Silicate Loam Woes

[Oh]

Bratface wrote:

Ohiv wrote:

Bratface wrote:

Zehl_Ice-Fire wrote:

You could get by with a mixed set of rare leather (which is always cheap) and plate as a tank, unless you are dead set on soloing ^^^ yellow mobs exclusivly while you level.

I have to call nonsense on this, no plate tank would or should be caught dead in a half leather set of gear, and every group would reject him because of it.

Tanks NEED the best they can get, they take the damage and keep the agro and they need to have the best in order for the group to do well.

I don't even play tanks but I sure know the difference between a well geared one and a poorly geared one, it means the difference of being able to stand up to mobs or being a mana sponge who bounces agro everywhere because they can't take a hit or do enough DPS and taunt to keep the agro to themselves.

Actualy that's not true.. You can very succesfully level using just treasred gear, and then when you are 80 you can spend/aquire the parts to make sure your in full MC or better. Realy all of this comes back to OOH woe is me I'm a I can't afford the pricing is really just out of wack for .

There are many threads that will effectivly say the same thing basically I will summarize for you, just go out and earn some plat if you really want or aquire the rares yourself and have to be made for you. Really it boils down to choices and either you will make a set of choices to get what you want or you won't. Neither of them are bad choices they are just your choices.

I'm confused, how exactly are you disagreeing with me?

I make no comment on whether affording them is the problem or not, I honestly don't care.

But I do care that some new person would think (because the are told) that leather is as good for a plate tank as plate gear because it isn't and they would be left to solo because no group would want them in their half leather gear to be tanking for them, and for the record I'd prefer a tank in treasured plate than MC leather tbh. That is my point, nothing about costs or earning money was ever mentioned by me so I'm unsure what you disagree with in my post.

I think loams are just fine, but then again I don't play tanks or scouts, so it really doesn't concern me, but as a class that does group with those classes I can say for a fact that having them better geared is a good thing.

They should just bring back the old Alchemy nodes and put loams on them instead of having them share the ore node, either that or move them to wood nodes where they logically belong.

I was talking about gear which is what your post was about, I bolded the points since apparently they got missed.

[sliderhouserules]

psistorm wrote:

zaneluke wrote:

I love these threads.

Just an FYI. I did harvest this weekend in the crater in JW. 2 hours. 4 loams,1 emerald and one incardinate cluster.

I guess the RNG is to be blamed for it. But its a fact that some materials are significantly higher priced than others, even though they should have the same general demand and availability, which is not the case atm. And given how RNGs work, you may well harvest for weeks without seeing a single rare, even though the chance for that isnt exactly high. Still ive gone from 30 to 38 and only picked up one opal so far, and I could use one or two more myself, but chances are i wont find them before I move to the next tier.

My necro however brought back EIGHT rares from a single harvest run once, in the same zone and level range, this only goes to show how random the RNG really is. if there was some way to reduce the immense spread, that would be awesome and probably help people a fair bit by spreading the wealth more evenly, so to say

No they shouldn't. Who ever said they should? If an inordinate number of people happen to be outfitting their mage characters in T4 in a given week, should the game adjust by upping the drop rate of T4 mage spell rares? No, it absolutely should not. All rares have an equal chance to drop. Every player has an equal chance to outfit their character. The *player market* determines pricing. The *player market* provides equal chance to profit from inequalities in price between any given commodity.

[bks6721]

the problem is that a lot of people think they NEED to be all adept 3 and in MC at lower levels.  It's nice, but not needed.  If you have patience you can be all decked out without costing a lot.  If you are in a hurry and want it NOW it will cost more.

The arguement about silicate loams is the same arguement we heard in Teir 7 with spongy loams.  Even with the percieved imbalance everyone ended up with adept 3's or masters.  All my guys get adept 3's because thats what I WANT them to have and I have the patience to harvest the rares required.  It does take a long time, but to me its worth it.  My little Monk could have been 80 by now if I didn't take the time to get all his rare pelts for gear upgrades.  He levels slower but he kicks butt because I took the time to get better stuff.   My wizard on the other hand, he burned down mobs in KoS with gear from Timorous Deep.  His first MC robe came at level 72 and the money made on the journey to teir 8 bought enough rares for all his teir 8 spells.

