the newest adornment change. - Page 4

juz · 01-25-2007, 11:33 PM

Trynnus, the cap for both is 200. At 200, you get 125%.

Kaedi · 01-26-2007, 12:03 AM

megaira13 wrote:
How about fixing the items that have been bugged, petitioned, etc. as unadornable since EoF release? I.E. the Chitin Imbued items, etc. I can't care much about a nerf when I can't adorn some items that *should* be augmentable in the first place.

Seconded.

Trynnus1 · 01-26-2007, 12:15 AM

juzamaku wrote:
Trynnus, the cap for both is 200. At 200, you get 125%.

It will display higher - I promise it said 216, but yes the cap is 125% at 200.

juz · 01-26-2007, 12:20 AM

Oh, I'm sure it can display higher, that way, if you get debuff, the points you have in excess will kick in.

Geothe · 01-26-2007, 02:37 AM

Question:

For mage/priest items that are for secondary/ranged slots.

Can they still put the adornments on them (like +spell damage) that are for secondary slot items, and still put them in range slots?

Because, erm, they have no other actual range items to use in those slots SMILEY

Pins · 01-26-2007, 03:24 AM

Geothe wrote:
Question:

For mage/priest items that are for secondary/ranged slots.

Can they still put the adornments on them (like +spell damage) that are for secondary slot items, and still put them in range slots?

Because, erm, they have no other actual range items to use in those slots

+Spell Damage ones are for Symbol items, and have no restrictions on slots.

Oakum · 01-27-2007, 12:02 AM

Trynnus1 wrote:

valleyboy1 wrote:

Autenil wrote:

Hi all,

We will go ahead and pop off all of the Adornments that change equipment slots of the items they're attached to. They will show up in your overflow slot.

Oh well should have known better I guess, yesterday after reading your post I decided I could live with the fact that I couldnt switch out items and got three adornments, looks like today you did a complete 180, fantastic.

This will still leave the huge imbalance between +dps items in the game and +haste items.
Message Edited by valleyboy1 on 01-25-2007 03:28 AM

What imbalance is that? DPS stacks, haste does not (with 2 exceptions I know of and have PM a Dev on). A guild groups its normal for me to hit 100 DPS and 100 Haste. Raiding I have even gone over the cap with 216 DPS and 180 ish haste - the cap for both is 125%.

My memory is a little fuzzy but I thought DPS and Haste by number would max out at 200 BUT would be on diminishing returns so that the actual would be 125.

EtoilePirate · 01-27-2007, 02:18 AM

Oakum wrote:

Trynnus1 wrote:

valleyboy1 wrote:
What imbalance is that? DPS stacks, haste does not (with 2 exceptions I know of and have PM a Dev on). A guild groups its normal for me to hit 100 DPS and 100 Haste. Raiding I have even gone over the cap with 216 DPS and 180 ish haste - the cap for both is 125%.

My memory is a little fuzzy but I thought DPS and Haste by number would max out at 200 BUT would be on diminishing returns so that the actual would be 125.

1.) Haste stacks if it comes from different sources. So a belt with 15% haste and a cloak with 10% haste WILL NOT stack, but either piece of gear WILL stack with a 20% haste buff from whatever glass gives you one.2.) The caps for both haste and DPS are now set at 200 numerically which, yes, is 125%. Like any other cap: you can raise it over the cap pretty effortlessly (getting my DPS over 200 in a good group or raid situation is a cinch), but it stops providing benefits. If my DPS is at 200, I get a 125% boost. If my DPS is at 250, I get a 125% boost.

ibeo · 01-28-2007, 04:32 PM

how is this fair?

you are gonna pop them off and give them to me so i can do what with them exactly?

oh ya try to sell them on the now flooded market great idea...

refund us like you did with the 400 shoulders...thats only fair

Troubor · 01-28-2007, 09:41 PM

ibeo wrote:

how is this fair?

you are gonna pop them off and give them to me so i can do what with them exactly?

oh ya try to sell them on the now flooded market great idea...

refund us like you did with the 400 shoulders...thats only fair

LOL...so people can intentionally buy up expensive adornments, put them on neck/wrist slot items, then when GU31 rolls into the main servers from Test they can get BOTH their adornment back AND some coin also? :p Let me know if we do get coin back also, I need to go change the adorn my DT amulet real quick... (J/k) :p

There's a big difference here. a) The "400 shoulders" as you put it were items that were REDUCED in effectiveness without too much warning. THUS, they both gave back the adornments, and also gave people coin. BUT b) The neck/wrist slot issue was with items that people adorned with a neck slot adornment, but then wore on their wrist, thus doing something that SOE didn't intend for people to do. The ADORNMENT itself isn't any weaker, people simply used them in an unintended way.

Now, I don't honestly think most were thinking "OH NEAT, EXPLOIT!". I do think most were thinking "Oh hey, this thing is both a neck and a wrist item...I wonder if I can put a neck adornment on it, then wear it on my wrist? Hey I can? Neat!". But...SOE finally has noted that people were doing this, and have now corrected something.

Should they have noted it earlier? Probably. But then again, I've seen other bugs and unintended effects go on for months on end too, even when it seems like SOE might know of the issue, before it's fixed. So this isn't new, nor should it shock people.

I do think this is fair. You can sell the adornment, give it to a friend, or save for an alt. Repairing of bugs, especially when the item isn't reduced in effect, shouldn't be used as a chance to make coin. THAT, since they are warning us ahead of time that they will be popping off the adorn, would be an exploit. :p

Oh well. I'm sure I'll get flamed. Enjoy! I've said my piece, let's see if people can agree or disagree in an intelligent manner, and not like a bunch of narcissistic drooling 12 year olds. SMILEY

Troubor · 01-28-2007, 09:43 PM

Malandrin wrote:

The most important thing is that they refunded players after tha change in the +400 HP / +400 Power. So now they must do the same.

No, they must not. As I just pointed out..there's a difference. The 400/400 items were REDUCED in effectiveness. The neck/wrist slot item issue had people adorning things with the wrong adornment, more or less.

Why is it that people seem to think they are ENTITLED to something due to a bug correction? Like they DESERVE something from every little move SOE makes? Are people that narcissistic?

