PDA

View Full Version : The rate of new "stuff"


Raknid
01-17-2012, 03:55 PM
<p>I was curious, so I performed a couple searches. If you want to get an idea of how fast they are introducing SC items into the game, and compare that with the rate of other "stuff," just click on the links. These are threads created about new marketplace items. Like clockwork...and not just singular items. Wish they could sqaush bugs/tweak content at the same rate (here's looking at you DF).</p><p>One link is for Isulith and the other for Amnerys.</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/search/search.m?clean=1&query=New+Marketplace&keywordType=&searchTerms=all&author=isulith&userType=threads&exactMatch=true&forumId=11&sortBy=time&sortDir=DESC&categoryId=&postTime">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...oryId=&postTime</a>=</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/search/search.m?clean=1&query=New+Marketplace&keywordType=&searchTerms=all&author=Amnerys&userType=threads&exactMatch=true&forumId=11&sortBy=time&sortDir=DESC&categoryId=&postTime">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...oryId=&postTime</a>=</p>

Lempo
01-17-2012, 03:58 PM
<p>I would also like to point out that the last 2 weeks of patches fixed a whopping <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> 5 items with itemization issues.</p>

Raknid
01-17-2012, 04:23 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I would also like to point out that the last 2 weeks of patches fixed a whopping <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> 5 items with itemization issues.</p></blockquote><p>But hey, look on the bright side, since 1-3 (exactly two weeks ago) we have gotten</p><p>Storm Tower Isle</p><p>Loyal Wolf Pup Plushie</p><p>Earth Runed Weapon Home Display Crate</p><p>Dark Treeglider</p><p>Dark Treeglider Cloak</p><p>Assassin's Backpack</p><p>Nightmare Flight Wings</p><p>and</p><p>Pegasus Feather Flight Wings</p><p>The last two of which they actually saw fit to use marketting time and budget to produce a "commerical" for.</p><p>Makes me feel warm cozy about the state of priorities.</p>

dawy
01-17-2012, 09:05 PM
<p>I would assume that its going to be this way from now on sadly</p>

Moldylocks
01-18-2012, 12:07 AM
<p><cite>dawy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I would assume that its going to be this way from now on sadly</p></blockquote><p>Yup.  And if you read the posts where the items are introduced, where someone finds a flaw, a Dev will respond almost immediately and it will get fixed in a matter of hours. </p><p>At least we know quite clearly where their priorities are.</p>

Lempo
01-18-2012, 12:29 AM
<p><cite>Moldylocks wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yup.  And if you read the posts where the items are introduced, where someone finds a flaw, a Dev will respond almost immediately and it will get fixed in a matter of hours. </p><p>At least we know quite clearly where their priorities are.</p></blockquote><p>Just want to chime in before a fanboi post comes along and justifies it by saying that they paid for the item when I continue to pay a mothly sub which doesn't seem to matter a whole lot at this point. I mean the SC items that get almost insta-fixed affect a much smaller segment of the population than the itemization mess. Now a lot of the itemization that needs attention is treasured items which don't require unlockers... oh B-I-N-G-O, nevermind figured it out.</p>

The_Cheeseman
01-18-2012, 01:18 AM
<p>Newsflash: in the history of software design, fixing bugs has always taken a backseat to adding new features. New features translates directly into more money, whereas fixing bugs doesn't (at least not in an easily measurable way). That being said, SOE has never had a great record for fixing bugs in a timely manner, even back in EQ1 days, long before microtransactions ever existed.</p><p>Congratulations in recognizing one of the basic tenants of software production. I am sure your snarky post will accomplish much good.</p>

Drumstix
01-18-2012, 01:22 AM
<p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p>

The_Cheeseman
01-18-2012, 01:32 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p></blockquote><p>I am fairly confident that SOE, being a fairly successful software development company, is fully aware of this fact. I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p>

Lempo
01-18-2012, 01:54 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p></blockquote><p>I am fairly confident that SOE, being a fairly successful software development company, is fully aware of this fact. I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>Being in database, software a web development for 20+ years I think I know more than enough to make a post concerning it. Leaving bugs in a product ad-infinitum as drumstixx said is pure neglect and causes attrition. I also have experience in software QA testing and some of the bugs that are getting introduce scream that either very little of that is going on or whoever is doing it is simply phoning it in. So while you are more than entitled to consider it rabble, that doesn't make it such. It also does NOTHING to explain the RAPID resposne to SC items that have issues while 100's of items in game have issues that could be fixed in a few hours time. How many STR/STA throwing items are in the game that are flagged for scouts to use? A simple SQL statement could take care of everyone of those by simply inserting the STR value into AGI, any such statemet could be written by even the most inept SQL coder. These items are worthless to some (and sometimes ALL) of the classes that can actually use them yet they are 'consuming' a loot option and it makes gearing that class harder than they intended for it to be.</p><p>EDIT: Oh and Hai Drumstixx, hope things are going well in your new home!</p>

Griffildur
01-18-2012, 05:50 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Newsflash: in the history of software design, fixing bugs has always taken a backseat to adding new features. New features translates directly into more money, whereas fixing bugs doesn't (at least not in an easily measurable way). That being said, SOE has never had a great record for fixing bugs in a timely manner, even back in EQ1 days, long before microtransactions ever existed.</p><p>Congratulations in recognizing one of the basic tenants of software production. I am sure your snarky post will accomplish much good.</p></blockquote><p>Oh will you just keep quiet for once. You obviously have no clue what the heck you're talking about. </p><p>If you work in software development and this is all ou learnt from it then you should work for SOE cause you sure match their attitude and skills.</p>

dawy
01-18-2012, 06:05 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p></blockquote><p>I am fairly confident that SOE, being a fairly successful software development company, is fully aware of this fact. I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>To dismiss the people on this forum as "rabble" or to use words of someone else who posts a lot on here "trolls" is folly,a lot of people have coding experience and offer or at least try to offer solutions to the games many,many problems,now if oyu play a version of the game where the bugs are minimal please let us all come a long and play we'd all shut up i'm sure but i suspect you're the type of player who sees it his/her lifes work to defend a company,something which is just plain silly i'm sad to say.</p>

