PDA

View Full Version : Research Reducer Items:


Greenmist
11-17-2011, 01:19 PM
<p><cite>Smokejumper wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>2) The research reducer items will stay on the marketplace. Everyone seems to agree that their effect is almost completely innocuous because getting the masters for free is incredibly easy in game. <strong>It just takes time, but it doesn't take effort of any sort.</strong></blockquote><p><strong>Greenmist @ Permafrost</strong><span>Can we make the adornments that come from the public quests purchaseable for Nights of the Dead candy corn or some other in-game currency?</span></p><p><strong>From the recent Nights of the Dead podcast:</strong><em> No. Because those are two very very different challenges, two very different types of content. <strong>One you can measure as like, oh it's really easy to get these little things or it just takes time and luck to get these things</strong>, the other one takes work or has a recorded amount of time that it takes to get those, yeah you cannot mix the two. Too different of content.</em></p><hr /><p>So, it's okay to take the luck portion out of content (such as trying to obtain masters) so long as you can charge a premium for it? The public quests sure don't take any effort to complete, so what's the justification for this now? Heck, the only challenge to them is that participation is slacking off, as Thurgadin gear is next to free and better than the PQ gear, and Storm Gorge is simply not worth the difficulty for the reward, so no one does it.</p><p>How many useless deity favor rings do I have to bag at max favor before these runes become purchasable in some manner? Or at the <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>very least</em></span> heirloom? <strong>You have made it necessary to run trivial content over and over for a luck-based reward that is necessary for non-trivial content.</strong></p><p>The public quests are only going to be utilized less as time goes on. There needs to be another way to achieve the runes, and you're running out of excuses for not allowing it.</p>

Rijacki
11-17-2011, 01:24 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Smokejumper wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>2) The research reducer items will stay on the marketplace. Everyone seems to agree that their effect is almost completely innocuous because getting the masters for free is incredibly easy in game. <strong>It just takes time, but it doesn't take effort of any sort.</strong></blockquote><p><strong>Greenmist @ Permafrost</strong><span>Can we make the adornments that come from the public quests purchaseable for Nights of the Dead candy corn or some other in-game currency?</span></p><p><strong>From the recent Nights of the Dead podcast:</strong><em> No. Because those are two very very different challenges, two very different types of content. <strong>One you can measure as like, oh it's really easy to get these little things or it just takes time and luck to get these things</strong>, the other one takes work or has a recorded amount of time that it takes to get those, yeah you cannot mix the two. Too different of content.</em></p><hr /><p>So, it's okay to take the luck portion out of content (such as trying to obtain masters) so long as you can charge a premium for it? The public quests sure don't take any effort to complete, so what's the justification for this now? Heck, the only challenge to them is that participation is slacking off, as Thurgadin gear is next to free and better than the PQ gear, and Storm Gorge is simply not worth the difficulty for the reward, so no one does it.</p><p>How many useless deity favor rings do I have to bag at max favor before these runes become purchasable in some manner? Or at the <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>very least</em></span> heirloom? <strong>You have made it necessary to run trivial content over and over for a luck-based reward that is necessary for non-trivial content.</strong></p><p>The public quests are only going to be utilized less as time goes on. There needs to be another way to achieve the runes, and you're running out of excuses for not allowing it.</p></blockquote><p>The specific question was about making them available for NotD candy and that was the response. The challenges in the NotD content is different from the PQ content. You can also get the candy from killing any level of certain NPCs.</p>

Greenmist
11-17-2011, 01:30 PM
<p>Yes, and it was also a blatantly tongue-in-cheek response to get some sort of meaningful questions answered in a fluff-filled podcast for a Live event that was already halfway over. They know it wasn't about NotD candy and never was. Some of the others included:</p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Will the Nights of the Dead masks ever have yellow adornment slots added to them? If that isn't possible, we could settle for having some added to the Elements of War items, at least, as was promised.Which developer created the super-cute Survive the Night quest? <img src="../images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> And do they plan on improving it next year by adding mem-wiping adds with cooperative strike and uncurable detriments?What trick-or-treating score must we reach in Freeport or Qeynos in order for the HM Drunder bows to receive the proper damage spread and weapon skill amounts?</p></blockquote><p>The only developer responses have been from Smokejumper, who gave the justification cited (which has parity to what I posted exactly as I laid it out; luck-based content vs. luck-based content) and private responses from other developers who deferred because it is a mechanics issue that they can't do anything about. I'd even accept "because we said so" as a reason at this point, because at least that reasoning stands up to logic.</p>