Azeda · 01-29-2007, 12:09 AM

My only question now is the ranged/symbol items for priests and the other classes that use them. SOE threw us a bone and allowed us to put symbols in our ranged slots, which was a great change that balanced the playing field to allow us some stat benefit from that slot. This was an intentional and good change, not a workaround or exploit. So here is the problem. If I place a symbol adornment on a symbol and equip it in my its intended slot, the ranged slot, the adornment will have no effect while equipped there. How is that fair or balanced. The only solution would be to allow the symbol adornments to work in the ranged slot or to make the ranged slot itself RANGED/SYMBOL. Also what about what about symbol/secondary items. How will the adornment restrictions effect those items. Gratz SOE for jumping the gun again and not thinking things through, not on the original introduction of adornments nor on the impending fix. Unless I am wrong and you have thought of these issues ... just not told anyone. Some clarification would be appreciated.

Autenil-EQ2 · 01-29-2007, 04:22 AM

Azeda wrote:
My only question now is the ranged/symbol items for priests and the other classes that use them. SOE threw us a bone and allowed us to put symbols in our ranged slots, which was a great change that balanced the playing field to allow us some stat benefit from that slot. This was an intentional and good change, not a workaround or exploit. So here is the problem. If I place a symbol adornment on a symbol and equip it in my its intended slot, the ranged slot, the adornment will have no effect while equipped there. How is that fair or balanced. The only solution would be to allow the symbol adornments to work in the ranged slot or to make the ranged slot itself RANGED/SYMBOL. Also what about what about symbol/secondary items. How will the adornment restrictions effect those items. Gratz SOE for jumping the gun again and not thinking things through, not on the original introduction of adornments nor on the impending fix. Unless I am wrong and you have thought of these issues ... just not told anyone. Some clarification would be appreciated.

That's not entirely correct.

Currently, Adornments always have an affect when the item they're applied to is equipped; slot has nothing to do with it. The change that this thread refers to is that Adornments can restrict the slots of the items that they're applied to.

There is another recognized bug with Adornments that will be fixed on test in the next few coming updates (i.e. it should go out with Game Update 31). That bug is that shield-only adornments can be applied to symbols and symbol-only adornments can be applied to shields. Again with these, the improperly applied adornments will be removed from the items and added to your overflow slot.

Lairdragna · 01-29-2007, 07:54 AM

This is a crazy thought... get it right before you release the content... and when Beta testers tell you more time is needed, LISTEN!I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with."Imbued" items that are not imbued, still can't be adorned.Adornments were nerfed.A game mechanic they were told about was allowed to stand for two months and now suddenly is getting "fixed."Claymore quest items can not be adorned, even though many are inferior to common loot from EoF... making Claymore about pointless. Oh, and forget about doing it as a citizen of Kelethin. They should fix that right around the time the new epic quest line comes out.You want to know why people get upset? They are tired of the slip shod fashion that seems to be the norm. These are not brilliant changes to be making right at the time your competition rolled out its first expansion and a new product (your's, so you won't lose much $$$$$ if people switch) hits the shelves.This game is hemmoraging people and we all see it daily. No, this change alone is not enough to drive anybody away, at least it shouldn't be. However, the effect of these changes piling on causes many to question the direction this game is going.

Kendricke · 01-29-2007, 12:23 PM

Lairdragna wrote:
This is a crazy thought... get it right before you release the content... and when Beta testers tell you more time is needed, LISTEN!

I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with.

I look forward to playing your perfect MMO product, which will not only release profitably, but also will remain bug free for all time. Let us know how that project is shaping up for you, ok?

Seriously. Of course it was about "$$$$$$". You think BestBuy is ok with you just deciding a couple of weeks before you release that it's ok to change release dates on them? Do you have the slightest of an inkling about what's involved in a project of this scope? You think factories are just sitting around with trained workers just waiting around for your company to come in with an order for 400,000 units? You think SOE is the only customer of said factories? You think the DVD and CD versions just print themselves and then box themselves? No, this happens on an assembly line at a third party factory...where other customers are also wanting line space. If you don't get your run done in time, you don't get your run rescheduled for weeks or even months sometimes.

Ok...whew...you finally got those 400,000 copies of your product created and packaged. That wasn't exactly cheap to begin with, but that's ok. Now you've got 400,000 boxes of product...and the factory doesn't have space for it. Oh, that means shipping and warehousing now...which is also paid for. You gotta get that product out the door to the distributor, right? Great...but the distributor ALSO has other clients. What? You think SOE has a distribution office sitting in the bottom of the San Diego studio? Of course they don't. Anyway, the distributor isn't going to sit on 400,000 units forever (which cost a lot in the first place, mind you). You can bet your butt there are contracts which include dates.

Ok, fine...you've got a distributor. So, what's the big deal, right? Well, those distributors need/want/have to move that product to the retailers. Retailers don't just want you shipping 400,000 units on them whenever you feel like it though. They want their cut of the units, and they want their cut at specific dates. Why? Because they don't want a shipment of 200 EQ2 units hitting their Cleveland branches the same day they receive 400 Pirates of the Caribbean 2 DVD's and the same day they have to shelve up the new Oblivion expansion, either. Modern retailors have ever box/pallet scanned and planned every minute of its life...and you can't just decide to change your dates...because the shelf space you've got reserved on the 11th turns into a pumpkin on the 15th when the new "Beer Hunter X: Macro vs. Micro" game gets the end cap.

So, you either release when you contracted to release, or you eat a contracted fee and give up whatever "new release" end cap deal you'd worked out, and just deal with the fact that the 400,000 boxes you paid for are now sitting buried on the general shelving stuck between a couple of games no one's heard of, and old dusty copies of EQ2: Desert of Flames.

Yeah...what greedy, selfish jerks those SOE guys must be for DARING not to listen to the all knowing beta testers, right?

ReviloTX · 01-29-2007, 12:56 PM

Kendricke I understand your argument, but I don't agree. SOE is known for releasing unfinished products, this is nothing new.

They know what manpower is needed for a particular project, they just cut corners (read: lower budget = more profit). They tried it to compete with the release of WoW 2 years ago, and lost. They tried it again with this xpac, and they will lose again. In my opinion, a finished product beats all, but apparently they don't see it that way. They still get my money now, because I don't care for Blizzard and the kiddo's that play their games, but in the long run someone else besides Blizzard will come along and do it right, and SOE will be hurting for market share way worse than they are now when that happens. I just don't think it's too much to ask them to properly plan and staff for an expansion (or even a game release).

Just because an MMO is everchanging doesn't mean that's an excuse to release an unfinished product, ask me to pay for it, and then *plan* to finish it later. It's almost a year now since KoS was released and our NEXT GU is going to add a few more new hat looks? Come on, thats obsurd and borderline theft considering they were advertised as part of the original package.