Griffildur
01-18-2012, 06:09 AM
<p><cite>dawy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p></blockquote><p>I am fairly confident that SOE, being a fairly successful software development company, is fully aware of this fact. I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>To dismiss the people on this forum as "rabble" or to use words of someone else who posts a lot on here "trolls" is folly,a lot of people have coding experience and offer or at least try to offer solutions to the games many,many problems,now if oyu play a version of the game where the bugs are minimal please let us all come a long and play we'd all shut up i'm sure but i suspect you're the type of player who sees it his/her lifes work to defend a company,something which is just plain silly i'm sad to say.</p></blockquote><p>Absolutely right.</p><p>I am a software developer myself and in our world it is not acceptable to have a broken product and keep adding broken features to it. That is a sure way of losing customers and is simply not professional.</p>

Deago
01-18-2012, 09:34 AM
<p>I have a phd in software engineering and although I do not dwell in game design (microcontroller assembly is my focus) from my experience it is not the developers fault 9/10 when it comes to priority.  Priority is coming from who is writing your checks *wink.*</p><p>Food for thought.</p>

MurFalad
01-18-2012, 09:53 AM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Newsflash: in the history of software design, fixing bugs has always taken a backseat to adding new features. New features translates directly into more money, whereas fixing bugs doesn't (at least not in an easily measurable way). That being said, SOE has never had a great record for fixing bugs in a timely manner, even back in EQ1 days, long before microtransactions ever existed.</p><p>Congratulations in recognizing one of the basic tenants of software production. I am sure your snarky post will accomplish much good.</p></blockquote><p>So if Sigil had just added more features to Vanguard on launch it would have been better?  Or for AoC?  There is a point where bug's in the game outweigh any content.</p><p>Its something I noticed too with a friend of mine who has played EQ2 in the past, on vent when we were talking about mounts in MMO's the first thing he asked about EQ2 was "did they fix the bug with the cloak?".  Even though he hasn't played the game in months he still remembers that the cloak sticks up in the air on certain characters with the leaping mount, I don't think that's a good thing.</p><p>My biggest annoyance with the bugs isn't that they are there as I accept that errors do happen and a game as big as EQ2 is bound to have bugs, but its frustrating that even after reporting they rarely if ever get fixed for years on end, that part does wear me down.</p>

Griffildur
01-18-2012, 09:54 AM
<p><cite>Deago wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have a phd in software engineering and although I do not dwell in game design (microcontroller assembly is my focus) from my experience it is not the developers fault 9/10 when it comes to priority.  Priority is coming from who is writing your checks *wink.*</p><p>Food for thought.</p></blockquote><p>aha and when your software is full of bugs and people don't buy it , who on earth writes you checks ?</p><p>Or in your case, your chip does not function properly.</p><p>Think about that.</p><p>People will pay for a product which is attractive, well maintained. it doesn't have to be free of bugs, no software in this world is free of bugs. The important thing is that the main functionality works without issues. You can live with a few bugs on the side which do not affect the main purpose of the software. </p><p>What we have now is a complete idiocy where no bugs are fixed, a lot of important stuff is broken to hell and they spend all their designing fluff.</p><p>Use your phd knowledge and tell me where is the sense in that ?</p><p>Give people a product which works, show you care about your product and then you can watch the money flowing in. Don't care about your product and only care about ripping people off and go under, it's as simple as that.</p><p>The priorities are wrong and have been wrong for a long time. A monkey learns quicker than SOE.</p>

Raknid
01-18-2012, 10:27 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Deago wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have a phd in software engineering and although I do not dwell in game design (microcontroller assembly is my focus) from my experience it is not the developers fault 9/10 when it comes to priority.  Priority is coming from who is writing your checks *wink.*</p><p>Food for thought.</p></blockquote><p>aha and when your software is full of bugs and people don't buy it , who on earth writes you checks ?</p><p>Or in your case, your chip does not function properly.</p><p>Think about that.</p><p>People will pay for a product which is attractive, well maintained. it doesn't have to be free of bugs, no software in this world is free of bugs. The important thing is that the main functionality works without issues. You can live with a few bugs on the side which do not affect the main purpose of the software. </p><p>What we have now is a complete idiocy where no bugs are fixed, a lot of important stuff is broken to hell and they spend all their designing fluff.</p><p>Use your phd knowledge and tell me where is the sense in that ?</p><p>Give people a product which works, show you care about your product and then you can watch the money flowing in. Don't care about your product and only care about ripping people off and go under, it's as simple as that.</p><p>The priorities are wrong and have been wrong for a long time. A monkey learns quicker than SOE.</p></blockquote><p>I don't think he was defending the result, simply pointing out that a developer in a non managerial position does not set their own priorities and should therefore be mostly immune from our ire. I do agree with that for the most part.</p>

Griffildur
01-18-2012, 11:05 AM
<p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p>I don't think he was defending the result, simply pointing out that a developer in a non managerial position does not set their own priorities and should therefore be mostly immune from our ire. I do agree with that for the most part.</p></blockquote><p>I thought aobut that as well, but it still makes no sense.</p><p>Put all priorities aside, what we have now is that every time they release something, anything, it's so full of bugs that it does not work at all. This is why I hold the developers and their project manager responsible and no amount of management will change that. they have people who are rubbish at their job and we end up paying for it.</p>

Gaealiege
01-18-2012, 11:56 AM
<p>Cheeseman is as big a fanboi as Sigfrida.  You're wasting your time to even reply to him.  A Sony rep could arrive at his house, drop a deuce on his doormat and he'd give them positive feedback for the experience.</p>

