning them shortly after for the next new title. Games like EQ/EQ2 run on the bare minimum they can get away with and everything else goes to their new projects.</p>

Morghus
10-30-2011, 08:48 PM
<p><cite>Malleria wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The really sad thing is people truley believe the profit from the marketplace is being put back into their current titles. Get a clue. SOE is notorious for launching new games and abandoning them shortly after for the next new title. Games like EQ/EQ2 run on the bare minimum they can get away with and everything else goes to their new projects.</p></blockquote><p>This is sad, but true. Just about any of our devs can get hijacked at a moment's notice it seems. Anyone remember Imago? He was our guy working primarily on shader 3.0 when it was first announced and he was apparently moved over in the middle of his work here to work instead on DCUO, and we haven't had him back since.</p><p>During Destiny of velious beta, they reassigned the then, current PVP dev to instead work on PVE and quests, and I believe they still probably don't have a dev.</p><p>EQ2 makes a decent amount of money for SOE but they never bring that money back to EQ2. They always ship it off to their other projects, many of which are still running but bleed money by being failures.</p>

scruffylookin
10-30-2011, 11:37 PM
<p><cite>Malleria wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The really sad thing is people truley believe the profit from the marketplace is being put back into their current titles. Get a clue. SOE is notorious for launching new games and abandoning them shortly after for the next new title. Games like EQ/EQ2 run on the bare minimum they can get away with and everything else goes to their new projects.</p></blockquote><p>That really doesn't support the assertion of the OP that markplace items are taking away from the adventure content. It actually suggests the opposite. Every marketplace dollar that SOE moves to a newer, shinier game is a dollar that isn't taken from the adventuring side.</p>

kaboro
10-30-2011, 11:53 PM
<p><cite>screenid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I enjoy all aspects of this game , and am glad they try to enhance all of it. </p><p>Your post</p><p>= same as a casual player crying about SOE only catering to raiders and end game content</p><p>= same as raiders crying about SOE only catering to the casual adventurer</p><p>= same as crafters crying about SOE only caring about the advernture side of the game</p><p>I guess when your focus is on  one aspect of the game ....everything else seems pointless...</p></blockquote><p>Very well said.</p><p>After all is said and done this is still a great game and has content for everyone.</p><p>In the game i see people happily going about their fave activity, be it housing, adventuring, crafting or raiding.</p><p>Whats the problem here? People daring to have fun with something else other than the hardcore adventuring of old?</p><p>Its not that i dont understand the complaints about how the gameplay has changed, but they seem to blame it on everything and everyone when in fact its the times that changed, while their mindset got stuck in the past.</p><p>While a lot of the content has been made more accessible, there is still plenty of difficult content.</p><p>While there is a lot more solo content now than it used to be, there still is plenty of group-only content.</p><p>Last but not least, even if they wouldnt allocate a single resource for housing or cash shop items, the adventuring content would still have bugs and there would still be problems, as there always have been, in this game and in all others.</p>

WeatherMan
10-31-2011, 12:43 AM
<p><cite>Minzi wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BriarHaven wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>To make an mmog you need a good sized art team.    I would not be surprised if the art team has always been larger than the dev team quite frankly.  </p><p>As other's have called out you are assuming the "fluff" is taking away from the development time.</p></blockquote><p>The fluff IS taking away from development, not in terms of say an artist doing dev work but paying an artist salary instead of a content dev salary.</p><p>Content devs make the game work, when there aren't enough of them the game starts to have more things pop up that do NOT work properly.</p></blockquote><p>You are making the assumption that hiring content developers is as easy as hiring art people.  You're also assuming that content developers want to work on new features for a seven year old game, which is in my experience not a good assumption.</p><p>Good developers don't want to be the maintainence guys on a project; they want to work on new and cool things, and they will go to companies that let them work on new and cool things.  The guys who want to work on a seven year old game are doing it because they can't get on to new and cool things or because they've got two kids and a mortgage and they're not hungry enough to keep chasing the new and cool thing.  They're your B and C team, the old guys who you can rely on to show up to work every day and the young kids who you want to give a chance to get some experience on a project where they can't mess things up too badly.</p><p>Your A team, your rockstars, you put them on the high profile project so they don't get bored and quit.  If you have a guy in your B team who turns out to be absolutely amazing, you move them to the high profile project, you don't keep them spinning their wheels on the old and busted.  </p><p>EQ2 is the old and busted right now.  New features like DYOD, the dungeon finder, whatever else they add, those are going to be proofs-of-concept for EQNext.</p><p>If EQNext launches with a broken dungeon finder it is going to be catastrophic, so it only makes sense to test it out in EQ2 first, because it's FINE if there's a dungeon finder that doesn't quite work in EQ2.  Sony knows their attrition rate and as long as it stays at an acceptable level it makes no business sense to devote resources to fixing it.  </p><p>If the attrition rate jumps above a certain threshold, you'll get some more money thrown at EQ2.  EQ1 players got that after the GoD debacle, the next expansion was one of the best in the history of the game.</p><p>Art guys are cheap and plentiful and if they're building stuff for the station store you can QUANTIFY their value.  If you've got a guy you're paying 40K a year and he makes a $20 flying squirrel for the station cash store and you sell 5,000 of them, that guy has just paid his salary and given you an extra $60K that you can put into the development budget for EQNext.  If you've got the same guy and he makes a $20 jumping lizard and nobody buys it, you can quantify that too the next time you're asked to reduce headcount.</p></blockquote><p>This.  Very much this.</p><p>I remember what happened after <em>Gates of Discord</em>.  Oi, vei.  It was like an odd-numbered <em>Star Trek</em> movie (the odd-numbered ones tended to major suction, the even-numbered ones tend to be rather good).</p><p>And while there's no actual <em>proof</em> that EQ2 is a testing ground for EQNext, your speculations make a good deal of sense.  It would not surprise me to learn they are doing exactly what you describe.</p><p>The art teams have no control over where the profits are going - clamoring for their dismissal so 'more adventure people' can be hired seems to me to be a bit suicidal.  I doubt that <em>all</em> of the profits are redirected away.  And as long as some of that cash comes back to EQ2 (which I would wager it does), there's really not anything to complain about.  At least not in this issue, anyways.</p>

MrWolfie
10-31-2011, 11:09 AM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>But nobody is dumb enough to think the "art" team is responsible for code mechanics.</blockquote><p>The OP and everyone who agrees with him is.</p>

darwich
10-31-2011, 11:24 AM
another case of ill argue every point you make no matter how much truth there is because im right, your wrong period.. heh.. love debaters that only debate to prove their point regardless how much data they dont have, or how much of a straw man they have built... I myself have no problems, yes there are some issues, but what MMO doesnt have them.. I love the housing, and the adventuring.. oh oh wait incomming someone accusing me of being a fanboi... who the heck cares what you think, i play the game because i like it, the minute i stop liking it, i quit and go somewhere else

Labruja
10-31-2011, 11:48 AM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Cloudrat wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That gane is still here and then some!  I remember adventuring with friends questing and crafting and helping each other.  I also decorated my house with the things my carpenter could make so that it looked nice when people came to shop there. I don't know where you live irl but after a hard day's work it's nice to rest and have some social time in a comfortable atmosphere.  This is  a ciomplete world, the best of it's kind and while there issues that might slow it's growth, being able to beter customize our toons and our environment does not deter from it, but enhances it.</p></blockquote><p>Not surprising to see these comments considering which gameplay style you seem to fit into. Something tells me you would be perfectly happy in a game without the adventuring side.</p><p>For the rest of us unhappy with the game's direction it is very clear that resource allocation is all screwed up. Rather than making the adventure side so good that it attracts new players SOE seems to be clueless why adventurers (those who actually PLAY the adventure content) are unhappy with the direction the game has been going and try adding in fixes like dungeon finder to fix a problem that is really content and mechanics related. In short players would group if the content was actually fun which for the most part it is not either due to broken content or other mechanics issues.</p><p>So be happy with your online barbie game but keep in mind as the adventurers leave for other games and funding dries up eventually even the online barbie SC game will become unprofitable when enough players leave due to management's decision to not allocate enough resources to the core of the game which is the adventure side.</p><p>SOE management is really trying to hold onto adventurers with the beastlord class but even that tactic will have little power in keeping players happy with the game when the problems remain with the adventuring core of the game. It's too bad not enough resources are there to fix the core of the game so it could actually attract new players but it is even worse when these resources are wasted in areas that do not help the core part of the game which is adventuring in solo/group/raid forms.</p></blockquote><p>I hate to disillusion you and all the other players who think the same way as you do, but this game has many facets.  Always has had.  Yes, more fluff items were added and if those were not earning money and keeping players, you can bet your bottom dollar SOE would have phased them out.  This is a business friend, not an adventurer's charity online experience.  Sony's dollars will go where there is most profits to be had, don't kid yourself about that.  So, taking that into account, it seems that the players who dispise the fluff items are in the minority.  If they weren't, the direction of the game would be much, much different.  </p><p>Oh, and while you're being just short of rude to players you disagree with, think of the fact that their money funds your gameplay too and you don't see them complaining that too little is spent on ingame fluff that they don't have to purchase from the marketplace now, do you?</p><p>True, the developers have perhaps relied a little too much on difficult or easily broken mechanics to make the game interesting, when all the players want is fun.  Seems the lesson has not yet been learned from the mistakes made by others in the industry, but I'm sure that can be corrected with time and patience, both on behalf of the raiders and the development staff.  I used to see some interaction on that score, now not so much and find it most disappointing that this aspect (the thing I admired most about the SOE team) has gone MIA.  Perhaps channels of communications can be reopened if cooler heads prevail...?</p>