Lairdragna · 01-29-2007, 06:29 PM

Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally. You can sit back and accept their half hearted effort, I don't. It is the complacent folks like you that empower their lacsidasical attitude.

Kendricke · 01-29-2007, 06:42 PM

Lairdragna wrote:
Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally.

And companies such as Vivendi/Blizzard can absorb the cost a great deal more than SOE can. Honestly, they're the Microsoft of MMO's right now - of computer games in general, really. They can pretty much dictate terms on contracts with a great deal more leniency than other MMO designers. They're making so much cash right now, they could afford to burn it for heating their offices if they wanted.

Even so, it's not as if Burning Crusade still didn't launch with bugs or issues. It was a relatively smooth launch, and I was definately was impressed overall...but to see the real dirt we aren't discussing here, you'd have to mosey on over to the World of Warcraft forums to see what's being said by their players (just as their players wouldn't exactly be aware of any possible adornment issues unless they bothered to read through discussions such as this, buried in the Testing Feedback forum). It's all about perspective, and ours is firmly rooted in the issues here in the Shattered Lands.

You're looking over the fence and seeing the greener grass, all the while ignoring or simply not seeing the brown patches tastefully hidden just out of your view. But just because you can't see the problems over there doesn't mean they don't exist. I'd wager you a cool platinum right now that I can wander over to the World of Warcraft forums later and find at LEAST a dozen posts since Burning Crusade launched that complain about problems that existed in the TBC Beta.

Rijacki · 01-29-2007, 07:26 PM

Lairdragna wrote:Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally. You can sit back and accept their half hearted effort, I don't. It is the complacent folks like you that empower their lacsidasical attitude.

They put in their delay before they had bought their shelf space, not a few days before the release, weeks before. Besides, do you know for 100% certainty the "delay" wasn't a publicity stunt with full knowledge of when they really intended to release. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was. It's a good way to get -free- press.

Gungo · 01-29-2007, 09:24 PM

eq2 was released as a finished product as most MMo's can hope for. If ou really think WoW is all roses and sunshines then please take a trip to thier forums where the same discussions are happening there about broken items/mechanics.

Lig · 01-29-2007, 09:28 PM

Lairdragna wrote:
This is a crazy thought... get it right before you release the content... and when Beta testers tell you more time is needed, LISTEN!

I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with.

"Imbued" items that are not imbued, still can't be adorned.

Adornments were nerfed.

A game mechanic they were told about was allowed to stand for two months and now suddenly is getting "fixed."

Claymore quest items can not be adorned, even though many are inferior to common loot from EoF... making Claymore about pointless. Oh, and forget about doing it as a citizen of Kelethin. They should fix that right around the time the new epic quest line comes out.

You want to know why people get upset? They are tired of the slip shod fashion that seems to be the norm. These are not brilliant changes to be making right at the time your competition rolled out its first expansion and a new product (your's, so you won't lose much $$$$$ if people switch) hits the shelves.

This game is hemmoraging people and we all see it daily. No, this change alone is not enough to drive anybody away, at least it shouldn't be. However, the effect of these changes piling on causes many to question the direction this game is going.

You know, I am one of the most critical people when it comes to the Dev's and what they do and don't fix in game, but these kinds of comments really [Removed for Content] me off.

You can't get everything right the first time. AT LEAST they are fixing this problem and are aknowledging that it exists and that they are fixing it. That's the key. It will never be perfect when it comes out, the question is are they willing to fix and adjust the mechanics and content that is broken or just doesn't work for the gamers out there.

A prime example for me is DT access. When it first came out Harla Dar was a contested and raid guilds would kill it every time blocking others from getting access. This was a silly idea to begin with. It was not working out for the majority of the paying customer. The community didn't scream "Get it right the first time" we screamed "CHANGE IT" and guess what.. they did. That's the sign of a good Dev team.

They are changing this, so instead of chiding them for getting it wrong, go find some other aspect of the game that is broken or you think should be changed and start threads on that SMILEY

KerowynnKaotic · 01-29-2007, 09:42 PM

Rijacki wrote:

Lairdragna wrote:
Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally.

You can sit back and accept their half hearted effort, I don't. It is the complacent folks like you that empower their lacsidasical attitude.

They put in their delay before they had bought their shelf space, not a few days before the release, weeks before.

Besides, do you know for 100% certainty the "delay" wasn't a publicity stunt with full knowledge of when they really intended to release. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was. It's a good way to get -free- press.

It did work for them .. and .. do you know why?

Because they used the before & after Shelf space to still sell something. Blizzard put out TONS of "pre-buy" boxes in that "pre-purchased" shelf space.

--

SOE could have done the same thing. I love EQ2 and am not going anywhere but even I recognize the fact that SOE's Marketing & PR is sub-par.

SOE had the PERFECT set up to do a Pre-buy AND delay EoF another 2 months. ... They could have put out the new character select screen (with save-able customizations) for the new FAE race! People would have happily played with the colors, wings & hairstyles for awhile (and maybe downloaded the trial) while waiting for EoF to come out.

Everywhere I go that can even claim the most tenous attatchment to a "game store" I see WoW "stuff"! WoW has a line of collector Pins! They have $5 starter CDs, they have collector posters, books, shirts .. *runs screaming out of the store* ...

SOE Marketing Mantra: We were uber in '99! We don't need no stinking marketing! We rest on our Laurels!

Ualday · 01-29-2007, 11:52 PM

Lairdragna wrote: I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with.

And things like that are why the NDA you agreed to in order to get that beta say this: 2.2 Confidentiality Obligation. Recipient shall keep the Confidential Information in confidence and shall not publish, disclose, or otherwise make available, directly or indirectly, any Confidential Information to any third party. However, Recipient may disclose the Confidential Information in accordance with a judicial or governmental order; provided, however, that Recipient shall give SOE reasonable written notice prior to disclosure and shall comply with any applicable protective order or equivalent. ONCE THE COMMERCIAL VERSION OF THE GAME HAS BEEN RELEASED BY SOE TO THE PUBLIC, RECIPIENT'S CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATION SHALL CONTINUE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS BETA PROGRAM AND ALL FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS (WHETHER FROM RECIPIENT, ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT, OR FROM SOE EMPLOYEES).I didn't bold that last part, that's the way SOE made the agreement. It is however, the part I would have bolded had SOE not. Sure, legal jargon confuses a lot of people, but basically it says even after the commercial version is out you're still bound to not discuss what you told SOE, or what you told someone else about the beta, or what a SOE employee told you that was MEANT for you and not the mass audience during the beta program.

yettii · 01-31-2007, 01:22 AM

Pinski wrote: Not to mention, did you know that no-value items are free to repair?