Andok
01-18-2012, 12:12 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Cheeseman is as big a fanboi as Sigfrida.  You're wasting your time to even reply to him.  A Sony rep could arrive at his house, drop a deuce on his doormat and he'd give them positive feedback for the experience.</p></blockquote><p> <p > </p><p >Yeah!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Because anyone that does not incessantly complain all day about just about everything in the game is a total fanboi!</p><p > </p><p > </p> </p>

agnott
01-18-2012, 02:00 PM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>What if the determination of the devs was to just flat out take advantage of players like yourself who sadly can't keep themselves from buying anything that SOE puts up for sale.</p>

Griffildur
01-18-2012, 02:03 PM
<p><cite>agnott wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>What if the determination of the devs was to just flat out take advantage of players like yourself who sadly can't keep themselves from buying anything that SOE puts up for sale.</p></blockquote><p>That is their determination at the moment, milk as much as you can without doing pretty much anything.</p>

Zorastiz
01-18-2012, 02:15 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>dawy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected]ackburrow wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p></blockquote><p>I am fairly confident that SOE, being a fairly successful software development company, is fully aware of this fact. I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>To dismiss the people on this forum as "rabble" or to use words of someone else who posts a lot on here "trolls" is folly,a lot of people have coding experience and offer or at least try to offer solutions to the games many,many problems,now if oyu play a version of the game where the bugs are minimal please let us all come a long and play we'd all shut up i'm sure but i suspect you're the type of player who sees it his/her lifes work to defend a company,something which is just plain silly i'm sad to say.</p></blockquote><p>Absolutely right.</p><p>I am a software developer myself and in our world it is not acceptable to have a broken product and keep adding broken features to it. That is a sure way of losing customers and is simply not professional.</p></blockquote><p>But dude that's in the UK, over here we don't care about quality we just want to get it out there and make some money <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p>

Griffildur
01-18-2012, 02:17 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p>But dude that's in the UK, over here we don't care about quality we just want to get it out there and make some money <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Lol, hey Zora <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</p>

Nrgy
01-18-2012, 03:27 PM
<p>I see a lot of failure here trying to compare the release of a few SC items every week or two to the huge amount of content contained within a GU or x-pack.  The game content outwieghs any new SC or for that matter the entire SC catalog ten times over.  The only difference is that the GU/X-Pack is release on a predetermined schedule and SC items are made available throughout the time in-between.</p><p>As for the SC priority of bugs, that is a no-brainer.  SOE is compelled to fix those becasue they have a Cash Rider attached to them, not to mention the marketing efforts.  The real issue is that SOE doesn't "seem" to be fixing the bugs which most effect each persons game-play directly.</p><p>Regardless if the code Devs are the very same people working on SC items, as some may suggest, it takes far-far-far less time to reskin a squirrel than it does to render ever inch of several new zones.  It takes far-far-far less time to create a new sizable housing building block than it does to create the Lore, Sotry line, quest text and animation for several dozen new quests.</p><p>At a "rate" of 3 SC items added to the game per week on average let's just say equals 150 new SC items in a years time.  That same year will have several thousands of game content added in the form of land mass, quest lines, weapons, armor and maybe some new skeleton models, without mentioned any new AI or feature mechanics.  The issue here is even if the Devs added more than 10,000 lines of code and content if just one thing is bugged then people will be bend out of shape.</p><p>On that note, I would like to see better itemization, better Merc AI, better quest lines, better lore, better mechanics and better artwork.  However, outside of a real bug issue those functions already exist and I would only like them to be better.</p><p>The Sky is not falling any where around here... Sorry (not)</p>

TwistedFaith
01-18-2012, 08:48 PM
<p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I see a lot of failure here trying to compare the release of a few SC items every week or two to the huge amount of content contained within a GU or x-pack.  The game content outwieghs any new SC or for that matter the entire SC catalog ten times over.  The only difference is that the GU/X-Pack is release on a predetermined schedule and SC items are made available throughout the time in-between.</p><p>As for the SC priority of bugs, that is a no-brainer.  SOE is compelled to fix those becasue they have a Cash Rider attached to them, not to mention the marketing efforts.  The real issue is that SOE doesn't "seem" to be fixing the bugs which most effect each persons game-play directly.</p><p>Regardless if the code Devs are the very same people working on SC items, as some may suggest, it takes far-far-far less time to reskin a squirrel than it does to render ever inch of several new zones.  It takes far-far-far less time to create a new sizable housing building block than it does to create the Lore, Sotry line, quest text and animation for several dozen new quests.</p><p>At a "rate" of 3 SC items added to the game per week on average let's just say equals 150 new SC items in a years time.  That same year will have several thousands of game content added in the form of land mass, quest lines, weapons, armor and maybe some new skeleton models, without mentioned any new AI or feature mechanics.  The issue here is even if the Devs added more than 10,000 lines of code and content if just one thing is bugged then people will be bend out of shape.</p><p>On that note, I would like to see better itemization, better Merc AI, better quest lines, better lore, better mechanics and better artwork.  However, outside of a real bug issue those functions already exist and I would only like them to be better.</p><p>The Sky is not falling any where around here... Sorry (not)</p></blockquote><p>Sorry I have to disagree, the quality of the last "expansion" has left me in no doubt that SOE has completely shifted focus from the actual game to milkling those customers who are willing to spend $$$$ playing dress up barbie.</p>

MurFalad
01-18-2012, 09:39 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>But dude that's in the UK, over here we don't care about quality we just want to get it out there and make some money <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>I can assure you there are plenty of people in the UK with just the safe attitude of "if it sells that's all that matters" even when they know the product has problems, the same people then spend extra on cars that have a reputation for quality <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>And I guess are puzzled by the whole concept of growing a brand...</p>