Rijacki
11-17-2011, 01:32 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, and it was also a blatantly tongue-in-cheek response to get some sort of meaningful questions answered in a fluff-filled podcast for a Live event that was already halfway over. They know it wasn't about NotD candy and never was.</p></blockquote><p>And they didn't rise to the blatant attempt to derail and answered it about NotD candy.</p>

thewarriorpoet
11-17-2011, 01:57 PM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, and it was also a blatantly tongue-in-cheek response to get some sort of meaningful questions answered in a fluff-filled podcast for a Live event that was already halfway over. They know it wasn't about NotD candy and never was.</p></blockquote><p>And they didn't rise to the blatant attempt to derail and answered it about NotD candy.</p></blockquote><p>Right but in doing so stated a general princible of rewards they can be assumed to be what he follows. Logically, then the OPs original question is very valid. More or less, they won't get rid of research redux pots because they probably make way too much money on them, even though it is, IMO, the most game play affecting item EQ2X had.</p>

Lathain_Sarathai
11-17-2011, 02:24 PM
<p>after Pay to Play, the false Free to Play and the true Pay to Win</p>

Deveryn
11-17-2011, 02:36 PM
<p>Right, because Masters are the key to victory for everything. Nevermind any kind of teamwork.</p>

Wookin
11-17-2011, 02:41 PM
Those questions are epic and brilliant. ROFL!!!

Nrgy
11-17-2011, 03:14 PM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, and it was also a blatantly tongue-in-cheek response to get some sort of meaningful questions answered in a fluff-filled podcast for a Live event that was already halfway over. They know it wasn't about NotD candy and never was.</p></blockquote><p>And they didn't rise to the blatant attempt to derail and answered it about NotD candy.</p></blockquote><p>I am astonished and suprised at some peoples cognitive abilities or lack there of.  Green's attempts to lend voice to relevant concerns, which remain unresponded to, was nothing more than an attempt to use the only open communication venue that the Devs seems to care about, Fluff, as a means to address non-fluff content which remains unaddressed, some by design and some by blunder.</p><p>Thinking that a single one of those questions were actually about NOTD at its halfway mark is nieve at best.  Having the Devs actaully "answer" the question was even more astounding becasue if they did not realize it for what it was they are out-of-touch more than anyone actually though and if they did and chose to "answer" the way they did it shows the level of respect they give the player base, the same goes for anyone that supports the "answer" which was offered.</p><p>And although this post doesn't actully express anything other than my views and is in no way "calling out" anyone or leveraging any disrespect what so ever, I fully expect it to be mod'ed within the next 15 minutes.</p>

feldon30
11-17-2011, 04:36 PM
<p>If he was serious about asking the EQ2 team for a more sensible avenue to acquiring level 90 Public Quest gear, asking for this gear to be tied to level 1+ flavor quests (Nights of the Dead) ain't the way to go.</p><p>But it's true that it no longer seems the policy of the EQ2 team to comment on Mechanics questions.</p>

Nrgy
11-17-2011, 04:48 PM
<p><cite>feldon30 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If he was serious about asking the EQ2 team for a more sensible avenue to acquiring level 90 Public Quest gear, asking for this gear to be tied to level 1+ flavor quests (Nights of the Dead) ain't the way to go.</p><p>But it's true that it no longer seems the policy of the EQ2 team to comment on Mechanics questions.</p></blockquote><p><strong>You</strong> know that's NOT what he was asking. </p><p>He was asking why can't the PQ adornments, which are desired by many low-gear players as much as high-gear players, be available through a secondary avenue such as a merchant mechanic rather than a dying repeatable methodology which will soon become even more removed, but the numerous times which that question was tabled it was completely ignored or passed over by the team.</p><p>The NotD format was the ONLY avenue of communications which was open due to the lack of acknowledgement within the other seemingly monitored communication venues.  I realize that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">people that have more direct lines of communication </span>do not realize that the forums are the only plausable way the player base can feedback to the producer.</p><p>The itemization question was acknowledged by the "team", but, to my knowledge, have failed to correct it.</p>

Greenmist
11-17-2011, 05:08 PM
<p>You caught me. I hoard candy corn, just waiting for the day I can cash it in for worthwhile, non-fluff items. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Yes, I am quite serious about the issues. Sadly, though, <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=180&topic_id=507124#5637811" target="_blank">serious discussions</a> are ignored, while changing tact and making a flippant reply about candy corn actually garnered a response. I was shocked to hear my question included, given how much venom was obviously included in it.</p><p>You're exactly right, though, it seems we're out of luck on responses regarding mechanics discussions, but that doesn't mean I'm done trying to ask or to point out their logical fallacies. I guess I just expect to be lied to <em>better</em>. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" /></p>

thewarriorpoet
11-17-2011, 05:21 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I guess I just expect to be lied to <em>better</em>. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Ain't that the truth!</p>

Nrgy
11-17-2011, 05:44 PM
<p><cite>thewarriorpoet wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I guess I just expect to be lied to <em>better</em>. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" />  <span style="color: #ff0000;"><-- perfectly said</span></p></blockquote><p>Ain't that the truth!</p></blockquote><p>/QFE</p>