Fistantantilus
10-31-2011, 12:01 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Katz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And what sort of coding does it take to make a chair work?   Do you have to balance it with other chairs so it isn't an overpowered chair?  Do the tables rage quit because the chairs are now overpowered?</p><p>Just because it is easy for furniture to look ok doesn't mean that furniture broke the game. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>I think the point is that there are too many devs doing work on the non adventuing items and not enough around to fix all the problems and develop new content for the core adventuring part of the game.</p><p>So in a way yes, you could say any/all non-adventure content has broken the content of the adventure side because the resources used by non-adventure content devs could be used by devs working on the core adventure content.</p></blockquote><p>Honestly you believe that the animator who makes the chairs, mounts, fluff and lol items for the station store is the same as the developer who will code the game or fix old code (most probably written in a rush by someone 4 yrs ago, said someone is not working in the place anymore) ?</p><p>also if you have worked as coder on any big project you will know that most parts are not commented at all. especially parts that "fix" something. that means for a new guy even if he is super wuwu it will take a couple of months to get acquainted with the code.</p><p>you believe you can change the job description of the animator and he will start coding ?</p><p>Unless of course you suggest of firing the animators and hire programmers. But that would only happen if the marketing dept will tell the big heads that adventuring is more profitable than lolmarketplace stuff. And i am betting good money that is not the case. :p</p>

Faizal
10-31-2011, 03:21 PM
<p>Different strokes for different folks. Such an easy concept to understand. There was not even a reason to start this topic.</p>

Gaealiege
10-31-2011, 06:15 PM
<p>Actually there's a very valid reason to begin this type of topic.  That reason is a game that has taken a dramatic swerve away from its original design. </p><p>Let's imagine you play this game for the fluff, as I'm sure some do.  Seven years down the road there's 0 fluff and the sole direction of the game is raid content.  I imagine you'd be pretty urinated (take that filter!). </p><p>The majority of players in this game currently from the years 2004-2006 were the adventuring and raiding crowd, because that was the focus of the game.  They're not happy about the adventuring/raiding game they began playing taking on a focus of most dollars per Pollypocket Puppy Glasses they sell.</p><p>Let's dismiss the allocation of resource dollars.  There is blatantly less development spent on quality adventuring and raiding.  We go months without fixes to raid fights that STOP all progression, but if your da**pegasus twitches it's fixed pronto.</p>

Golbezz
10-31-2011, 06:22 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Honestly you believe that the animator who makes the chairs, mounts, fluff and lol items for the station store is the same as the developer who will code the game or fix old code (most probably written in a rush by someone 4 yrs ago, said someone is not working in the place anymore) ?</p><p>also if you have worked as coder on any big project you will know that most parts are not commented at all. especially parts that "fix" something. that means for a new guy even if he is super wuwu it will take a couple of months to get acquainted with the code.</p><p>you believe you can change the job description of the animator and he will start coding ?</p><p>Unless of course you suggest of firing the animators and hire programmers. But that would only happen if the marketing dept will tell the big heads that adventuring is more profitable than lolmarketplace stuff. And i am betting good money that is not the case. :p</p></blockquote><p>I never said the same employees who make the fluff items could also fix content. While it's possible that they could know enough to fix bugs the problem is more in the terms of the clear lack of fixes on the adventuring side of the game. Call it what you want, a shortage of content devs, new hires on the job fixing bugs, the point is that adventuring content is quite broken in many areas currently, yet there is no shortage of unbroken fluff content being introduced. Adventuring content clearly needs more resources in 1 way or another to fix the problems.</p><p>Maketplace won't be profitable if too many players leave the game over broken adventure content.</p>

Golbezz
10-31-2011, 06:26 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Actually there's a very valid reason to begin this type of topic.  That reason is a game that has taken a dramatic swerve away from its original design. </p><p>Let's imagine you play this game for the fluff, as I'm sure some do.  Seven years down the road there's 0 fluff and the sole direction of the game is raid content.  I imagine you'd be pretty urinated (take that filter!). </p><p>The majority of players in this game currently from the years 2004-2006 were the adventuring and raiding crowd, because that was the focus of the game.  They're not happy about the adventuring/raiding game they began playing taking on a focus of most dollars per Pollypocket Puppy Glasses they sell.</p><p>Let's dismiss the allocation of resource dollars.  There is blatantly less development spent on quality adventuring and raiding.  We go months without fixes to raid fights that STOP all progression, but if your da**pegasus [Offensive]</p></blockquote><p>I agree 100% here but of course you can't expect the players who enjoy "online barbie" to be happy about people pointing out the truth how the game is currently off track.</p><p>Here's a hint for marketing, focus on making adventuring fun again and fix the bugs and the game might actually start attracting more players.</p><p>Oh yeah, I should make it simple for marketing:  More players = more money.</p>

Nrgy
10-31-2011, 06:37 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Actually there's a very valid reason to begin this type of topic.  That reason is a game that has taken a dramatic swerve away from its original design. </p><p>Let's imagine you play this game for the fluff, as I'm sure some do.  Seven years down the road there's 0 fluff and the sole direction of the game is raid content.  I imagine you'd be pretty urinated (take that filter!). </p><p>The majority of players in this game currently from the years 2004-2006 were the adventuring and raiding crowd, because that was the focus of the game.  They're not happy about the adventuring/raiding game they began playing taking on a focus of most dollars per Pollypocket Puppy Glasses they sell.</p><p>Let's dismiss the allocation of resource dollars.  There is blatantly less development spent on quality adventuring and raiding.  We go months without fixes to raid fights that STOP all progression, but if your da**pegasus [Offensive]</p></blockquote><p>You're being obviously obtuse .... or simply disputatious</p><p>When adventures first began playing EQ2 there were no freely open Wizard Spires or Druid Ring, no AA, No Guild Halls, no CoV, etc, etc, etc, etc ... ad infinitum.  The game started as an adventuring game and has always remained focued in that direction and still does to this day ... adventuring outweights decorating by a factor of 1,000 times or more, IMO.  Hell, most raiders have teleportation devices <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">and</span></strong> AA mirrors inside their own houses.  Which is a contradiction to this entire thread.</p>

Golbezz
10-31-2011, 06:45 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You're being obviously obtuse .... or simply disputatious</p><p>When adventures first began playing EQ2 there were no freely open Wizard Spires or Druid Ring, no AA, No Guild Halls, no CoV, etc, etc, etc, etc ... ad infinitum.  The game started as an adventuring game and has always remained focued in that direction and still does to this day ... adventuring outweights decorating by a factor of 1,000 times or more, IMO.  Hell, most raiders have teleportation devices <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">and</span></strong> AA mirrors inside their own houses.  Which is a contradiction to this entire thread.</p></blockquote><p>Are you playing the same game the rest of us are or are you some decorator/crafter/roleplayer that is just too busy drooling over your next online barbie purchase to notice all the adventuring side content PROBLEMS?</p>

Yimway
10-31-2011, 06:55 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Hell, most raiders have teleportation devices <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">and</span></strong> AA mirrors inside their own houses.  Which is a contradiction to this entire thread.</p></blockquote><p>Only cause I cant put them in my guild hall.  I would much prefer not owning a house at all.</p>

Golbezz
10-31-2011, 07:05 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Only cause I cant put them in my guild hall.  I would much prefer not owning a house at all.</p></blockquote><p>I agree 100%</p><p>I do maintain a house with piles of sales crates from my alts to allow direct buyers the option to come to my home to buy masters or whatever junk I'm selling. I only bother with this because I need to have my home upkeep paid to access my AA mirror.</p><p>WTB portable AA mirror that is made with IN-GAME items and not some marketplace BS.</p>