Orlac
01-18-2012, 10:44 PM
<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p></blockquote><p>I am fairly confident that SOE, being a fairly successful software development company, is fully aware of this fact. I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>Actually tool, SOE is anything but a successful software deveolpment company. Please note that Lucas Arts chose to go elsewhere. Please take the time to check Sony stock some time (SNE). The move to "F2P" was a last ditch effort for this obviously dying game.</p><p>And yes one of their legendary shortcomings is customer service.</p>

Avirodar
01-19-2012, 08:04 AM
<p><cite>Orlac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Excesive neglect will also lose you a lot of users/customers of your software.</p></blockquote><p>I am fairly confident that SOE, being a fairly successful software development company, is fully aware of this fact. I am also confident that their professional staff of marketers and game designers are better capable of determining the severity of that threat to their product than rabble on these message boards.</p></blockquote><p>Actually tool, SOE is anything but a successful software deveolpment company. Please note that Lucas Arts chose to go elsewhere. Please take the time to check Sony stock some time (SNE). The move to "F2P" was a last ditch effort for this obviously dying game.</p><p>And yes one of their legendary shortcomings is customer service.</p></blockquote><p>Eh, it's so-so. SOE has had one success, the title called EverQuest, released back in 1999. Outside of that, however, SOE has struggled to do anything more than limp along, while existing only in the shadow of competition. This is made even worse by SOE having weak customer relations, signs of a company that can not accept it is not the big dog on the block any more, but still acts like it is.SOE can not rely upon being the first cab off the rank to get them the business, as it is not 1999 anymore. Look at how every release SOE has made in recent years has fared, and you are looking at a laundry list of underperforming products and concepts. Games like The Agency (canned after millions of dollars worth of investment), and DCUO (forced to go FTP fresh off the blocks due to a complete lack of uptake), along with the declining quality of content in EQ2...SOE may have had success back in the day. But here, today, most definitely not.</p>

Griffildur
01-19-2012, 08:28 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Eh, it's so-so. SOE has had one success, the title called EverQuest, released back in 1999. Outside of that, however, SOE has struggled to do anything more than limp along, while existing only in the shadow of competition. This is made even worse by SOE having weak customer relations, signs of <strong>a company that can not accept it is not the big dog on the block any more, but still acts like it is</strong>.SOE can not rely upon being the first cab off the rank to get them the business, as it is not 1999 anymore. Look at how every release SOE has made in recent years has fared, and you are looking at a laundry list of underperforming products and concepts. Games like The Agency (canned after millions of dollars worth of investment), and DCUO (forced to go FTP fresh off the blocks due to a complete lack of uptake), along with the declining quality of content in EQ2...SOE may have had success back in the day. But here, today, most definitely not.</p></blockquote><p>The text I bolded is very very very real.</p><p>Did you notice how every time a red name posts some announcement on the forums , they never forget to add this :</p><p><span style="color: #ffffff; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: #0f151c;">Sony Online Entertainment LLC (SOE) is a recognized worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online games</span></p><p>It seems a pathetic way of trying to re-enforce this belief when no one else does.</p><p>The sad thing is that SOE could have had a major success with Eq2, but their attitude towards their paying customers,</p><p>the total lack of vision and the characteristic lack of interest towards quality has taken a huge toll.</p><p>Look where we are today, fighting to survive even after the "major" shift to f2p which has blatantly failed to raise any interest.</p>

Hamervelder
01-19-2012, 10:05 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p>I don't think he was defending the result, simply pointing out that a developer in a non managerial position does not set their own priorities and should therefore be mostly immune from our ire. I do agree with that for the most part.</p></blockquote><p>I thought aobut that as well, but it still makes no sense.</p><p>Put all priorities aside, what we have now is that every time they release something, anything, it's so full of bugs that it does not work at all. This is why I hold the developers and their project manager responsible and no amount of management will change that. they have people who are rubbish at their job and we end up paying for it.</p></blockquote><p>Having worked in game design, it's my experience that the developers themselves likely have very little control over the state of the product.  When the deadline (which is almost always unreasonable and unrealistic) comes, you turn in what you have, and you move on to the next thing that's been assigned to you.  The things that are important to us as gamers, and important to the designers, are not even a blip on the radar of management.  I can say with the utmost confidence that SOE's artists and designers recognize the flaws in their work, and probably to a greater degree than we do.  As a game artist or designer, you most often will not get the chance to put forth your best work.  That's because doing top-notch work is very time-intensive, and no company wants to pay people more money to make pretty pictures or program game features.  If the company can get away with putting out a less-perfect and therefore less-expensive product, then the company will do so, whether or not the artists, programmers, and designers like it.  If you don't like it, then you hit the road, and someone else will take your place tomorrow.</p><p>In the end, the people writing the checks <em>do not care</em> about whether or not the game is fun to play, or whether there are bugs in the software.  They care about the bottom line.  Period.  That bottom line for EQ2 is the cash shop.  The cash shop is a better investment for SOE, because they can, with minimal effort, bring in far more money from people who pay no subscription, but buy several expensive items per month, than they would by trying to fix bugs to bring in and keep subscribers.  As long as people continue to happily fork over exorbitant amounts of money for cash shop items, SOE will continue in this direction.</p>