With 3 crafters at 80 and a couple more sub 50 I know the joys of harvesting and the pain of the RNG.   If I don't get a rare within the first 30 minutes I stop harvesting and find something else to do.  Sometimes it's a matter of "one more rare and I'm done" only to get one on the next node.. so I extend it to just one more.  lol   Saturday I went to TS to try for some palladium for my baby Illusionist.  I was hoping to get one, maybe two.  In 2 hours I had 9 of them.  Lucky RNG day for me.  It may be a while before I find another and I'm aware of that.

Even with the excessive price of T8 loams you can earn enough to buy them without going broke.  You don't even have to harvest rares to make that plat.  Teir 6 materials sell very high.  It takes no time at all to get a stack of teir 6 roots and they sell almost as fast.  Teir 5 rares are fairly high as well, harvest those to sell.  Another option if you are lucky enough is to trade rares with guildies.  I will gladly give my rare loams to the fighters in my guild. 

[Meirril]

Ohiv wrote:

Actualy that's not true.. You can very succesfully level using just treasred gear, and then when you are 80 you can spend/aquire the parts to make sure your in full MC or better. Realy all of this comes back to OOH woe is me I'm a I can't afford the pricing is really just out of wack for .

There are many threads that will effectivly say the same thing basically I will summarize for you, just go out and earn some plat if you really want or aquire the rares yourself and have to be made for you. Really it boils down to choices and either you will make a set of choices to get what you want or you won't. Neither of them are bad choices they are just your choices.

Lets sum up the counter argument. In the top tier, one rare material services the spells of 12 classes while 2 other rare materials service the spells of 6 classes and jewelery for all 24. The material used for the 12 classe's spells costs at least twice as much as the other two materials.

When the tier shifts, the top tier still remains twice as expensive as the other two. Is it fair that the system encourages what can only be said is an unfair burden on half the classes which essentially favors two archatypes over the other two? I believe the answer for the vast majority of adventurers is no. The system needs to be examined and this inadequacy addressed. Things are not fine as it is.

I'm for re-introducing inks. If you want to throw back to using just the jewelery rares and remove loams from the game I'm fine with that. If you want to make loam the only spell rare I'm fine with that. If you want to make a rare fish that produces the only spell rare I'm fine with that. I'm looking for a fair system where every one of the 24 classes in game is treated in possibly not a completely ballanced method, but at least in an equitable system instead of having a 2 to 1 inballance for half of the classes.

This imballance didn't occure prior to loams being introduced. Half of the classes in game screamed when loam was introduced because mages and priests were all on the same rare. The fix was to shift scout and fighters to loam and split mages and priests. All that did was shift the problem. Honestly, we were better off back before loam. Lets stop shifting the problem and just deal with it.

[Terron]

Kigneer wrote:

For tanks you need the Feysteel, the Ebon, the Cobalt and more. It's not an "option", tanks don't have the AGI and high DPS like those in cloth/leather/chain and have to take the beating. Scouts et al can get away with trash gear into level 52, but not warriors and crusaders.

Rubbish. It is an option.

The only MC armour my main had before T5 was a blackened iron chest piece. T5 was the first time I was able to afford a complete set of handcrafted on reaching a new tier. I was lucky for T6 - I found 2 cobalt on my first vist from 4 nodes. It made surviving a lot easier, but treasured and handcrafted are good enough for soloing and careful grouping. Things have changed a lot, but the old zones have not got harder.

[surepaw]

Kigneer wrote:

• Ohiv wrote:

This thread is going downhill fast. PLEASE be civil with each other it's the forum rules, FYI.