Seidhkona
10-31-2011, 08:27 PM
<p><cite>WeatherMan wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The truth of the matter is, none of us know what the situation at SOE is, or what the internal politics there dictate (and you can bet they exist, in spades).  Especially after the colossal hack a few months ago, it's a safe bet that some of their computer jockeys are spending time guarding against another such intrusion.  This very likely takes time away from development for the adventuring core, but if that's the case (and I would be willing to bet it is), the art people have no control over it, and we should stop slapping them around for something that's not their fault in any way, shape, or form.</p></blockquote><p>(1) People who do network and security stuff are usually not the same as the game devs who work with the game engine. And the art team is something else yet again.  We know for a fact that different developers are responsible for things such as tradeskills, and it takes a specialist to work on the graphics engine. It's also not reasonable to expect that any given developer is a talented database analyst, or up to date on hardware installs, or able to whip up bombproof security measures.  You hire people with different skillsets for different roles.</p><p>(2) Some people do have closer ties to SOE. SOE has hired people out of the fanbase, and the community does get to know and make friends with SOE personnel through the forums, conventions, and the like. More especially, certain fansites often get preview info and learn a lot of cool stuff early, because they have signed an NDA and adhere to its restrictions.</p><p>(3) Rejoice that EQ2 supports so many different play styles. You may sneer at those of us who spend time, money, and effort on interior decoration, but our subscriptions help pay the basic bills that keep the raiding game, the questing game, the dress-up game etc. afloat.  Widening the appeal helps keep people subscribing.</p>

kaboro
11-01-2011, 12:24 AM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Actually there's a very valid reason to begin this type of topic.  That reason is a game that has taken a dramatic swerve away from its original design. </p><p>Let's imagine you play this game for the fluff, as I'm sure some do.  Seven years down the road there's 0 fluff and the sole direction of the game is raid content.  I imagine you'd be pretty urinated (take that filter!). </p><p>The majority of players in this game currently from the years 2004-2006 were the adventuring and raiding crowd, because that was the focus of the game.  They're not happy about the adventuring/raiding game they began playing taking on a focus of most dollars per Pollypocket Puppy Glasses they sell.</p><p>Let's dismiss the allocation of resource dollars.  There is blatantly less development spent on quality adventuring and raiding.  We go months without fixes to raid fights that STOP all progression, but if your da**pegasus [Offensive]</p></blockquote><p>I agree 100% here but of course you can't expect the players who enjoy "online barbie" to be happy about people pointing out the truth how the game is currently off track.</p><p>Here's a hint for marketing, focus on making adventuring fun again and fix the bugs and the game might actually start attracting more players.</p><p>Oh yeah, I should make it simple for marketing:  More players = more money.</p></blockquote><p>The truth? Since when the personal opinion of a few players is "the truth"?</p><p>Game is off track? says who? the (self proclaimed) truth master?</p><p>News flash: adventuring is lots of fun in eq2...no idea what game you playing tho.</p><p>All these lowly people enjoying "online barbie" as opposed to your greatness who is pointing out THE TRUTH, zomg i dont deserve being in the same game as someone of your stature, im unworthy....i have to quit..now.</p>

Gladiolus
11-01-2011, 02:31 AM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Only cause I cant put them in my guild hall.  I would much prefer not owning a house at all.</p></blockquote><p>I agree 100%</p><p>I do maintain a house with piles of sales crates from my alts to allow direct buyers the option to come to my home to buy masters or whatever junk I'm selling. I only bother with this because I need to have my home upkeep paid to access my AA mirror.</p><p>WTB portable AA mirror that is made with IN-GAME items and not some marketplace BS.</p></blockquote><p>Completely agree. If there are two types of an item, like the harvest depot, so that those who don't like sharing can have their own in their private houses, that's fine. Making items so they can only be used in a private house, like the mirrors and teleport pictures, serves only to annoy the more sociable who prefer the communal living of a guild hall.</p>

SOE-MOD-08
11-01-2011, 04:43 AM
This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=500098&post_id=5651295" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=50009...post_id=5651295</a> Trolling

Labruja
11-01-2011, 05:39 AM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>kaboro wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The truth? Since when the personal opinion of a few players is "the truth"?</p><p>Game is off track? says who? the (self proclaimed) truth master?</p><p>News flash: adventuring is lots of fun in eq2...no idea what game you playing tho.</p><p>All these lowly people enjoying "online barbie" as opposed to your greatness who is pointing out THE TRUTH, zomg i dont deserve being in the same game as someone of your stature, im unworthy....i have to quit..now.</p></blockquote><p>The truth is that adventuring content has tons of bugs, some zones don't work right at all, some encounters don't drop loot. You could go deeper into mechanics and broken scripts. You could look at all the items with screwed up stats. Did the devs just get lazy or is it something more like what people have suggested with a resource issue involving the devs working on adventure content?</p><p>The game has been off track for a long time are you really that clueless not to see this? Did you buy your accout or were you too busy decorating/crafting/roleplaying that you never noticed the decline in quality and increase in bugs in the adventure content? If you really are happy with such broken adventure content then you have really low standards because there was a time when the quality was much better on the adventure side and those who are complaining about the problems consider the game to be off track and would like the game to return to a quality MMO that attracts and keeps new players. <strong>Oddly enough before station cash and the whole online barbie cash shop were introduced the adventure content quality was FAR BETTER.</strong></p><p>If you are in some dead end guild that can't raid current content or have not leveled to get outside of the new player areas I suppose quality might seem good and adventuring might seem more fun because you wouldn't be exposed to the poor quality parts of adventure content where bugs can be game breaking.</p></blockquote><p>...and they were not working on EQNext...</p><p>There was a post on page 9 (I think?) that had a rather good explanation as to why this might be happening.  You should read it ~ again.</p>

Golbezz
11-01-2011, 05:58 AM
<p><cite>Labruja wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>...and they were not working on EQNext...</p></blockquote><p>That comment is what bothers me the most not only for the future of EQ2 but EQnext as well. If SOE can't maintain quality of adventure content in an existing game is it too unreasonable to expect the same quality shortfall in a new product?</p><p>I'm sure the SC marketplace items for EQnext will work just fine though.</p>

Nrgy
11-01-2011, 11:43 AM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Only cause I cant put them in my guild hall.  I would much prefer not owning a house at all.</p></blockquote><p>I agree 100%</p><p>I do maintain a house with piles of sales crates from my alts to allow direct buyers the option to come to my home to buy masters or whatever junk I'm selling. I only bother with this because I need to have my home <span style="color: #ff0000;">upkeep </span>paid to access my AA mirror.  <span style="color: #ff0000;">(I'm guessing that 12 silver a week isn't going to break your bank)</span></p><p>WTB portable AA mirror that is made with IN-GAME items and not some marketplace BS.</p></blockquote><p>And there you have it .. you are playing Barbie, as you call it, supporting the decorating ascpect of the game.  Whatever your personal reasons are your supporting it and denouncing it at the same time are your own business.</p><p>And Guild Halls as they exist follow the same guildline and are being "decorated" far beyond the default empty space in 99% of the cases.  Other MMO's don't have guild halls and yet guilds function 100% fine.  other MMO's have raiders that seem to be able to get where they are going or sell there loot without that type of mechanic, and guess what, you don't need them in EQ2 either.  You actaully can't have a guild hall until a guild reaches level 30 .. how do those raiders function without the decorating amenities?  Perfectly fine I'd guess.</p><p>So, I guess you only support the "Barbie" side of EQ2, as you call it, when it benefits you directly, without regard for how others use the same system.</p><p>Outside of that, I'd wager a guess we'll be given a portable AA mechanic in the near future.</p>

Rijacki
11-01-2011, 12:05 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The truth is that adventuring content has tons of bugs, some zones don't work right at all, some encounters don't drop loot. You could go deeper into mechanics and broken scripts. You could look at all the items with screwed up stats. Did the devs just get lazy or is it something more like what people have suggested with a resource issue involving the devs working on adventure content?</p></blockquote><p>If you went back to the forums pre-DoF launch, you'd find many many posts complaining about adventuring content having tons of bugs, zones not working right, encounters not dropping loot, getting the wrong kind of loot, broken scripts, warping, pathing, screwed up stats, everything looking identical, broken content, falling through the world, getting stuck on geometry, not enough content for raiders, not enough content for groups, not enough content for soloers, broken adventuring content, nothing to do, and so on.</p><p>If you went back to the forums  after DoF launch, you'd find many many posts complaining about adventuring content having tons of bugs, zones not working right, encounters not dropping loot, getting the wrong kind of loot, broken scripts, warping, pathing, screwed up stats, everything looking identical, broken content, falling through the world, getting stuck on geometry, not enough content for raiders, not enough content for groups, not enough content for soloers, broken adventuring content, nothing to do, DoF breaking original content, and so on.</p><p>Same for KoS launch, same for EoF launch, same for RoK launch, etc. etc. etc. In fact, it's even the same for each and every GU. There are always complaints that thus and so broke so on and such from before. In fact, in the early years of the game, being down every day for an hour or more (including the weekends) was normal. </p><p>There have ALWAYS been complaints about issues in the game from someone's perspective. Nostolgia leads many to believe otherwise.</p><p>The same holds true for EQ1 as well. It's the nostolgia some hold which blinds them to reality. They don't want to rememeber the days of down time, the content that was actually patched in over time and not all on one day for beloved expansions. They don't want to remember the complaints about thus and so content/gear until it was tweaked and tweaked and tweaked. They don't want to remember the nerfs and FotM classes.</p><p>No matter what content is made available, there will always be someone who thinks some other content is the reason why HIS content isn't getting all the attention and that HIS content is suffering while someone else's is getting attention. It's like a big family, all the kids think dad and mom like someone else better and without that someone else maybe they'd get some attention.</p><p>In EQ2, there are complaints by tradeskillers about not getting anything new (for any class other than carpenters) <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=506490" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=506490</a>, the house decorators are complaining about things they find wrong with SC houses <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=508449" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=508449</a> (and there is likely not going to be any change) and the rating system <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=508132" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=508132</a> (one thread was even closed for getting to heated and bickering), complaints from those who like appearance items abound about the 'sameness' of apearances and illusions on mounts <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=508709" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=508709</a>, and so on and so on. It's not just raiders or other adventurers who think they get the short end of the stick. Tradeskillers have also had loud complaints about SC items being added taking away from content that could have been given to them.</p><p>If you're short sighted enough to see ONLY your portion of the game, wearing blinders to see only the content YOU want to do, yes, you won't see how much attention YOUR content gets in relation to others, you'll only see that yours isn't getting ALL the attention.</p><p>Well, sorry to tell you this, but that's not the way the world of Norrath or the real world work.</p>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 12:34 PM
<p>Here's a question. Without adventurers would there be a game to play "Dress me up Barbie" in as the OP suggests?</p>