Griffildur
01-19-2012, 10:12 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Having worked in game design, it's my experience that the developers themselves likely have very little control over the state of the product.  When the deadline (which is almost always unreasonable and unrealistic) comes, you turn in what you have, and you move on to the next thing that's been assigned to you.  The things that are important to us as gamers, and important to the designers, are not even a blip on the radar of management.  I can say with the utmost confidence that SOE's artists and designers recognize the flaws in their work, and probably to a greater degree than we do.  As a game artist or designer, you most often will not get the chance to put forth your best work.  That's because doing top-notch work is very time-intensive, and no company wants to pay people more money to make pretty pictures or program game features.  If the company can get away with putting out a less-perfect and therefore less-expensive product, then the company will do so, whether or not the artists, programmers, and designers like it.  If you don't like it, then you hit the road, and someone else will take your place tomorrow.</p><p>In the end, the people writing the checks <em>do not care</em> about whether or not the game is fun to play, or whether there are bugs in the software.  They care about the bottom line.  Period.  That bottom line for EQ2 is the cash shop.  The cash shop is a better investment for SOE, because they can, with minimal effort, bring in far more money from people who pay no subscription, but buy several expensive items per month, than they would by trying to fix bugs to bring in and keep subscribers.  As long as people continue to happily fork over exorbitant amounts of money for cash shop items, SOE will continue in this direction.</p></blockquote><p>Thank you for the history lesson.</p><p>Guess which things people pay for ? The things which they enjoy or the things that make the board happy ?</p><p>Start seeing the connection between the 2. No business can survive by giving something sub par. </p><p>Business rule number 1 : keep your customers happy, then they go and spread the word and make you even more money not only by spending themselves but by bringing others in as well.</p><p>How hard is it to understand that ?</p><p>Oh and just because 4 or 5 people are happy to keep spending money on SC stuff does not make the game succesfull or the f2p model succesful.</p><p>Look around you, how many pplayers do you see in game  ? 10, 20, 100 maybe ? Would it feel nice to have 10.000 ?</p><p>Would 10.000 bring in more money ?  Think about these things.</p>

isest
01-19-2012, 10:38 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Having worked in game design, it's my experience that the developers themselves likely have very little control over the state of the product.  When the deadline (which is almost always unreasonable and unrealistic) comes, you turn in what you have, and you move on to the next thing that's been assigned to you.  The things that are important to us as gamers, and important to the designers, are not even a blip on the radar of management.  I can say with the utmost confidence that SOE's artists and designers recognize the flaws in their work, and probably to a greater degree than we do.  As a game artist or designer, you most often will not get the chance to put forth your best work.  That's because doing top-notch work is very time-intensive, and no company wants to pay people more money to make pretty pictures or program game features.  If the company can get away with putting out a less-perfect and therefore less-expensive product, then the company will do so, whether or not the artists, programmers, and designers like it.  If you don't like it, then you hit the road, and someone else will take your place tomorrow.</p><p>In the end, the people writing the checks <em>do not care</em> about whether or not the game is fun to play, or whether there are bugs in the software.  They care about the bottom line.  Period.  That bottom line for EQ2 is the cash shop.  The cash shop is a better investment for SOE, because they can, with minimal effort, bring in far more money from people who pay no subscription, but buy several expensive items per month, than they would by trying to fix bugs to bring in and keep subscribers.  As long as people continue to happily fork over exorbitant amounts of money for cash shop items, SOE will continue in this direction.</p></blockquote><p>Thank you for the history lesson.</p><p>Guess which things people pay for ? The things which they enjoy or the things that make the board happy ?</p><p>Start seeing the connection between the 2. No business can survive by giving something sub par. </p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Business rule number 1 : keep your customers happy, then they go and spread the word and make you even more money not only by spending themselves but by bringing others in as well.</span></p><p>How hard is it to understand that ?</p><p>Oh and just because 4 or 5 people are happy to keep spending money on SC stuff does not make the game succesfull or the f2p model succesful.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Look around you, how many pplayers do you see in game  ? 10, 20, 100 maybe ? Would it feel nice to have 10.000</span> ?</p><p>Would 10.000 bring in more money ?  Think about these things.</p></blockquote><p>Ok is the customer base happy? there sure seams to be a lot that are not, lump me in that group.  Sure there is a certain aspect of the player base who loves all the extra fluff in the store. I wonder about the percentage. That is something that soe is never going to disclose.  Word of mouth works both ways, folks who like something tell their friends,  folks who hate something tell their friends, and usually tell others who will listen. </p><p>How many folks do you see, honestly the last time I logged in it was about the same number of folks I saw as the time before. I really don't see many new folks, I see a lot of beast lord alts.   Would it be nice to have 10k in game at one time, those days are long since gone, heck I don't think we ever had that many when we were doing well.</p><p>I will just point at the status page and realize things are going as planned for soe. Right now all of the servers are showing low except freeport and its showing medium. <a href="http://www.soe.com/status/">http://www.soe.com/status/</a></p>

Nrgy
01-19-2012, 12:33 PM
<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nrgy wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I see a lot of failure here trying to compare the release of a few SC items every week or two to the huge amount of content contained within a GU or x-pack.  The game content outwieghs any new SC or for that matter the entire SC catalog ten times over.  The only difference is that the GU/X-Pack is release on a predetermined schedule and SC items are made available throughout the time in-between.</p><p>As for the SC priority of bugs, that is a no-brainer.  SOE is compelled to fix those becasue they have a Cash Rider attached to them, not to mention the marketing efforts.  The real issue is that SOE doesn't "seem" to be fixing the bugs which most effect each persons game-play directly.</p><p>Regardless if the code Devs are the very same people working on SC items, as some may suggest, it takes far-far-far less time to reskin a squirrel than it does to render ever inch of several new zones.  It takes far-far-far less time to create a new sizable housing building block than it does to create the Lore, Sotry line, quest text and animation for several dozen new quests.</p><p>At a "rate" of 3 SC items added to the game per week on average let's just say equals 150 new SC items in a years time.  That same year will have several thousands of game content added in the form of land mass, quest lines, weapons, armor and maybe some new skeleton models, without mentioned any new AI or feature mechanics.  The issue here is even if the Devs added more than 10,000 lines of code and content if just one thing is bugged then people will be bend out of shape.</p><p>On that note, I would like to see better itemization, better Merc AI, better quest lines, better lore, better mechanics and better artwork.  However, outside of a real bug issue those functions already exist and I would only like them to be better.</p><p>The Sky is not falling any where around here... Sorry (not)</p></blockquote><p>Sorry I have to disagree, the quality of the last "expansion" has left me in no doubt that SOE has completely shifted focus from the actual game to milkling those customers who are willing to spend $$$$ playing dress up barbie.</p></blockquote><p>Thats not really an argument, rebuttal or even a cognitive thought.  Beyond the Truesight armor set from the CE, or whatever it was called, I don't recall any appearance items specifically release in AOD.  Everyone here, including the F2P folks have all demonstrated they are willing to spend $$$, whether that be for content, features or "dress up".  The "Just wait for it to show up on the Marketplace" argument is getting old and tired.</p>