Well, that was a self-destructing cat-out-of-the-bag.If we're still unfortunate enough to be stuck with the No-Value tag on adorned items after GU 31, don't expect the above statement to last long at all. (If it does, this is mainly going to benefit the bigtime raiders, kinda like a HUGE tax break. In before pointing fingers & flames.....)Or better yet, forget the No-Value tag bit completely. No-Value means no sellback capability to Vendors, can't be transmuted by transmuters themselves, and doesn't it kill the option of Altar sacrificability? At least Deity Altars gave us something to do with all the attuned loot from previous tiers from our stuffed banks. Due to current restrictions on the No-Value tag, adding it to adorned items is a change that no one wants. What good does it serve?

Nightwo|f · 02-02-2007, 02:13 AM

Choombatta wrote:
Where in the world did you come up with that conclusion EQPrime?!?!
It clearly states that as long as it is adorned with a Neck-only adornment, it can only be equipped in the Neck slot.
Nothing is stopping you from over-writing the Neck-only adornment with a Wrist-only adornment and then equipping it in a Wrist slot.
No where does it state that the placing of a Neck-only adornment will change the tag of the item to become permanently "Neck-only". It will retain it's "Neck/Wrist" tag, but only be equipable in the slot the "current" adornment is limited to.
Seems painfully obvious to me.

Unfortunately, EQPrime was correct. When you apply a wrist adornment to an item that can be put in multiple slots, it removes the non-wrist slot from the description of the item. This *permanently* alters the item, as it prevents adornments for the previously alternate slot will no longer go on that item. The only way to fix that is to be able to simple remove an adornment, which currently is not possible. IMO this is a bug and hopefully fixed very soon.

Message Edited by Nightwo|f on 02-01-2007 04:15 PM

Bozidar · 02-20-2007, 12:57 PM

They're allowing us to adorn weapons shields and armor now..

but why not rings?

Koltr · 02-20-2007, 01:16 PM

I have a suggestion... Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to allow adornments to be popped off in much the same way as they are put on. Then the duty of removing NOTRADE, slot specific, or class specific adornment items are up to the owner. This would also make things a whole lot simpler for SOE since they would no longer have to field all of the miniscule problems related to the unidirectional nature of adornment usage. In order to make it interesting, the means to remove an adornment could be a quested skill, somewhat like the Call of Qeynos bind point quest. This would allow players who want to remove adornments to quest for it and those who couldn't be bothered to ignore the problem entirely. As an example: I want to add a neck adornment to said necklace/bracelet, which now makes the item a neclkace only. Later on I discover a better necklace and whant to use the adorned item as a bracelet. I would first have perform the quest to get the "Salvage adornment" skill if I haven't allready done so, and then apply it to the item in question. Presto! I now have a necklace/bracelet item and a carefully removed adornment item I can apply to another item. This solution gets rid of a vast number of the legitimate and whiny complaints to date, and adds a little more vairation to the game. Heck you could even ad a title to the mix if the quest is difficult enough, like, "the Salvager" or the "the Reclaimer". None of this is terribly difficult to put inplace, nor does it defeat the issues of ballance, since a NOTRADE adornment would keep all of its origional flags after being salvaged.

Choombatta · 02-20-2007, 04:17 PM

Nightwo|f wrote:

Unfortunately, EQPrime was correct. When you apply a wrist adornment to an item that can be put in multiple slots, it removes the non-wrist slot from the description of the item. This *permanently* alters the item, as it prevents adornments for the previously alternate slot will no longer go on that item. The only way to fix that is to be able to simple remove an adornment, which currently is not possible. IMO this is a bug and hopefully fixed very soon.
Message Edited by Nightwo|f on 02-01-2007 04:15 PM

If that is truley the case, then I agree it was a horrible change. The item should always be a Neck/Wrist item limited only by what current adornment is in it at the time.

If you put a Neck adornment in it, and down the road cannot put a Wrist adornment in it, then SOE completely screwed up the item in question by adding the ability to adorn it in the first place and it should be fixed to work the way the item originally stated it worked.

I am not saying you should be able to put a neck adornment on it and equip it in a wrist slot, but you should be able to chose Neck or Wrist adornments for it, and not lose the future ability to switch it out.

sah · 02-20-2007, 05:28 PM

Choombatta wrote:

I am not saying you should be able to put a neck adornment on it and equip it in a wrist slot, but you should be able to chose Neck or Wrist adornments for it, and not lose the future ability to switch it out.

that's how it works...if you adorn a neck/wrist item with a wrist adornment, it'll only be equippable in the wrist slot but you can put a neck adornment on the item later if you want...

Choombatta · 02-20-2007, 06:10 PM

sahet wrote:

Choombatta wrote:
I am not saying you should be able to put a neck adornment on it and equip it in a wrist slot, but you should be able to chose Neck or Wrist adornments for it, and not lose the future ability to switch it out.
that's how it works...if you adorn a neck/wrist item with a wrist adornment, it'll only be equippable in the wrist slot but you can put a neck adornment on the item later if you want...

Is it?

Nightwolf's post implies just the opposite.

"Unfortunately, EQPrime was correct. When you apply a wrist adornment to an item that can be put in multiple slots, it removes the non-wrist slot from the description of the item. This *permanently* alters the item, as it prevents adornments for the previously alternate slot will no longer go on that item. The only way to fix that is to be able to simple remove an adornment, which currently is not possible. IMO this is a bug and hopefully fixed very soon."

01-25-2007, 11:33 PM	#91
juz General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 318	Trynnus, the cap for both is 200. At 200, you get 125%. __________________

01-26-2007, 12:03 AM	#92
Kaedi General Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 191	megaira13 wrote: How about fixing the items that have been bugged, petitioned, etc. as unadornable since EoF release? I.E. the Chitin Imbued items, etc. I can't care much about a nerf when I can't adorn some items that should be augmentable in the first place. Seconded. __________________ Thanks Grimwell for crapping on EQ2Flames.com

01-26-2007, 12:15 AM	#93
Trynnus1 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 362	juzamaku wrote: Trynnus, the cap for both is 200. At 200, you get 125%. It will display higher - I promise it said 216, but yes the cap is 125% at 200.