Loxus
11-01-2011, 12:38 PM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What happened to the game I first started to play all those years ago. All I see these days is more 'costumes' through station cash and quite frankly boring as hell events that may as well be designed for five year olds. </p><p>What happened to gaming? </p><p>Maybe it's me but house decorating is not a game! EQ2 never used to be about housing but more and more all I am seeing is this kind of stuff. My only conclusion is that stay at home moms are the ones spending the big bucks on all the marketplace items, so SOE are now simply plowing their meagre resources into that for the money.</p><p>It's sad what this game has come down to <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Just some food for thought...</p><p><a href="http://www.moorgard.com/?p=271">http://www.moorgard.com/?p=271</a></p><h1><a title="Permanent Link: It’s Okay to Grow Up" rel="bookmark" href="http://www.mobhunter.com/?p=271"><span style="color: #ffcc33;">It’s Okay to Grow Up</span></a></h1><div><p>When I was a wee one, I enjoyed watching <a title="If you didn't grow up in Minnesota, you're a heathen" href="http://www.lunchwithcasey.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #22bb22;">Casey & Roundhouse</span></a> and <a title="This was before that [Removed for Content] Elmo" href="http://pbskids.org/sesame/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #22bb22;">Sesame Street</span></a>. They were great shows with silly humor that also taught kids a lot of important lessons.</p><p>But great as they were, at some point I stopped watching. I didn’t need to hear songs about the alphabet or counting to ten anymore; I had already learned that stuff. So I moved on to different types of programs.</p><p>I have a question, though. Why didn’t those shows change their format to grow with me? The characters from Sesame Street could all be in their 30s like I am, cracking racy jokes and teaching me about 401k plans and enlarging prostates. I mean, the show has changed a lot, introducing many new characters over the years, but it hasn’t changed to suit <em>me</em>. What gives?</p><p>This is essentially the same question a number of veteran MMO players ask, especially after spending years in a particular game. They say things like “Blizzard better wake up and change WoW, because giving us more of the same old thing won’t keep me logging in.” But these folks have forgotten why Sesame Street has remained vital for so long.</p><p>As we all know, there are always kids being born to whom Sesame Street will be fresh and new. The audience is constantly being replenished, even as older children stop watching.</p><p>Despite the complaints from certain veterans about how WoW isn’t doing enough to satisfy them, the subscriber base keeps growing. Players leave WoW just like they do any other game, but the subscriber base keeps soaring. Why? At least in part, it’s because the game stays true to what it is and maintains its core focus, even as it tries to find new ways to embellish and expand the ways it does so.</p><p>Significantly revising WoW in an effort to hold onto a single generation of veteran players would be like evolving Sesame Street to keep a single audience for decades. It might work to some extent, but doing so would change the core of what brought people to the experience in the first place. The farther you get from that core, the greater the chance that you’ll lose the people who originally bought into the vision.</p><p>(Insert your NGE reference here, SWG survivors.)</p><p>Of course every MMO developer would love to retain its audience for a decade–and indeed some players have stuck with UO or EQ since the day they launched. But devs are also realistic about the fact that churn happens; old players leave, and hopefully you get enough new ones to replace the ones that are gone. So far WoW and EVE have done a pretty good job of building positive growth, and lots of other MMOs have been able to retain enough of an audience to maintain insane profitability for many years.</p><p><strong>Look, it’s okay to admit to yourself that you’ve outgrown a game. It happens. Take a step back and realize that maybe it’s you that needs a change, not necessarily the game. WoW is what it is, and maybe you just need to move on to something else. It’s not uncommon to change our favorite foods, TV shows, and authors every so often, so why is it so hard for some people to take the same view toward MMOs?</strong></p><p>We’ve all seen those epic “this is why I’m quitting and why the game is gonna go to crap without me” posts from players who assume that if they don’t enjoy a game anymore then there must be something fundamentally flawed with it. It’s like posting a tirade about how the introduction of Elmo was the last straw, and Sesame Street is sure to crash and burn without you watching it.</p><p>Sure, one day WoW and Sesame Street will both go away. After all, everything ends sooner or later. It won’t be because you or I move on, but because alternatives arrive which will offer similar appeal in a format better suited for the new generation.</p><p>And that’s okay; it’s how life works. Just ask the Romans</p></div>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 12:43 PM
<p>That just makes me a sad panda that Moorgard and Blackguard are gone. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p><p>I do have high hopes though for 38 studios products.</p><p>Edited to add: What is unintenionally funny though is that the GAME has changed and NOT stayed true to its original core concepts that brought players in. The devs have taken the oppostie tack of what Moorgard suggests, and that is staying tru to you principles even if they become tired to an "older" population in the game. That is what the people are complainging about, so the post above is actually pretty funny when it should be the "online Barbie" people who should have never been catered to in the first place if you follow the logic of th Moorgard article.</p>

GussJr
11-01-2011, 12:43 PM
<p>I have been playing this game for 3 years now. I have two level 90 Adventurers and two level 90 Tradeskillers. One of my 90's is maxed 90/300.</p><p>With a total of 8 toons the housing and fluf give me a break in between what can become a monotonous grind...going through the same questlines 8 times a piece.</p><p>Let people play the game how they want to play because that's all it is, a GAME.</p>

SlyAtregon
11-01-2011, 12:48 PM
<p>Pretty sure all the development power has been moved to EQNext.   So now we have Marketplace Realms instead of a fully balanced Everquest game.</p>

clairebear
11-01-2011, 12:48 PM
<p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here's a question. Without adventurers would there be a game to play "Dress me up Barbie" in as the OP suggests?</p></blockquote><p>I'm pitied at the fact you believe that those who decorate only play EQ2 to decorate, not to adventure and decorate, enjoying both facets! It's not either or. Both are enjoyed by most people; because you choose to focus only on adventure is your <em>choice</em> just as it is others' <em>choice </em>to enjoy both aspects of the game offered to them.</p><p>This just seems to keep going round and round. The topic may as well be closed; they aren't going to remove decorating just because there are people who <em>don't </em>enjoy it and blame it without fact for everything wrong in EQ2.</p>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 12:50 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here's a question. Without adventurers would there be a game to play "Dress me up Barbie" in as the OP suggests?</p></blockquote><p>I'm pitied at the fact you believe that those who decorate only play EQ2 to decorate, not to adventure and decorate, enjoying both facets! It's not either or. Both are enjoyed by most people; because you choose to focus only on adventure is your <em>choice</em> just as it is others' <em>choice </em>to enjoy both aspects of the game offered to them.</p><p>This just seems to keep going round and round. The topic may as well be closed; they aren't going to remove decorating just because there are people who <em>don't </em>enjoy it and blame it without fact for everything wrong in EQ2.</p></blockquote><p>It is not a matter of whether people do both, just a question as to whether one could exist without the other. Adventurers existing without decorating? Check. Decorators existing without adventrures? Nay.</p><p>It is ok to admit that decorators rely on adventure content to keep the game operating.</p><p>Edited for clarification: You could delete all "dcorating" from the game and the game would still go on. You could delete all tradeskills from the game and the game would still go on. In both cases it would not be as popular, but it could and would still function as a game.</p><p>Make all the "mobs" NPCs that are unattackble, delete all the quests, etc... and the game would fold.</p><p>It is that simple. MMORPGs are marketed as adventure games, and like in EQ2 they may add more "fluff" as the years go by, but in any case, the people who play primarily for the "fluff" are always "riding on the coattails" of the adventurers who paid to make the game what it is, and who without it would never have existed.</p>

clairebear
11-01-2011, 01:15 PM
<p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here's a question. Without adventurers would there be a game to play "Dress me up Barbie" in as the OP suggests?</p></blockquote><p>I'm pitied at the fact you believe that those who decorate only play EQ2 to decorate, not to adventure and decorate, enjoying both facets! It's not either or. Both are enjoyed by most people; because you choose to focus only on adventure is your <em>choice</em> just as it is others' <em>choice </em>to enjoy both aspects of the game offered to them.</p><p>This just seems to keep going round and round. The topic may as well be closed; they aren't going to remove decorating just because there are people who <em>don't </em>enjoy it and blame it without fact for everything wrong in EQ2.</p></blockquote><p>It is not a matter of whether people do both, just a question as to whether one could exist without the other. Adventurers existing without decorating? Check. Decorators existing without adventrures? Nay.</p><p>It is ok to admit that decorators rely on adventure content to keep the game operating.</p><p>Edited for clarification: You could delete all "dcorating" from the game and the game would still go on. You could delete all tradeskills from the game and the game would still go on. In both cases it would not be as popular, but it could and would still function as a game.</p><p>Make all the "mobs" NPCs that are unattackble, delete all the quests, etc... and the game would fold.</p><p>It is that simple. MMORPGs are marketed as adventure games, and like in EQ2 they may add more "fluff" as the years go by, but in any case, the people who play primarily for the "fluff" are always "riding on the coattails" of the adventurers who paid to make the game what it is, and who without it would never have existed.</p></blockquote><p>...your point being? Perhaps re-read the purpose of this thread. It is not a thread of decorators saying "do away with adventuring!", rather the opposite. People enjoy both, <em>fact</em>, so SOE will not do away with decorating.</p>