Griffildur
01-19-2012, 12:37 PM
<p><cite>isest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p>I will just point at the status page and realize things are going as planned for soe. Right now all of the servers are showing low except freeport and its showing medium. <a href="http://www.soe.com/status/">http://www.soe.com/status/</a></p></blockquote><p>You know , that page showing low on almost every server and every game should really tell SOE something.</p><p>Glad to see f2p brought in those huge masses they kept counting on.</p>

IvyBlackrose
01-19-2012, 12:54 PM
Seriously what is your guys problem? Eq2 is a video game I am poor VERY poor you have no clue how poor I am, but guess what for 14.99 a month Im allowed to get 30 days of entertainment.....and for 5 bux every 3 months or so when there is a double station I can buy 10 bux worth = 2000 SC and so with 20 bux or so a month i can keep myself entertained for the entire month non stop....I could always become an alcoholic and take that 20 bux and spend it on a case of beer but guess what that case of beer WONT last me a month, or I could always pick up smoking and buy a pack of cigarettes a day but guess what...that would only get me what 4 days worth of entertainment? OR heck I could go to a movie and buy popcorn and a drink oh wait that would cost more than 20 bux for JUST ONE MOVIE.......now seriously will you guys please stop complaining about how EVIL soe is and how they want to nickel and dime us to death? look around you the price SOE charges for THIRTY DAYS ENTERTAINMENT is DIRT CHEAP

Griffildur
01-19-2012, 12:59 PM
<p><cite>IvyBlackrose wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Seriously what is your guys problem? Eq2 is a video game I am poor VERY poor you have no clue how poor I am, but guess what for 14.99 a month Im allowed to get 30 days of entertainment.....and for 5 bux every 3 months or so when there is a double station I can buy 10 bux worth = 2000 SC and so with 20 bux or so a month i can keep myself entertained for the entire month non stop....I could always become an alcoholic and take that 20 bux and spend it on a case of beer but guess what that case of beer WONT last me a month, or I could always pick up smoking and buy a pack of cigarettes a day but guess what...that would only get me what 4 days worth of entertainment? OR heck I could go to a movie and buy popcorn and a drink oh wait that would cost more than 20 bux for JUST ONE MOVIE.......now seriously will you guys please stop complaining about how EVIL soe is and how they want to nickel and dime us to death? look around you the price SOE charges for THIRTY DAYS ENTERTAINMENT is DIRT CHEAP</blockquote><p>You're in the wrong thread bro. No one is discussing if it's expensive or not to play Eq2, the discussion is about something else. Now stop trolling please.</p>

Raknid
01-19-2012, 01:01 PM
<p><cite>IvyBlackrose wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Seriously what is your guys problem? Eq2 is a video game I am poor VERY poor you have no clue how poor I am, but guess what for 14.99 a month Im allowed to get 30 days of entertainment.....and for 5 bux every 3 months or so when there is a double station I can buy 10 bux worth = 2000 SC and so with 20 bux or so a month i can keep myself entertained for the entire month non stop....I could always become an alcoholic and take that 20 bux and spend it on a case of beer but guess what that case of beer WONT last me a month, or I could always pick up smoking and buy a pack of cigarettes a day but guess what...that would only get me what 4 days worth of entertainment? OR heck I could go to a movie and buy popcorn and a drink oh wait that would cost more than 20 bux for JUST ONE MOVIE.......now seriously will you guys please stop complaining about how EVIL soe is and how they want to nickel and dime us to death? look around you the price SOE charges for THIRTY DAYS ENTERTAINMENT is DIRT CHEAP</blockquote><p>And that pertains to the point in the original post how?</p>

Zepor
01-19-2012, 01:30 PM
<p><cite>IvyBlackrose wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Seriously what is your guys problem? Eq2 is a video game I am poor VERY poor you have no clue how poor I am, but guess what for 14.99 a month Im allowed to get 30 days of entertainment.....and for 5 bux every 3 months or so when there is a double station I can buy 10 bux worth = 2000 SC and so with 20 bux or so a month i can keep myself entertained for the entire month non stop....I could always become an alcoholic and take that 20 bux and spend it on a case of beer but guess what that case of beer WONT last me a month, or I could always pick up smoking and buy a pack of cigarettes a day but guess what...that would only get me what 4 days worth of entertainment? OR heck I could go to a movie and buy popcorn and a drink oh wait that would cost more than 20 bux for JUST ONE MOVIE.......now seriously will you guys please stop complaining about how EVIL soe is and how they want to nickel and dime us to death? look around you the price SOE charges for THIRTY DAYS ENTERTAINMENT is DIRT CHEAP</blockquote><p><cite>IvyBlackrose wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span >well considering i bought 3 AOD's on triple cash day and am buying a 4th today with double sc day yeah id say we are demonstrating our agreement that we feel 15 - 20 bux is a MUCH fairer price for the content it has</span></blockquote><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=150&topic_id=511914#5688466" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...=511914#5688466</a></p><p>Obviously not so very poor that you aren't able to maintain 4 accounts, plus buy SC items on top of that.</p>