01-26-2007, 12:20 AM	#94
juz General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 318	Oh, I'm sure it can display higher, that way, if you get debuff, the points you have in excess will kick in. __________________

01-26-2007, 02:37 AM	#95
Geothe Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,098	Question: For mage/priest items that are for secondary/ranged slots. Can they still put the adornments on them (like +spell damage) that are for secondary slot items, and still put them in range slots? Because, erm, they have no other actual range items to use in those slots __________________ Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement. Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II. Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

01-26-2007, 03:24 AM	#96
Pins General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,040	Geothe wrote: Question: For mage/priest items that are for secondary/ranged slots. Can they still put the adornments on them (like +spell damage) that are for secondary slot items, and still put them in range slots? Because, erm, they have no other actual range items to use in those slots +Spell Damage ones are for Symbol items, and have no restrictions on slots. __________________ Calaglin, Former Illusionist/Guild Leader of Dissolution on Nektulos Calaglin, Former Illusionist/Guild Leader of Confirmed on Unrest

01-27-2007, 12:02 AM	#97
Oakum Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,441	Trynnus1 wrote: valleyboy1 wrote: Autenil wrote: Hi all, We will go ahead and pop off all of the Adornments that change equipment slots of the items they're attached to. They will show up in your overflow slot. Oh well should have known better I guess, yesterday after reading your post I decided I could live with the fact that I couldnt switch out items and got three adornments, looks like today you did a complete 180, fantastic. This will still leave the huge imbalance between +dps items in the game and +haste items. Message Edited by valleyboy1 on 01-25-2007 03:28 AM What imbalance is that? DPS stacks, haste does not (with 2 exceptions I know of and have PM a Dev on). A guild groups its normal for me to hit 100 DPS and 100 Haste. Raiding I have even gone over the cap with 216 DPS and 180 ish haste - the cap for both is 125%. My memory is a little fuzzy but I thought DPS and Haste by number would max out at 200 BUT would be on diminishing returns so that the actual would be 125. __________________

01-27-2007, 02:18 AM	#98
EtoilePirate Tester Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 1,258	Oakum wrote: Trynnus1 wrote: valleyboy1 wrote: What imbalance is that? DPS stacks, haste does not (with 2 exceptions I know of and have PM a Dev on). A guild groups its normal for me to hit 100 DPS and 100 Haste. Raiding I have even gone over the cap with 216 DPS and 180 ish haste - the cap for both is 125%. My memory is a little fuzzy but I thought DPS and Haste by number would max out at 200 BUT would be on diminishing returns so that the actual would be 125. 1.) Haste stacks if it comes from different sources. So a belt with 15% haste and a cloak with 10% haste WILL NOT stack, but either piece of gear WILL stack with a 20% haste buff from whatever glass gives you one.2.) The caps for both haste and DPS are now set at 200 numerically which, yes, is 125%. Like any other cap: you can raise it over the cap pretty effortlessly (getting my DPS over 200 in a good group or raid situation is a cinch), but it stops providing benefits. If my DPS is at 200, I get a 125% boost. If my DPS is at 250, I get a 125% boost. __________________ Kella The Mighty Pirate, Assassin & Tailor Nimari, Fury-at-Large Test Server

01-28-2007, 04:32 PM	#99
ibeo Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 143	how is this fair? you are gonna pop them off and give them to me so i can do what with them exactly? oh ya try to sell them on the now flooded market great idea... refund us like you did with the 400 shoulders...thats only fair __________________

01-28-2007, 09:41 PM	#100
Troubor Loremaster Join Date: May 2005 Location: My Felwithe Mansion (and a couple other smaller homes), currently. Posts: 1,416	ibeo wrote: how is this fair? you are gonna pop them off and give them to me so i can do what with them exactly? oh ya try to sell them on the now flooded market great idea... refund us like you did with the 400 shoulders...thats only fair LOL...so people can intentionally buy up expensive adornments, put them on neck/wrist slot items, then when GU31 rolls into the main servers from Test they can get BOTH their adornment back AND some coin also? :p Let me know if we do get coin back also, I need to go change the adorn my DT amulet real quick... (J/k) :p There's a big difference here. a) The "400 shoulders" as you put it were items that were REDUCED in effectiveness without too much warning. THUS, they both gave back the adornments, and also gave people coin. BUT b) The neck/wrist slot issue was with items that people adorned with a neck slot adornment, but then wore on their wrist, thus doing something that SOE didn't intend for people to do. The ADORNMENT itself isn't any weaker, people simply used them in an unintended way. Now, I don't honestly think most were thinking "OH NEAT, EXPLOIT!". I do think most were thinking "Oh hey, this thing is both a neck and a wrist item...I wonder if I can put a neck adornment on it, then wear it on my wrist? Hey I can? Neat!". But...SOE finally has noted that people were doing this, and have now corrected something. Should they have noted it earlier? Probably. But then again, I've seen other bugs and unintended effects go on for months on end too, even when it seems like SOE might know of the issue, before it's fixed. So this isn't new, nor should it shock people. I do think this is fair. You can sell the adornment, give it to a friend, or save for an alt. Repairing of bugs, especially when the item isn't reduced in effect, shouldn't be used as a chance to make coin. THAT, since they are warning us ahead of time that they will be popping off the adorn, would be an exploit. :p Oh well. I'm sure I'll get flamed. Enjoy! I've said my piece, let's see if people can agree or disagree in an intelligent manner, and not like a bunch of narcissistic drooling 12 year olds. __________________

01-28-2007, 09:43 PM	#101
Troubor Loremaster Join Date: May 2005 Location: My Felwithe Mansion (and a couple other smaller homes), currently. Posts: 1,416	Malandrin wrote: The most important thing is that they refunded players after tha change in the +400 HP / +400 Power. So now they must do the same. No, they must not. As I just pointed out..there's a difference. The 400/400 items were REDUCED in effectiveness. The neck/wrist slot item issue had people adorning things with the wrong adornment, more or less. Why is it that people seem to think they are ENTITLED to something due to a bug correction? Like they DESERVE something from every little move SOE makes? Are people that narcissistic? __________________

01-29-2007, 12:09 AM	#102
Azeda Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 86	My only question now is the ranged/symbol items for priests and the other classes that use them. SOE threw us a bone and allowed us to put symbols in our ranged slots, which was a great change that balanced the playing field to allow us some stat benefit from that slot. This was an intentional and good change, not a workaround or exploit. So here is the problem. If I place a symbol adornment on a symbol and equip it in my its intended slot, the ranged slot, the adornment will have no effect while equipped there. How is that fair or balanced. The only solution would be to allow the symbol adornments to work in the ranged slot or to make the ranged slot itself RANGED/SYMBOL. Also what about what about symbol/secondary items. How will the adornment restrictions effect those items. Gratz SOE for jumping the gun again and not thinking things through, not on the original introduction of adornments nor on the impending fix. Unless I am wrong and you have thought of these issues ... just not told anyone. Some clarification would be appreciated. __________________ Original Signiture nerfed by Raijinn Thunderguard due to it being offensive to Slinkies - I know I need to update/modify my sig ... too lazy to do it