Nrgy
11-01-2011, 01:30 PM
<p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here's a question. Without adventurers would there be a game to play "Dress me up Barbie" in as the OP suggests?</p></blockquote><p>I'm pitied at the fact you believe that those who decorate only play EQ2 to decorate, not to adventure and decorate, enjoying both facets! It's not either or. Both are enjoyed by most people; because you choose to focus only on adventure is your <em>choice</em> just as it is others' <em>choice </em>to enjoy both aspects of the game offered to them.</p><p>This just seems to keep going round and round. The topic may as well be closed; they aren't going to remove decorating just because there are people who <em>don't </em>enjoy it and blame it without fact for everything wrong in EQ2.</p></blockquote><p>It is not a matter of whether people do both, just a question as to whether one could exist without the other. Adventurers existing without decorating? Check. Decorators existing without adventrures? Nay.</p><p>It is ok to admit that decorators rely on adventure content to keep the game operating.</p><p>Edited for clarification: You could delete all "dcorating" from the game and the game would still go on. You could delete all tradeskills from the game and the game would still go on. In both cases it would not be as popular, but it could and would still function as a game.</p><p>Make all the "mobs" NPCs that are unattackble, delete all the quests, etc... and the game would fold.</p><p>It is that simple. MMORPGs are marketed as adventure games, and like in EQ2 they may add more "fluff" as the years go by, but in any case, the people who play primarily for the "fluff" are always "riding on the coattails" of the adventurers who paid to make the game what it is, and who without it would never have existed.</p></blockquote><p>And while you're at deleting all the "fluff" from the game don't forget to board up the guild Halls and delete the travel devices within them and anything you can "Place" within the world, like guild signets or flags.  Pull all the mounts and turn off all of the Wizzy Spires and Druid Rings and then pry the COV out of everyone hands.  Then dump out any cure pots or poisons out on the ground and throw away any of the long lasting stat food.  And finally pop those adonments out of all the adventuring gear you covet so much.  Its all non-Adventuring fluff. </p>

Onorem
11-01-2011, 01:40 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here's a question. Without adventurers would there be a game to play "Dress me up Barbie" in as the OP suggests?</p></blockquote><p>I'm pitied at the fact you believe that those who decorate only play EQ2 to decorate, not to adventure and decorate, enjoying both facets! It's not either or. Both are enjoyed by most people; because you choose to focus only on adventure is your <em>choice</em> just as it is others' <em>choice </em>to enjoy both aspects of the game offered to them.</p><p>This just seems to keep going round and round. The topic may as well be closed; they aren't going to remove decorating just because there are people who <em>don't </em>enjoy it and blame it without fact for everything wrong in EQ2.</p></blockquote><p>It is not a matter of whether people do both, just a question as to whether one could exist without the other. Adventurers existing without decorating? Check. Decorators existing without adventrures? Nay.</p><p>It is ok to admit that decorators rely on adventure content to keep the game operating.</p><p>Edited for clarification: You could delete all "dcorating" from the game and the game would still go on. You could delete all tradeskills from the game and the game would still go on. In both cases it would not be as popular, but it could and would still function as a game.</p><p>Make all the "mobs" NPCs that are unattackble, delete all the quests, etc... and the game would fold.</p><p>It is that simple. MMORPGs are marketed as adventure games, and like in EQ2 they may add more "fluff" as the years go by, but in any case, the people who play primarily for the "fluff" are always "riding on the coattails" of the adventurers who paid to make the game what it is, and who without it would never have existed.</p></blockquote><p>And while you're at deleting all the "fluff" from the game don't forget to board up the guild Halls and delete the travel devices within them and anything you can "Place" within the world, like guild signets or flags.  Pull all the mounts and turn off all of the Wizzy Spires and Druid Rings and then pry the COV out of everyone hands.  Then dump out any cure pots or poisons out on the ground and throw away any of the long lasting stat food.  And finally pop those adonments out of all the adventuring gear you covet so much.  Its all non-Adventuring fluff. </p></blockquote><p>What part of pots, poisons, consumables, mounts, or adornments is fluff? I've accepted fast travel. I don't like it, but it's clearly not going away.</p>

Gaealiege
11-01-2011, 01:40 PM
<p>No one here is asking to have tradeskilling, decorating, and barbie dressing removed.  I'm uncertain where that line of idiocy is breeding.  The problem from the OP to now that people are concerned about is an ADVENTURING game has become more focused on FLUFF.  That's the issue.  That's the concern.  That's the problem people here are having.</p><p>It's not even a point of contention.  It's like there's a faction of people in reality that hold gravity doesn't exist while all evidence suggests otherwise.  The quality of content (adventuring, raiding, storyline) has dropped dramatically in the years.  The quality of fluff has greatly increased.  This is most definitely a problem to those of us that play this game for adventure and raiding. </p><p>If the intention is to drift the game toward fluff, that's wonderful, but I'd appreciate a message from SOE so that I can immediately know to release my hold here and invest my time elsewhere. </p><p>As for Rijacki, yeah every single patch for every single video game ever constructed has been flawed.  I assume that's due to the nature of imperfect humanity.  That is easily the most redundant and asinine point I've seen posted here.  Bugs will happen.  With SOE, bugs will happen more frequently than other developers.  Design is the issue, not bugs.</p>

Talathion
11-01-2011, 02:05 PM
<p>Raiding does not = adventuring, I remember in KoS Heroic zones that were harder then raid zones because you had to body pull and watch what you did and how much you pulled.</p>

Velenda
11-01-2011, 02:30 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Raiding does not = adventuring</p></blockquote><p>Thank you! Yes! (Well in my opinion anyways)</p><p>Raiding is fine for folks who like it, no harm in that...but please throw us questors and explorers a bone every once in a while. I crave an epic quest that might take months to complete, the gear and reward mean nothing to me, it's the story and adventure that I want.</p><p>Need...more....overland...quests. More overland heroic mobs...more of a reason to meet new friends, and group for something that isnt as stressful as a raid. </p><p>Please.</p><p>Also I find it weird to ask for 'less' art in a game...this game is an entire work of art...art is everwhere and in every nook and cranny of the game. If the art team has no money, the game can't exist, simple as that.</p><p>I for one can't get enough of the art of EQ2.</p>

Crismorn
11-01-2011, 02:41 PM
<p>OP wants resources shifted from art to actual content, cant say I blame him even though it wont happen until its too late to matter.</p>

kaboro
11-01-2011, 02:44 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>No one here is asking to have tradeskilling, decorating, and barbie dressing removed.  I'm uncertain where that line of idiocy is breeding.  The problem from the OP to now that people are concerned about is an ADVENTURING game has become more focused on FLUFF.  That's the issue.  That's the concern.  That's the problem people here are having.</p><p>It's not even a point of contention.  It's like there's a faction of people in reality that hold gravity doesn't exist while all evidence suggests otherwise.  The quality of content (adventuring, raiding, storyline) has dropped dramatically in the years.  The quality of fluff has greatly increased.  This is most definitely a problem to those of us that play this game for adventure and raiding. </p><p>If the intention is to drift the game toward fluff, that's wonderful, but I'd appreciate a message from SOE so that I can immediately know to release my hold here and invest my time elsewhere. </p><p>As for Rijacki, yeah every single patch for every single video game ever constructed has been flawed.  I assume that's due to the nature of imperfect humanity.  That is easily the most redundant and asinine point I've seen posted here.  Bugs will happen.  With SOE, bugs will happen more frequently than other developers.  Design is the issue, not bugs.</p></blockquote><p>If you are not able to participate in a forum thread without insults and demeaning comments, maybe mmos are not for you, or any other kind of activity that involves a social aspect for that matter.</p><p>Just like most the people that agree with the OP, you think that you are the holder of the absolute truth, you know exactly what is wrong with the game and why.</p><p>I read your theories about whats wrong with eq2 and why, and how they allocate too much resources for what you so sweetly call "fluff" and "barbie doll game".</p><p>Just because its possible doesnt mean its a fact.</p><p>Heres another theory:</p><p>(please note the keyword "theory" as unlike you i dont claim it to be fact)</p><p>All p2p games have been on the decline in the last few years and f2p games became more and more popular.</p><p>Several p2p mmmos went down, others switched to f2p models or hybrids.</p><p>Im sure EQ2 suffered too and SoE as a whole with it.</p><p>So the mmo world changed, and as a result, the existing p2p mmos had the choice to adapt or close.</p><p>What you see in EQ2 right now is the game adapting to stay alive, and you know what? I like its new face even more than i liked the old one.</p><p>I like the "fluff" and i like the decorating (should i feel bad about that? because i dont) and i like the adventuring. If it didnt change, i probably would have lost interest after all these years.</p><p>Theres plenty of new adventuring content and some of it is quite good.</p><p>Personally i think your problem is not the fluff, not the barbie games, not the adventuring, your problem is that you got stuck in the past, asking for more of the same all the time and im sorry but i dont see that happening, not in eq2, not anywhere else.</p>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 03:02 PM
<p><cite>kaboro wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If it didnt change, i probably would have lost interest after all these years.</p></blockquote><p>1) See the Moorgard snippet about change.</p><p>2) If it devoted all that money to actually developing and POLISHING adventure content I wonder where we would be.</p><p>3) EQ2 didn't start really  heading downhill until AFTER they started adding all the LON loot cards, fluff, and SC items instead of focusing on adventure content. That wasn't an attempt to counter a slide. Do we really need to list the expansions, rate them, and note the entry of what I mentioned above? hint: after EoF (and since RoK was in beta shortly thereafter you can probably count it as pre LON, Fluff, SC).</p>