Nrgy
01-19-2012, 03:28 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>You're in the wrong thread bro. No one is discussing if it's expensive or not to play Eq2, the discussion is about something else. Now stop trolling please.</blockquote><p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>And that pertains to the point in the original post how?</blockquote><p>Here ... back on track ... In the current tide under the current model EQ2 has more, by far, unpaid content added to the game than has ever been introduced onto the Marketplace via SC offereings, maybe by as much as a factor of 100 times as much.  Just becasue people choose to ingonre or discount it does not mean it is not there.</p><p>X-Packs containing many new features to expand gameplay far outweight any Marketplace additions and not always have, but always will.  Optional feature packs that do not fit a specific playstyle do not equate to not having been added to available features.  If Marketplace addons are offered for people with interest then the SC offerings will continue to be strong.</p><p>BTW Ivy, I agree with you, EQ2 price per hours is by far the cheapest entertainment around, especially if you play under the restrictions of the F2P model, which I, myself despise.</p><p><cite>IvyBlackrose wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Seriously what is your guys problem? Eq2 is a video game I am poor VERY poor you have no clue how poor I am, but guess what for 14.99 a month Im allowed to get 30 days of entertainment.....and for 5 bux every 3 months or so when there is a double station I can buy 10 bux worth = 2000 SC and so with 20 bux or so a month i can keep myself entertained for the entire month non stop....I could always become an alcoholic and take that 20 bux and spend it on a case of beer but guess what that case of beer WONT last me a month, or I could always pick up smoking and buy a pack of cigarettes a day but guess what...that would only get me what 4 days worth of entertainment? OR heck I could go to a movie and buy popcorn and a drink oh wait that would cost more than 20 bux for JUST ONE MOVIE.......now seriously will you guys please stop complaining about how EVIL soe is and how they want to nickel and dime us to death? look around you the price SOE charges for THIRTY DAYS ENTERTAINMENT is DIRT CHEAP</blockquote>

Hamervelder
01-19-2012, 05:28 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Having worked in game design, it's my experience that the developers themselves likely have very little control over the state of the product.  When the deadline (which is almost always unreasonable and unrealistic) comes, you turn in what you have, and you move on to the next thing that's been assigned to you.  The things that are important to us as gamers, and important to the designers, are not even a blip on the radar of management.  I can say with the utmost confidence that SOE's artists and designers recognize the flaws in their work, and probably to a greater degree than we do.  As a game artist or designer, you most often will not get the chance to put forth your best work.  That's because doing top-notch work is very time-intensive, and no company wants to pay people more money to make pretty pictures or program game features.  If the company can get away with putting out a less-perfect and therefore less-expensive product, then the company will do so, whether or not the artists, programmers, and designers like it.  If you don't like it, then you hit the road, and someone else will take your place tomorrow.</p><p>In the end, the people writing the checks <em>do not care</em> about whether or not the game is fun to play, or whether there are bugs in the software.  They care about the bottom line.  Period.  That bottom line for EQ2 is the cash shop.  The cash shop is a better investment for SOE, because they can, with minimal effort, bring in far more money from people who pay no subscription, but buy several expensive items per month, than they would by trying to fix bugs to bring in and keep subscribers.  As long as people continue to happily fork over exorbitant amounts of money for cash shop items, SOE will continue in this direction.</p></blockquote><p>Thank you for the history lesson.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You're welcome.  Anything I can do to help people get their heads out of the sand, mate.</span></p><p>Guess which things people pay for ? The things which they enjoy or the things that make the board happy ?</p><p>Start seeing the connection between the 2. No business can survive by giving something sub par. </p><p>Business rule number 1 : keep your customers happy, then they go and spread the word and make you even more money not only by spending themselves but by bringing others in as well.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">True.  However, dissatisfied customers tell more people than do satisfied customers.  Not that SOE's management cares much.  Their attitude has always been something along the lines of "It's our game.  If you don't like it, then go away."  </span></p><p>How hard is it to understand that ?</p><p>Oh and just because 4 or 5 people are happy to keep spending money on SC stuff does not make the game succesfull or the f2p model succesful.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Do you actually look around you when you log in?  Do you notice what people are wearing and/or riding?  Masses of players are spending money to buy SC mounts, clothes, houses, house items, wings, etc.  Your piddly $15 month is nothing compared to someone who happily plunks down four times that to buy SC items.  SOE doesn't care about your subscription, because they can (and do) get people to spend loads of money in the cash shop.  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">Even if you and I both stopped paying our subscriptions today, it would make no difference, because people who are easily dazzled by shiny things will continue to spend money in the cash shop.  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;"><em>I'll say again: I don't like it, but that's the truth.</em></span></p><p>Look around you, how many pplayers do you see in game  ? 10, 20, 100 maybe ? Would it feel nice to have 10.000 ?</p><p>Would 10.000 bring in more money ?  Think about these things.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Maybe.  Maybe not.  The MMO industry as a whole is going to the F2P model.  I hate that, because it leads to a degredation in product quality and customer service.  However, if it weren't more profitable than the subscription model, then the entire industry wouldn't be gravitating that direction.</span></p></blockquote>

Griffildur
01-19-2012, 05:35 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p>Thank you for the history lesson.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You're welcome.  Anything I can do to help people get their heads out of the sand, mate.</span></p><p>Guess which things people pay for ? The things which they enjoy or the things that make the board happy ?</p><p>Start seeing the connection between the 2. No business can survive by giving something sub par. </p><p>Business rule number 1 : keep your customers happy, then they go and spread the word and make you even more money not only by spending themselves but by bringing others in as well.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">True.  However, dissatisfied customers tell more people than do satisfied customers.  Not that SOE's management cares much.  Their attitude has always been something along the lines of "It's our game.  If you don't like it, then go away."  </span></p><p>How hard is it to understand that ?</p><p>Oh and just because 4 or 5 people are happy to keep spending money on SC stuff does not make the game succesfull or the f2p model succesful.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Do you actually look around you when you log in?  Do you notice what people are wearing and/or riding?  Masses of players are spending money to buy SC mounts, clothes, houses, house items, wings, etc.  Your piddly $15 month is nothing compared to someone who happily plunks down four times that to buy SC items.  SOE doesn't care about your subscription, because they can (and do) get people to spend loads of money in the cash shop.  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">Even if you and I both stopped paying our subscriptions today, it would make no difference, because people who are easily dazzled by shiny things will continue to spend money in the cash shop.  </span><span style="color: #ff6600;"><em>I'll say again: I don't like it, but that's the truth.</em></span></p><p>Look around you, how many pplayers do you see in game  ? 10, 20, 100 maybe ? Would it feel nice to have 10.000 ?</p><p>Would 10.000 bring in more money ?  Think about these things.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Maybe.  Maybe not.  The MMO industry as a whole is going to the F2P model.  I hate that, because it leads to a degredation in product quality and customer service.  However, if it weren't more profitable than the subscription model, then the entire industry wouldn't be gravitating that direction.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>The whole MMO industry ua going in the wrong direction, there's no innovation anymore, they all do the same stuff and as a result lose subs. I think you'll find a lot of people are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.</p><p>People who deny that reality are the ones with their heads n the sand, mate.</p><p>If we all shut up and not say anything we'll keep getting the same stuff. I for one , am not willing to bend over. Are you ?</p>