01-29-2007, 04:22 AM	#103
Autenil-EQ2 Loremaster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 36	Azeda wrote: My only question now is the ranged/symbol items for priests and the other classes that use them. SOE threw us a bone and allowed us to put symbols in our ranged slots, which was a great change that balanced the playing field to allow us some stat benefit from that slot. This was an intentional and good change, not a workaround or exploit. So here is the problem. If I place a symbol adornment on a symbol and equip it in my its intended slot, the ranged slot, the adornment will have no effect while equipped there. How is that fair or balanced. The only solution would be to allow the symbol adornments to work in the ranged slot or to make the ranged slot itself RANGED/SYMBOL. Also what about what about symbol/secondary items. How will the adornment restrictions effect those items. Gratz SOE for jumping the gun again and not thinking things through, not on the original introduction of adornments nor on the impending fix. Unless I am wrong and you have thought of these issues ... just not told anyone. Some clarification would be appreciated. That's not entirely correct. Currently, Adornments always have an affect when the item they're applied to is equipped; slot has nothing to do with it. The change that this thread refers to is that Adornments can restrict the slots of the items that they're applied to. There is another recognized bug with Adornments that will be fixed on test in the next few coming updates (i.e. it should go out with Game Update 31). That bug is that shield-only adornments can be applied to symbols and symbol-only adornments can be applied to shields. Again with these, the improperly applied adornments will be removed from the items and added to your overflow slot. __________________ Joshua "Autenil" Kriegshauser Senior Programmer, EverQuest II Sony Online Entertainment

01-29-2007, 07:54 AM	#104
Lairdragna Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 543	This is a crazy thought... get it right before you release the content... and when Beta testers tell you more time is needed, LISTEN!I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with."Imbued" items that are not imbued, still can't be adorned.Adornments were nerfed.A game mechanic they were told about was allowed to stand for two months and now suddenly is getting "fixed."Claymore quest items can not be adorned, even though many are inferior to common loot from EoF... making Claymore about pointless. Oh, and forget about doing it as a citizen of Kelethin. They should fix that right around the time the new epic quest line comes out.You want to know why people get upset? They are tired of the slip shod fashion that seems to be the norm. These are not brilliant changes to be making right at the time your competition rolled out its first expansion and a new product (your's, so you won't lose much $$$$$ if people switch) hits the shelves.This game is hemmoraging people and we all see it daily. No, this change alone is not enough to drive anybody away, at least it shouldn't be. However, the effect of these changes piling on causes many to question the direction this game is going.

01-29-2007, 12:23 PM	#105
Kendricke Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,032	Lairdragna wrote: This is a crazy thought... get it right before you release the content... and when Beta testers tell you more time is needed, LISTEN! I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with. I look forward to playing your perfect MMO product, which will not only release profitably, but also will remain bug free for all time. Let us know how that project is shaping up for you, ok? Seriously. Of course it was about "$$$$$$". You think BestBuy is ok with you just deciding a couple of weeks before you release that it's ok to change release dates on them? Do you have the slightest of an inkling about what's involved in a project of this scope? You think factories are just sitting around with trained workers just waiting around for your company to come in with an order for 400,000 units? You think SOE is the only customer of said factories? You think the DVD and CD versions just print themselves and then box themselves? No, this happens on an assembly line at a third party factory...where other customers are also wanting line space. If you don't get your run done in time, you don't get your run rescheduled for weeks or even months sometimes. Ok...whew...you finally got those 400,000 copies of your product created and packaged. That wasn't exactly cheap to begin with, but that's ok. Now you've got 400,000 boxes of product...and the factory doesn't have space for it. Oh, that means shipping and warehousing now...which is also paid for. You gotta get that product out the door to the distributor, right? Great...but the distributor ALSO has other clients. What? You think SOE has a distribution office sitting in the bottom of the San Diego studio? Of course they don't. Anyway, the distributor isn't going to sit on 400,000 units forever (which cost a lot in the first place, mind you). You can bet your butt there are contracts which include dates. Ok, fine...you've got a distributor. So, what's the big deal, right? Well, those distributors need/want/have to move that product to the retailers. Retailers don't just want you shipping 400,000 units on them whenever you feel like it though. They want their cut of the units, and they want their cut at specific dates. Why? Because they don't want a shipment of 200 EQ2 units hitting their Cleveland branches the same day they receive 400 Pirates of the Caribbean 2 DVD's and the same day they have to shelve up the new Oblivion expansion, either. Modern retailors have ever box/pallet scanned and planned every minute of its life...and you can't just decide to change your dates...because the shelf space you've got reserved on the 11th turns into a pumpkin on the 15th when the new "Beer Hunter X: Macro vs. Micro" game gets the end cap. So, you either release when you contracted to release, or you eat a contracted fee and give up whatever "new release" end cap deal you'd worked out, and just deal with the fact that the 400,000 boxes you paid for are now sitting buried on the general shelving stuck between a couple of games no one's heard of, and old dusty copies of EQ2: Desert of Flames. Yeah...what greedy, selfish jerks those SOE guys must be for DARING not to listen to the all knowing beta testers, right? __________________ * -Opinions expressed in this post do not represent any current or past employers.

01-29-2007, 12:56 PM	#106
ReviloTX Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 234	Kendricke I understand your argument, but I don't agree. SOE is known for releasing unfinished products, this is nothing new. They know what manpower is needed for a particular project, they just cut corners (read: lower budget = more profit). They tried it to compete with the release of WoW 2 years ago, and lost. They tried it again with this xpac, and they will lose again. In my opinion, a finished product beats all, but apparently they don't see it that way. They still get my money now, because I don't care for Blizzard and the kiddo's that play their games, but in the long run someone else besides Blizzard will come along and do it right, and SOE will be hurting for market share way worse than they are now when that happens. I just don't think it's too much to ask them to properly plan and staff for an expansion (or even a game release). Just because an MMO is everchanging doesn't mean that's an excuse to release an unfinished product, ask me to pay for it, and then plan to finish it later. It's almost a year now since KoS was released and our NEXT GU is going to add a few more new hat looks? Come on, thats obsurd and borderline theft considering they were advertised as part of the original package.