Nrgy
11-01-2011, 03:24 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>No one here is asking to have tradeskilling, decorating, and barbie dressing removed.  I'm uncertain where that line of idiocy is breeding.  The problem from the OP to now that people are concerned about is an ADVENTURING game has become more focused on FLUFF.  That's the issue.  That's the concern.  That's the problem people here are having.</p><p>It's not even a point of contention.  It's like there's a faction of people in reality that hold gravity doesn't exist while all evidence suggests otherwise.  The quality of content (adventuring, raiding, storyline) has dropped dramatically in the years.  The quality of fluff has greatly increased.  This is most definitely a problem to those of us that play this game for adventure and raiding. </p><p>If the intention is to drift the game toward fluff, that's wonderful, but I'd appreciate a message from SOE so that I can immediately know to release my hold here and invest my time elsewhere. </p><p>As for Rijacki, yeah every single patch for every single video game ever constructed has been flawed.  I assume that's due to the nature of imperfect humanity.  That is easily the most redundant and asinine point I've seen posted here.  Bugs will happen.  With SOE, bugs will happen more frequently than other developers.  Design is the issue, not bugs.</p></blockquote><p>It seems that the OP and his faction is concerned that adventuring content is being outweighted by "decorating" content, but at the exact same time embrace the "decorating" content which suits them.  It is unfair to think having it both ways is fine.  As for the proportion of adventuing content comapre to "decorating" content it has always been and still, to this day, remains heavily weighted to the adventuring side, IMO rightfully so and by a factor of 100 times or more.  For every placeable chair that is added to the game there are ~100 adventuring items, NPCs, artwork, mechanics, mob scripts, etc added to the game.</p><p>So, when people say "No More Barbie", to me, they are saying remove it all.  that might be an extreme, but that is esentially what I feel they mean when they say it.  But, they don't really mean it, what they mean is; remove all the fluff which they personally don't find value in and keep all the fluff which they do find value in.</p><p>MMO"RPG" ... the fluff helps support the Role Playing aspects of the game.  Why have appearance slots at all?  Why have more than one color or model mount?  Why have hundreds of different styled cloaks or shields?  Not a single one of that fluff appearance stuff supports adventuring as far as mechanics go, but they do enhance the RPG portion of the MMORPG format and doing so enhances "some" peoples experiences.</p><p>Adventuring and Decorating have both "declined" over time depending on who you ask.  DOV actually has less for "Ddecorators" than any previous X-pack.  Adventures found new lands, new dungeons, new raids, new mobs and new adventures.  The DoV "Decorator" found only a small portion of new fluff.  Now with AoD, Oooo "Decorators" are getting BYoD fluff features, which SJ said would reward "stuff" to be used with your Adventuring toons.  Kind of a mixed bag where they both support each other, to some degree.  Will BYoD reward items be usefull to adventurers, idk, but they will, in fact, be designed for them, even if they don't find the items of worth.</p><p>I disagree ... I do not feel that "Decorating" is a greater focus ... In fact, I think it is less than ever.  Equating the developers inability to fix warping mobs to dedication of reskinning a fluff mount as being equal effort, is silly.</p>

Renea_Moonstalker
11-01-2011, 03:25 PM
<cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><cite>Cloudrat wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That gane is still here and then some!  I remember adventuring with friends questing and crafting and helping each other.  I also decorated my house with the things my carpenter could make so that it looked nice when people came to shop there. I don't know where you live irl but after a hard day's work it's nice to rest and have some social time in a comfortable atmosphere.  This is  a ciomplete world, the best of it's kind and while there issues that might slow it's growth, being able to beter customize our toons and our environment does not deter from it, but enhances it.</p></blockquote><p>Not surprising to see these comments considering which gameplay style you seem to fit into. Something tells me you would be perfectly happy in a game without the adventuring side.</p><p>For the rest of us unhappy with the game's direction it is very clear that resource allocation is all screwed up. Rather than making the adventure side so good that it attracts new players SOE seems to be clueless why adventurers (those who actually PLAY the adventure content) are unhappy with the direction the game has been going and try adding in fixes like dungeon finder to fix a problem that is really content and mechanics related. In short players would group if the content was actually fun which for the most part it is not either due to broken content or other mechanics issues.</p><p>So be happy with your online barbie game but keep in mind as the adventurers leave for other games and funding dries up eventually even the online barbie SC game will become unprofitable when enough players leave due to management's decision to not allocate enough resources to the core of the game which is the adventure side.</p><p>SOE management is really trying to hold onto adventurers with the beastlord class but even that tactic will have little power in keeping players happy with the game when the problems remain with the adventuring core of the game. It's too bad not enough resources are there to fix the core of the game so it could actually attract new players but it is even worse when these resources are wasted in areas that do not help the core part of the game which is adventuring in solo/group/raid forms.</p></blockquote>

Renea_Moonstalker
11-01-2011, 03:25 PM
<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Cloudrat wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That gane is still here and then some!  I remember adventuring with friends questing and crafting and helping each other.  I also decorated my house with the things my carpenter could make so that it looked nice when people came to shop there. I don't know where you live irl but after a hard day's work it's nice to rest and have some social time in a comfortable atmosphere.  This is  a ciomplete world, the best of it's kind and while there issues that might slow it's growth, being able to beter customize our toons and our environment does not deter from it, but enhances it.</p></blockquote><p>Not surprising to see these comments considering which gameplay style you seem to fit into. Something tells me you would be perfectly happy in a game without the adventuring side.</p><p>For the rest of us unhappy with the game's direction it is very clear that resource allocation is all screwed up. Rather than making the adventure side so good that it attracts new players SOE seems to be clueless why adventurers (those who actually PLAY the adventure content) are unhappy with the direction the game has been going and try adding in fixes like dungeon finder to fix a problem that is really content and mechanics related. In short players would group if the content was actually fun which for the most part it is not either due to broken content or other mechanics issues.</p><p>So be happy with your online barbie game but keep in mind as the adventurers leave for other games and funding dries up eventually even the online barbie SC game will become unprofitable when enough players leave due to management's decision to not allocate enough resources to the core of the game which is the adventure side.</p><p>SOE management is really trying to hold onto adventurers with the beastlord class but even that tactic will have little power in keeping players happy with the game when the problems remain with the adventuring core of the game. It's too bad not enough resources are there to fix the core of the game so it could actually attract new players but it is even worse when these resources are wasted in areas that do not help the core part of the game which is adventuring in solo/group/raid forms.</p></blockquote>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 03:27 PM
<p>Here, let me lay out a little timeline for those of you who may not know.</p><p>Legends of Norrath, with loot cards for in game items "bought" with real cash, enters the game: <strong>September of 2007</strong></p><p>Rise of Kunark Launches: <strong>November of 2007</strong></p><p>Rise of Kunark: <strong>Declared best selling EQ2 expasion of all time: May 28, 2008</strong></p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=419093">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=419093</a> </p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Rise of Kunark, the fourth and largest expansion pack for the critically acclaimed online role playing game EverQuest® II, officially becomes the best selling expansion pack to date, surpassing all previous expansions in number of units sold."</p><p>The Shadow Odyssey Launches: <strong>November of 2008</strong></p><p>Station Cash Launches: <strong>December of  2008.</strong></p><p>Since then, IMHO: EOF was best, RoK was ok, but since then it has been downhill as far as quantity and polish.</p>

Crismorn
11-01-2011, 03:39 PM
<p>Pretty much.</p><p>Went downhill once RoK hit</p>

Nrgy
11-01-2011, 03:43 PM
<p>Your assumptions are a stretch at best ...</p><p>LON is a third party vendor, isn't it?  How does their development add or take away from SOE's development of EQ2.</p><p>You are finding enough value to maintain a subscription currently and that might not always be the case.  Everyone has to assesss value as they see it.  others do the same as you, assign value based on what interests them.  Why should your value assessment be leveraged onto other people who value different things.  But that still doesn't mean just becasue one group of people feels they are getting lesser quality or quantity that others are getting more.  That is a bit myopic.</p><p>We all know people are upset becasue the SC marketplace seems to have new items every day when mechanics go unfixed, but this is the wrong agrumentive format and not all things are equal in effort.</p>

Nrgy
11-01-2011, 03:44 PM
<p><cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Pretty much.</p><p>Went downhill once RoK hit</p></blockquote><p>I bet there are folks in EQ1 still, that feel the day EQ2 when live was a bad day for EQ1.</p>