Raknid
01-19-2012, 05:37 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> However, if it weren't more profitable than the subscription model, then the entire industry wouldn't be gravitating that direction.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>I consider it more of a gimmick than anything else, where fluff is substituted for real content, and not a long time sustainable model once the market is saturated.</p><p>Good quality products will win out every time. I will be interested to see if Smed has to eat his words once Copernicus launches.</p>

Griffildur
01-19-2012, 05:41 PM
<p><cite>Raknid wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> However, if it weren't more profitable than the subscription model, then the entire industry wouldn't be gravitating that direction.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>I consider it more of a gimmick than anything else, where fluff is substituted for real content, and not a long time sustainable model once the market is saturated.</p><p>Good quality products will win out every time. I will be interested to see if Smed has to eat his words once Copernicus launches.</p></blockquote><p>I keep hoping one company will realise what a mistake all the others are doing and come out with a real quality game. The day that happens, all these will eat their words and start crying,</p>

Raknid
01-19-2012, 05:57 PM
<p>Germane to this discussion.</p><p><span ><span style="color: #d2c5a9;"> </span></span></p><p>Can the apologists give it a rest now that we know for certain that the regular devs are the ones working on all the fluff items.</p><p><cite>ttobey wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Now, I realise I'm biased here because of the bat wings, but I'd just like to say to all the naysayers--</p><p>ttobey and the gang have done an absolutely STELLAR job with these wings.  I didn't really enjoy flying before--it felt clunky and awkward.  But with these wings--flying feels like FLYING.  It's amazing.  I've just been soaring around on Strep for the sheer joy of it.</p><p>And no, I wasn't paid to write this, and you'll notice the wings weren't named after me or anything.  <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />  I'm just a regular player like all of you, that just wanted to say THANK YOU to ttobey and his crew for adding something truly marvelous and hugely enjoyable to the game.</p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>It's actually Covic and his crew. We go where he leads us!</strong></span> <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><div><img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/user/EQ2/8ba4707107b0e32788fba91ebf1dd070.jpg" border="0" /></div><p><span style="color: #ffffff;"><span>Ranking: Developer </span><span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Registration date:</span></span> <strong><span><span style="font-size: x-small;">09/20/2007 14:18:54</span></span></strong> <span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Last Online:</span></span> <strong><span><span style="font-size: x-small;">01/11/2012 10:18:34</span></span></strong> </span><span style="color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span>Number of messages posted: <strong><a class="gen" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/search/userSearch.m?clean=1&sortBy=time&sortDir=DESC&userId=305947"><span style="color: #eee1af;">[261] Messages posted by covic</span></a></strong> </span><span>Created topics: No topic created </span><span>Occupation:</span></span> </span><span style="color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: large;"><strong><span>Lead Character Artist</span> </strong></span><span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Private Message:</span></span> </span><a class="icon_pm" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/pm/sendTo.m?user_id=305947"><span style="color: #ffffff;"><img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/transp.gif" /></span></a><span style="color: #ffffff;"> </span></p><p>Also:</p><p><cite>ttobey wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Iskandar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>ttobey wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote> Only one thing that bothers me now - when I am running on the ground (say in a city zone that doesn't allow flying), my female characters run like they have something wedged up their posteriors. Very un-ladylike. Could we get an animation adjustment there? Please? </blockquote><p>This will be fixed soon.</p></blockquote><p>I don't suppose the Fae/Arasai animations could be tweaked a bit, too, could they? That's my only complaint about winged flight -- my Fae look like they're just standing there and using the default ground poses and animations... there's no graceful character animations and custom in-flight poses like there are when a Wood Elf flies. <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Yeah that will be fixed too. <strong><span style="font-size: medium;">I have to add the wing states to all the combat poses.</span></strong> Currently the wings are using default flying mount states which don't have all the various weapon stances thats why you aren't going back to the correct combat pose. The fae have their own combat folder which was hidden in a seperate location from the rest and I missed it, but it will all be fixed soon.</p></blockquote><p>They are right on top of posting regarding bugs and working on fixes for their fluff. Too bad we don't see the same level of effort regardign the rest of the game.</p>

thewarriorpoet
01-19-2012, 06:32 PM
<p>You do realize that the wings required new mechinics in game and I'd be willing to bet my mortgage that the visualiztion people (modelers, animators, etc) did the pretty stuff while the devs did the coding stuff. 1 item requiring dev time doesn't mean ANYTHING about who works on what. You cannot draw a generalization from ONE sample. The vast majority of released SC items are redundant mechanically with new looks only. Recently, the wings were a one time deviation.</p><p>Believe what you will. Personally, this is on the topics I am more optimistic about but until we have many samples indicating dev time on visual items I stand by the idea that graphics poeple are not code people and that SOE doesn't use them cross functionally like that.</p><p>EDIT - realize that premium content (ie: things bad for above and beyond the sub) will always take priority. that's just business. the problem is that SOE has realized they can leave the game state in shambles and get away with it.</p>