01-29-2007, 06:29 PM	#107
Lairdragna Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 543	Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally. You can sit back and accept their half hearted effort, I don't. It is the complacent folks like you that empower their lacsidasical attitude.

01-29-2007, 06:42 PM	#108
Kendricke Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,032	Lairdragna wrote: Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally. And companies such as Vivendi/Blizzard can absorb the cost a great deal more than SOE can. Honestly, they're the Microsoft of MMO's right now - of computer games in general, really. They can pretty much dictate terms on contracts with a great deal more leniency than other MMO designers. They're making so much cash right now, they could afford to burn it for heating their offices if they wanted. Even so, it's not as if Burning Crusade still didn't launch with bugs or issues. It was a relatively smooth launch, and I was definately was impressed overall...but to see the real dirt we aren't discussing here, you'd have to mosey on over to the World of Warcraft forums to see what's being said by their players (just as their players wouldn't exactly be aware of any possible adornment issues unless they bothered to read through discussions such as this, buried in the Testing Feedback forum). It's all about perspective, and ours is firmly rooted in the issues here in the Shattered Lands. You're looking over the fence and seeing the greener grass, all the while ignoring or simply not seeing the brown patches tastefully hidden just out of your view. But just because you can't see the problems over there doesn't mean they don't exist. I'd wager you a cool platinum right now that I can wander over to the World of Warcraft forums later and find at LEAST a dozen posts since Burning Crusade launched that complain about problems that existed in the TBC Beta. __________________ * -Opinions expressed in this post do not represent any current or past employers.

01-29-2007, 07:26 PM	#109
Rijacki Tester Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,842	Lairdragna wrote:Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally. You can sit back and accept their half hearted effort, I don't. It is the complacent folks like you that empower their lacsidasical attitude. They put in their delay before they had bought their shelf space, not a few days before the release, weeks before. Besides, do you know for 100% certainty the "delay" wasn't a publicity stunt with full knowledge of when they really intended to release. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was. It's a good way to get -free- press. __________________

01-29-2007, 09:24 PM	#110
Gungo Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Crushbone Posts: 5,378	eq2 was released as a finished product as most MMo's can hope for. If ou really think WoW is all roses and sunshines then please take a trip to thier forums where the same discussions are happening there about broken items/mechanics.

01-29-2007, 09:28 PM	#111
Lig General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 191	Lairdragna wrote: This is a crazy thought... get it right before you release the content... and when Beta testers tell you more time is needed, LISTEN! I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with. "Imbued" items that are not imbued, still can't be adorned. Adornments were nerfed. A game mechanic they were told about was allowed to stand for two months and now suddenly is getting "fixed." Claymore quest items can not be adorned, even though many are inferior to common loot from EoF... making Claymore about pointless. Oh, and forget about doing it as a citizen of Kelethin. They should fix that right around the time the new epic quest line comes out. You want to know why people get upset? They are tired of the slip shod fashion that seems to be the norm. These are not brilliant changes to be making right at the time your competition rolled out its first expansion and a new product (your's, so you won't lose much $$$$$ if people switch) hits the shelves. This game is hemmoraging people and we all see it daily. No, this change alone is not enough to drive anybody away, at least it shouldn't be. However, the effect of these changes piling on causes many to question the direction this game is going. You know, I am one of the most critical people when it comes to the Dev's and what they do and don't fix in game, but these kinds of comments really [Removed for Content] me off. You can't get everything right the first time. AT LEAST they are fixing this problem and are aknowledging that it exists and that they are fixing it. That's the key. It will never be perfect when it comes out, the question is are they willing to fix and adjust the mechanics and content that is broken or just doesn't work for the gamers out there. A prime example for me is DT access. When it first came out Harla Dar was a contested and raid guilds would kill it every time blocking others from getting access. This was a silly idea to begin with. It was not working out for the majority of the paying customer. The community didn't scream "Get it right the first time" we screamed "CHANGE IT" and guess what.. they did. That's the sign of a good Dev team. They are changing this, so instead of chiding them for getting it wrong, go find some other aspect of the game that is broken or you think should be changed and start threads on that

01-29-2007, 09:42 PM	#112
KerowynnKaotic Tormentor of Fae Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Middle of Nowhere, Arizona Posts: 1,862	Rijacki wrote: Lairdragna wrote: Ummmm kendricke you can try to BS all you want... WoW with more than 10x the playerbase delayed their release for two months... all those issues you described would effect them at least ten times as much and that is assuming the issues scaled proportionally. You can sit back and accept their half hearted effort, I don't. It is the complacent folks like you that empower their lacsidasical attitude. They put in their delay before they had bought their shelf space, not a few days before the release, weeks before. Besides, do you know for 100% certainty the "delay" wasn't a publicity stunt with full knowledge of when they really intended to release. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was. It's a good way to get -free- press. It did work for them .. and .. do you know why? Because they used the before & after Shelf space to still sell something. Blizzard put out TONS of "pre-buy" boxes in that "pre-purchased" shelf space. -- SOE could have done the same thing. I love EQ2 and am not going anywhere but even I recognize the fact that SOE's Marketing & PR is sub-par. SOE had the PERFECT set up to do a Pre-buy AND delay EoF another 2 months. ... They could have put out the new character select screen (with save-able customizations) for the new FAE race! People would have happily played with the colors, wings & hairstyles for awhile (and maybe downloaded the trial) while waiting for EoF to come out. Everywhere I go that can even claim the most tenous attatchment to a "game store" I see WoW "stuff"! WoW has a line of collector Pins! They have $5 starter CDs, they have collector posters, books, shirts .. runs screaming out of the store ... SOE Marketing Mantra: We were uber in '99! We don't need no stinking marketing! We rest on our Laurels! __________________

01-29-2007, 11:52 PM	#113
Ualday General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 65	Lairdragna wrote: I was told by Dymus in Beta that EoF would be released on schedule because shelf space had been purchased (read it was all about the $$$$$$) and what was unspoken was that WoW was due to release its expansion and they wanted to beat them to the market. It wasn't about releasing the best product, it was about getting it out the fastest. Then we have THIS to deal with. And things like that are why the NDA you agreed to in order to get that beta say this: 2.2 Confidentiality Obligation. Recipient shall keep the Confidential Information in confidence and shall not publish, disclose, or otherwise make available, directly or indirectly, any Confidential Information to any third party. However, Recipient may disclose the Confidential Information in accordance with a judicial or governmental order; provided, however, that Recipient shall give SOE reasonable written notice prior to disclosure and shall comply with any applicable protective order or equivalent. ONCE THE COMMERCIAL VERSION OF THE GAME HAS BEEN RELEASED BY SOE TO THE PUBLIC, RECIPIENT'S CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATION SHALL CONTINUE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS BETA PROGRAM AND ALL FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS (WHETHER FROM RECIPIENT, ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT, OR FROM SOE EMPLOYEES).I didn't bold that last part, that's the way SOE made the agreement. It is however, the part I would have bolded had SOE not. Sure, legal jargon confuses a lot of people, but basically it says even after the commercial version is out you're still bound to not discuss what you told SOE, or what you told someone else about the beta, or what a SOE employee told you that was MEANT for you and not the mass audience during the beta program. __________________ The cake is a lie.