Gaealiege
11-01-2011, 03:50 PM
<p>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p><p>It has nothing to do with a changing market because this was a product that already existed.  Changing markets affect new products.  Ever opened your closet to find out your Pumas instead turned into fuzzy bunny slippers?  Neither have I.  The only change that has happened here is that SOE wants a larger slice of the economy and thus designed content for the GaiaOnline/Maple Story crowd.  The SIMs crowd.  The non-gamer/fad gamer crowd.  They've taken the product I've already purchased and invested time into and added some whiskers and pink fur to it. </p><p>As for your fact versus theory strategy, I've had now 31 years in the gaming world.  I moved from Game and Watch to Alienware PC.  I've acquired a bit of expertise through that time.  I've seen how developers destroy games.  Capcom, Konami, EA, SquareEnix,  and Activision come to mind readily when I think of companies that love destroying their products.  SOE originally wasn't in that list, but they're working their way up.  I've seen what it looks like when a company starts to build more fluff than actual gameplay.  Most of those begin to fail or falter.  Check out Resident Evil 5 for confirmation.  A game that went from the survival horror genre to a run-shoot-move action game that is a far cry from the originals.  Capcom lost tons of fans of the series with this one (with four as well) because they started marketing their games to the fad gamer/non-gamer crowd. </p><p>I can sit back and watch helplessly as yet another game I love is ruined by the same type of design.  I can also voice my "demeaning" views here as well when I dislike the direction the game is taking.  My words only reflect the way I feel SOE has treated their loyal high end gamers, demeaningly.</p>

Crismorn
11-01-2011, 03:59 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Pretty much.</p><p>Went downhill once RoK hit</p></blockquote><p>I bet there are folks in EQ1 still, that feel the day EQ2 when live was a bad day for EQ1.</p></blockquote><p>I'm talking game content wise both from a challenging and rewarding standpoint, strangely enough TSO was an attempt to right the wrongs of RoK, but then SF and DoV happened.</p>

GussJr
11-01-2011, 03:59 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p><p>It has nothing to do with a changing market because this was a product that already existed.  Changing markets affect new products.  Ever opened your closet to find out your Pumas instead turned into fuzzy bunny slippers?  Neither have I.  The only change that has happened here is that SOE wants a larger slice of the economy and thus designed content for the GaiaOnline/Maple Story crowd.  The SIMs crowd.  The non-gamer/fad gamer crowd.  They've taken the product I've already purchased and invested time into and added some whiskers and pink fur to it. </p><p>As for your fact versus theory strategy, I've had now 31 years in the gaming world.  I moved from Game and Watch to Alienware PC.  I've acquired a bit of expertise through that time.  I've seen how developers destroy games.  Capcom, Konami, EA, SquareEnix,  and Activision come to mind readily when I think of companies that love destroying their products.  SOE originally wasn't in that list, but they're working their way up.  I've seen what it looks like when a company starts to build more fluff than actual gameplay.  Most of those begin to fail or falter.  Check out Resident Evil 5 for confirmation.  A game that went from the survival horror genre to a run-shoot-move action game that is a far cry from the originals.  Capcom lost tons of fans of the series with this one (with four as well) because they started marketing their games to the fad gamer/non-gamer crowd. </p><p>I can sit back and watch helplessly as yet another game I love is ruined by the same type of design.  I can also voice my "demeaning" views here as well when I dislike the direction the game is taking.  My words only reflect the way I feel SOE has treated their loyal high end gamers, demeaningly.</p></blockquote><p>/hug</p>

Gaealiege
11-01-2011, 04:06 PM
<p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /></p>

Talathion
11-01-2011, 04:06 PM
<p>did anyone elses hair get messed up in todays patch?</p>

urgthock
11-01-2011, 04:07 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.</strong>  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p><p>It has nothing to do with a changing market because this was a product that already existed.  Changing markets affect new products.  Ever opened your closet to find out your Pumas instead turned into fuzzy bunny slippers?  Neither have I.  The only change that has happened here is that SOE wants a larger slice of the economy and thus designed content for the GaiaOnline/Maple Story crowd.  The SIMs crowd.  The non-gamer/fad gamer crowd.  They've taken the product I've already purchased and invested time into and added some whiskers and pink fur to it. </p><p>As for your fact versus theory strategy, I've had now 31 years in the gaming world.  I moved from Game and Watch to Alienware PC.  I've acquired a bit of expertise through that time.  I've seen how developers destroy games.  Capcom, Konami, EA, SquareEnix,  and Activision come to mind readily when I think of companies that love destroying their products.  SOE originally wasn't in that list, but they're working their way up.  I've seen what it looks like when a company starts to build more fluff than actual gameplay.  Most of those begin to fail or falter.  Check out Resident Evil 5 for confirmation.  A game that went from the survival horror genre to a run-shoot-move action game that is a far cry from the originals.  Capcom lost tons of fans of the series with this one (with four as well) because they started marketing their games to the fad gamer/non-gamer crowd. </p><p>I can sit back and watch helplessly as yet another game I love is ruined by the same type of design.  I can also voice my "demeaning" views here as well when I dislike the direction the game is taking.  My words only reflect the way I feel SOE has treated their loyal high end gamers, demeaningly.</p></blockquote><p>While I agree with many (although not all) of your sentiments, I wonder if you realize that the sterotypical argument of "elitest raider" is created through many comments like the one in bold.</p><p>It's one thing to think highly of your own game playing ability, and quite another to spout off at the mouth as if they make you or your opinions better than those who don't have your "mad skillz yo!"</p>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 04:09 PM
<p>I think that is called playing to the stereotype. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 04:10 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>did anyone elses hair get messed up in todays patch?</p></blockquote><p>You can buy new hairdos for 50SC.</p>

Nrgy
11-01-2011, 04:11 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p><p>It has nothing to do with a changing market because this was a product that already existed.  Changing markets affect new products.  Ever opened your closet to find out your Pumas instead turned into fuzzy bunny slippers?  Neither have I.  The only change that has happened here is that SOE wants a larger slice of the economy and thus designed content for the GaiaOnline/Maple Story crowd.  The SIMs crowd.  The non-gamer/fad gamer crowd.  They've taken the product I've already purchased and invested time into and added some whiskers and pink fur to it. </p><p>As for your fact versus theory strategy, I've had now 31 years in the gaming world.  I moved from Game and Watch to Alienware PC.  I've acquired a bit of expertise through that time.  I've seen how developers destroy games.  Capcom, Konami, EA, SquareEnix,  and Activision come to mind readily when I think of companies that love destroying their products.  SOE originally wasn't in that list, but they're working their way up.  I've seen what it looks like when a company starts to build <span style="color: #ff0000;">more fluff than actual gameplay</span>.  Most of those begin to fail or falter.  Check out Resident Evil 5 for confirmation.  A game that went from the survival horror genre to a run-shoot-move action game that is a far cry from the originals.  Capcom lost tons of fans of the series with this one (with four as well) because they started marketing their games to the fad gamer/non-gamer crowd. </p><p>I can sit back and watch helplessly as yet another game I love is ruined by the same type of design.  I can also voice my "demeaning" views here as well when I dislike the direction the game is taking.  My words only reflect the way I feel SOE has treated their loyal high end gamers, demeaningly. </p></blockquote><p>You can spin it anyway you like but it is utter fiction.  There is now more Game Play than fluff .. and there always has been .. and there always will be.  There might not be more current level cap game play, but there for certain is more game play.  After the Adventure centric updates they called AA re-vamp and the 1-89 reitemization they would have to push out a flying mount army or a dinning room set to seat 200 people to even be on the radar of keeping pace with what you're trying to push off here.</p><p>So, you don't like the Adventure update you're getting ... that does not mean that you're not getting them, it means you don't like them. </p><p>I like the "I'm a more experienced gamers than you are" argument too, very mature.  The first MMO I played was an Economics Simulator on a tape drive main frame before mainstream computers even existed.  Let me give a /eyeroll to the first person who claims to know more about modern MMO's becasue they rolled some funky sided dice back in the day.</p>

Talathion
11-01-2011, 04:11 PM
<p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>did anyone elses hair get messed up in todays patch?</p></blockquote><p>You can buy new hairdos for 50SC.</p></blockquote><p>the shaders for soga hair are ruined in todays patch.</p>

Malleria
11-01-2011, 04:27 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>After the Adventure centric updates they called AA re-vamp and the 1-89 reitemization they would have to push out a flying mount army or a dinning room set to seat 200 people to even be on the radar of keeping pace with what you're trying to push off here.</p><p>So, you don't like the Adventure update you're getting ... that does not mean that you're not getting them, it means you don't like them. </p></blockquote><p>lol.</p><p>The AA revamp and re-itemization blunders are like them releasing a new prestige home that crashes the game when you try to zone in. Complete and utter fail. The difference is one would be fixed immediately, the other two are left to rot.</p>

Velenda
11-01-2011, 04:29 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p></blockquote><p>You can not be serious....I mean are you serious? If what I'm reading is correct then...wow.</p><p>Corect me if I'm wrong but, are you by virtue of your previous statements and such, implying that you do not want to deal with women in MMOs? Is that what your saying?Are you saying that women have ruined MMOs?</p><p>Be square with me man...is that what you are saying?</p>

Golbezz
11-01-2011, 04:48 PM
<p><cite>Onorem wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What part of pots, poisons, consumables, mounts, or adornments is fluff? I've accepted fast travel. I don't like it, but it's clearly not going away.</p></blockquote><p>He clearly enjoys online barbie so anything that is adventure related must be fluff to him.</p>

SOE-MOD-02
11-01-2011, 04:52 PM
<p>I would advise the personal bickering and insults end before this post is locked.  Keep on discussion please.</p>

Trynt
11-01-2011, 04:54 PM
<p><cite>urgthock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.</strong>  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p><p>It has nothing to do with a changing market because this was a product that already existed.  Changing markets affect new products.  Ever opened your closet to find out your Pumas instead turned into fuzzy bunny slippers?  Neither have I.  The only change that has happened here is that SOE wants a larger slice of the economy and thus designed content for the GaiaOnline/Maple Story crowd.  The SIMs crowd.  The non-gamer/fad gamer crowd.  They've taken the product I've already purchased and invested time into and added some whiskers and pink fur to it. </p><p>As for your fact versus theory strategy, I've had now 31 years in the gaming world.  I moved from Game and Watch to Alienware PC.  I've acquired a bit of expertise through that time.  I've seen how developers destroy games.  Capcom, Konami, EA, SquareEnix,  and Activision come to mind readily when I think of companies that love destroying their products.  SOE originally wasn't in that list, but they're working their way up.  I've seen what it looks like when a company starts to build more fluff than actual gameplay.  Most of those begin to fail or falter.  Check out Resident Evil 5 for confirmation.  A game that went from the survival horror genre to a run-shoot-move action game that is a far cry from the originals.  Capcom lost tons of fans of the series with this one (with four as well) because they started marketing their games to the fad gamer/non-gamer crowd. </p><p>I can sit back and watch helplessly as yet another game I love is ruined by the same type of design.  I can also voice my "demeaning" views here as well when I dislike the direction the game is taking.  My words only reflect the way I feel SOE has treated their loyal high end gamers, demeaningly.</p></blockquote><p>While I agree with many (although not all) of your sentiments, I wonder if you realize that the sterotypical argument of "elitest raider" is created through many comments like the one in bold.</p><p>It's one thing to think highly of your own game playing ability, and quite another to spout off at the mouth as if they make you or your opinions better than those who don't have your "mad skillz yo!"</p></blockquote><p>Not that I support people vocalizing inflated self-perceptions, but he didn't mention raiding at all in the above post.</p>

kaboro
11-01-2011, 04:55 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p><p>It has nothing to do with a changing market because this was a product that already existed.  Changing markets affect new products.  Ever opened your closet to find out your Pumas instead turned into fuzzy bunny slippers?  Neither have I.  The only change that has happened here is that SOE wants a larger slice of the economy and thus designed content for the GaiaOnline/Maple Story crowd.  The SIMs crowd.  The non-gamer/fad gamer crowd.  They've taken the product I've already purchased and invested time into and added some whiskers and pink fur to it. </p><p>As for your fact versus theory strategy, I've had now 31 years in the gaming world.  I moved from Game and Watch to Alienware PC.  I've acquired a bit of expertise through that time.  I've seen how developers destroy games.  Capcom, Konami, EA, SquareEnix,  and Activision come to mind readily when I think of companies that love destroying their products.  SOE originally wasn't in that list, but they're working their way up.  I've seen what it looks like when a company starts to build more fluff than actual gameplay.  Most of those begin to fail or falter.  Check out Resident Evil 5 for confirmation.  A game that went from the survival horror genre to a run-shoot-move action game that is a far cry from the originals.  Capcom lost tons of fans of the series with this one (with four as well) because they started marketing their games to the fad gamer/non-gamer crowd. </p><p>I can sit back and watch helplessly as yet another game I love is ruined by the same type of design.  I can also voice my "demeaning" views here as well when I dislike the direction the game is taking.  My words only reflect the way I feel SOE has treated their loyal high end gamers, demeaningly.</p></blockquote><p>You sat on top of the mmo world for so long and still didnt learn anything, you know things like manners, self censoring, modesty.</p><p>But you excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase so i guess you are allowed, having god-like status and all.</p><p>31 years in the gaming world make your opinion better than anyone elses of course, especially those that you call "lower class".</p><p>Ironically i agree with your "companies destroying their games" point and i could add to your list, but sorry i cant agree with anything else you said there.</p><p>I think its time to get out of your cave a bit, theres a whole world out there, a world that has changed a lot while you were sitting on top of the mmo world.</p>

Raknid
11-01-2011, 04:55 PM
<p>I honestly don't think very many, if any, adventure oriented people would care about them doing "fluff" stuff to keep other people happy if we were still getting the quantity and quality content and features we used to get before the prevalence of using real life money to buy in game items.</p>

Golbezz
11-01-2011, 04:57 PM
<p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here, let me lay out a little timeline for those of you who may not know.</p><p>Legends of Norrath, with loot cards for in game items "bought" with real cash, enters the game: <strong>September of 2007</strong></p><p>Rise of Kunark Launches: <strong>November of 2007</strong></p><p>Rise of Kunark: <strong>Declared best selling EQ2 expasion of all time: May 28, 2008</strong></p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=419093">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=419093</a> </p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">"Rise of Kunark, the fourth and largest expansion pack for the critically acclaimed online role playing game EverQuest® II, officially becomes the best selling expansion pack to date, surpassing all previous expansions in number of units sold."</p><p>The Shadow Odyssey Launches: <strong>November of 2008</strong></p><p>Station Cash Launches: <strong>December of  2008.</strong></p><p>Since then, IMHO: EOF was best, RoK was ok, but since then it has been downhill as far as quantity and polish. </p></blockquote><p>I suspect RoK sales were up as players returned to EQ2 from the vanguard failure.</p><p>Station cash in Dec of 2008, makes sense why SF was such a junk expansion since it was released well after SC was added. I wonder what sort of excuse the online barbie lovers will come up with to defend the decline in quality. Will they use the EQnext excuse that far back?</p>

Crismorn
11-01-2011, 04:57 PM
<p><cite>Velenda wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I sat on top of the MMO world long before you probably knew what Ultima was let alone what MMORPG stood for Kaboro.  MMOs are definitely for me.  I excess well beyond 99.9% of the playerbase.  The issue is identical to real life.  There are sections of society which I'd rather just not deal with.  Here in the digital realms the lower class society is typically that of the tradeskiller and fluff champion.  The problem is the architects that designed my gated community have decided that the gates don't need fixed because it no longer opens or closes.  Instead the gate needs a giant bow (which I can conveniently get in yellow, red, or purple) for $15. </p></blockquote><p>You can not be serious....I mean are you serious? If what I'm reading is correct then...wow.</p><p>Corect me if I'm wrong but, are you by virtue of your previous statements and such, implying that you do not want to deal with women in MMOs? Is that what your saying?Are you saying that women have ruined MMOs?</p><p>Be square with me man...is that what you are saying?</p></blockquote><p>How do you get anything sexist out of what they said?</p><p>I can see how barbies would be considered a girl toy once upon a time just as GI joes are considered a boy toy, but I'm also fairtly sure that the term Barbie was used because as most of us know entail a great deal of costumes, housing and decorating which is nearly identical to much of the content in eq2.</p><p>The only way you could get anything sexist about his reply is if you had read the thread and assumed.</p>

Nrgy
11-01-2011, 04:59 PM
<p><cite>Malleria wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>After the Adventure centric updates they called AA re-vamp and the 1-89 reitemization they would have to push out a flying mount army or a dinning room set to seat 200 people to even be on the radar of keeping pace with what you're trying to push off here.</p><p>So, you don't like the Adventure update you're getting ... that does not mean that you're not getting them, it means you don't like them. </p></blockquote><p>lol.</p><p>The AA revamp and re-itemization blunders are like them releasing a new prestige home that crashes the game when you try to zone in. Complete and utter fail. The difference is one would be fixed immediately, the other two are left to rot.</p></blockquote><p>No .. the difference is that whether we, the players feel the AA re-vamp and the 1-89 reitemization were blunders or not, SOE felt they were #1 needed and #2 completed.  A SC prestige house that crashes the game would be something broken and needing to be fixed.  See the difference?</p><p>And yes, I personally think the AA re-vamp and 1-89 reitemization were huge blunders but were dwarfed my personaly feeling that Dungeon Finder is a far worse blunder on top of continued nerfing of content to "balance" the under achievers, but in no way do I think "Decorating" content outweights Adventuring content.  As a matter of fact, I wish they would stop "Fixing" Adventure stuff, because every time they touch one thing they seem to break 3 others.</p><p>Just becasue zone progression is farkled doesn't mean carpenters get more chairs or the Marketplace has new NotD Boooos for 50 SC in place of good coding and progression.  Who's smart Idea was it to make the Temple BP worse than the Fortress one?  Who's idea was it to have 2 handers in SF and Drunder+ carry 4 adornments slots while ignoring every single one inbetween, hell you can even get 4 slot 2hd weapons from fabled crafting mats?  I'd rather have them spend their time on draperies for houses than keep messing with the limited things they do have right currently.</p>

SOE-MOD-02
11-01-2011, 05:06 PM
<p>Locking this down now.  Thank you for the feedback!  Please remember that everyone has their own reasons for playing this game and that they are just as valid as everyone else's reasons <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>