01-31-2007, 01:22 AM	#114
yettii Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 74	Pinski wrote: Not to mention, did you know that no-value items are free to repair? Well, that was a self-destructing cat-out-of-the-bag.If we're still unfortunate enough to be stuck with the No-Value tag on adorned items after GU 31, don't expect the above statement to last long at all. (If it does, this is mainly going to benefit the bigtime raiders, kinda like a HUGE tax break. In before pointing fingers & flames.....)Or better yet, forget the No-Value tag bit completely. No-Value means no sellback capability to Vendors, can't be transmuted by transmuters themselves, and doesn't it kill the option of Altar sacrificability? At least Deity Altars gave us something to do with all the attuned loot from previous tiers from our stuffed banks. Due to current restrictions on the No-Value tag, adding it to adorned items is a change that no one wants. What good does it serve?

02-02-2007, 02:13 AM	#115
Nightwo\|f Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 172	Choombatta wrote: Where in the world did you come up with that conclusion EQPrime?!?! It clearly states that as long as it is adorned with a Neck-only adornment, it can only be equipped in the Neck slot. Nothing is stopping you from over-writing the Neck-only adornment with a Wrist-only adornment and then equipping it in a Wrist slot. No where does it state that the placing of a Neck-only adornment will change the tag of the item to become permanently "Neck-only". It will retain it's "Neck/Wrist" tag, but only be equipable in the slot the "current" adornment is limited to. Seems painfully obvious to me. Unfortunately, EQPrime was correct. When you apply a wrist adornment to an item that can be put in multiple slots, it removes the non-wrist slot from the description of the item. This permanently alters the item, as it prevents adornments for the previously alternate slot will no longer go on that item. The only way to fix that is to be able to simple remove an adornment, which currently is not possible. IMO this is a bug and hopefully fixed very soon. Message Edited by Nightwo\|f on 02-01-2007 04:15 PM

02-20-2007, 12:57 PM	#116
Bozidar Loremaster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,292	They're allowing us to adorn weapons shields and armor now.. but why not rings?

02-20-2007, 01:16 PM	#117
Koltr General Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 85	I have a suggestion... Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to allow adornments to be popped off in much the same way as they are put on. Then the duty of removing NOTRADE, slot specific, or class specific adornment items are up to the owner. This would also make things a whole lot simpler for SOE since they would no longer have to field all of the miniscule problems related to the unidirectional nature of adornment usage. In order to make it interesting, the means to remove an adornment could be a quested skill, somewhat like the Call of Qeynos bind point quest. This would allow players who want to remove adornments to quest for it and those who couldn't be bothered to ignore the problem entirely. As an example: I want to add a neck adornment to said necklace/bracelet, which now makes the item a neclkace only. Later on I discover a better necklace and whant to use the adorned item as a bracelet. I would first have perform the quest to get the "Salvage adornment" skill if I haven't allready done so, and then apply it to the item in question. Presto! I now have a necklace/bracelet item and a carefully removed adornment item I can apply to another item. This solution gets rid of a vast number of the legitimate and whiny complaints to date, and adds a little more vairation to the game. Heck you could even ad a title to the mix if the quest is difficult enough, like, "the Salvager" or the "the Reclaimer". None of this is terribly difficult to put inplace, nor does it defeat the issues of ballance, since a NOTRADE adornment would keep all of its origional flags after being salvaged.

02-20-2007, 04:17 PM	#118
Choombatta Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 117	Nightwo\|f wrote: Unfortunately, EQPrime was correct. When you apply a wrist adornment to an item that can be put in multiple slots, it removes the non-wrist slot from the description of the item. This permanently alters the item, as it prevents adornments for the previously alternate slot will no longer go on that item. The only way to fix that is to be able to simple remove an adornment, which currently is not possible. IMO this is a bug and hopefully fixed very soon. Message Edited by Nightwo\|f on 02-01-2007 04:15 PM If that is truley the case, then I agree it was a horrible change. The item should always be a Neck/Wrist item limited only by what current adornment is in it at the time. If you put a Neck adornment in it, and down the road cannot put a Wrist adornment in it, then SOE completely screwed up the item in question by adding the ability to adorn it in the first place and it should be fixed to work the way the item originally stated it worked. I am not saying you should be able to put a neck adornment on it and equip it in a wrist slot, but you should be able to chose Neck or Wrist adornments for it, and not lose the future ability to switch it out. __________________

02-20-2007, 05:28 PM	#119
sah General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 325	Choombatta wrote: I am not saying you should be able to put a neck adornment on it and equip it in a wrist slot, but you should be able to chose Neck or Wrist adornments for it, and not lose the future ability to switch it out. that's how it works...if you adorn a neck/wrist item with a wrist adornment, it'll only be equippable in the wrist slot but you can put a neck adornment on the item later if you want...

02-20-2007, 06:10 PM	#120
Choombatta Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 117	sahet wrote: Choombatta wrote: I am not saying you should be able to put a neck adornment on it and equip it in a wrist slot, but you should be able to chose Neck or Wrist adornments for it, and not lose the future ability to switch it out. that's how it works...if you adorn a neck/wrist item with a wrist adornment, it'll only be equippable in the wrist slot but you can put a neck adornment on the item later if you want... Is it? Nightwolf's post implies just the opposite. "Unfortunately, EQPrime was correct. When you apply a wrist adornment to an item that can be put in multiple slots, it removes the non-wrist slot from the description of the item. This permanently alters the item, as it prevents adornments for the previously alternate slot will no longer go on that item. The only way to fix that is to be able to simple remove an adornment, which currently is not possible. IMO this is a bug and hopefully fixed very soon." __________________