As to silicate loams being more costly then other rares, this partiqular topic has been discussed many times over. Unfortunatly it is what it is, and no dev has posted that this would be changing any time soon. SO the ultimate choice is either a) keep whineing or b) get off your duufikus and start getting them. SINCE AD3's aren't required for leveling or dungenong they are a "nice to have" thing, and as such you don't personally have to get them if you don't want to, but you could if you so desire. Same is said with Masters you don't HAVE to have them even to raid, but they are nice to have if you wish to put forth the effort to aquire them.

Nope this "advice" isn't only not helpful, not even true.

When I first started this game in June, and being totally new to EQ2 (without a main to support a character, like so many who claim "It's easy. So stop the whining!" actually have -- that little ace up their sleeve they don't tell folks), I played the first 3 tiers with mainly treasured gear as I couldn't afford MC. When I reached T3 and the mobs getting outrageously more harder to kill, I spent 9 8+hr days harvesting to get Feysteel (why I'm one of the top level harvesters now). Managed to get 9 rares for a sword and board set, when I was nearly ready for Ebon.

A level 32 character without a supporting main can not afford Feysteel for MC gear -- that's on average 9 plat to buy the ore only. Feysteel is expensive because the ore nodes itself are rare (no 50/50 ratio there, the nodes themselves are rare to even harvest).

For tanks you need the Feysteel, the Ebon, the Cobalt and more. It's not an "option", tanks don't have the AGI and high DPS like those in cloth/leather/chain and have to take the beating. Scouts et al can get away with trash gear into level 52, but not warriors and crusaders.

Secondly, you also will need Adept IIIs and Masters and adorns if you like your K/D level to be decent, and survive even the lower tier dungeons even in groups (I've been mentoring now in SH, RE, DFC and other < level 50 areas, and encountered too many groups that aren't in MC get wiped. Those in it -- and using food (SOE you really need to fix this, as too many lower tiered high DPS classes don't even use food into the level 40 even!)) -- not only survive thrive in such an environment and level easily.

Been testing out a T2 character in MC+AdeptIII+adorns, and from what I experienced and to that character, the difference is like night and day. Easy soloing Blackburrow, even the named. In treasured gear and just Adept Is I'd wipe, despite the same class.

So, yes, you need Adept IIIs and even adorns if you want to enjoy EQ2 for it's worth -- not just race to the "end game" content. Players who suggest this always get compliments later from players who were leveling without each about their gaming experience after switching to MC+Adept IIIs+adorns, to further verify the truth in that statement.

I have to disagree with Kigneer here.

Back when EQ2 first started mobs were much harder then they are now for the first 5 tiers (all we had was the first 5). ^^^ were in solo areas and people died often. Rares were even harder to get then they are now and even if you had the rares, which was very doubtful, the odds of finding a tradeskiller at the level and class you needed was hard and sometimes close to impossible since tradeskilling was much more different then it is now.

Back then we wore treasured and if we got lucky we might be able to get some handcrafted armor. Adept 3's were almost as rare as masters and adept 1's were not common.

We began to play our characters the best way they could be played through trial and error. We learned to play them very well. One thing that helped to motivate a group to play well was the fact that the cost of death was very high. Each toon had 8 shards that made up the majority of your soul, for each death you lost a shard and had to go back to the place you died to retrieve it or wait 7 days for it to replinish back to you. Debt for death was very high, and if you died too many times you may have to earn enough xp for 10 levels just to go up one or even get back to where you started before you started dieing. This motivated almost every player to learn their class and learn it well.

Since then SOE has made the treasured items better, they have nerfed most of the mobs from the "solo" areas to be solo, and have made it easier to get rares. They have made it to where death has very little consiquences and hince little incentive to learn your class as well as one can. When in a group now how many people in the group know their class well? How many are paying attention in the fight? How many soloers try to take on mobs that are yellow or orange and expect them to be as easy as a blue, or for some they may even expect them to be as easy as a green solo mob?

many people in my guild now have taken multiple toons and played them thru t7 with treasured gear and adept 1's. They wait to spend their time and money on rares at t8. Others might get MC gear here and there and then skip one or 2 tiers to get it replaced.

Does MC gear help, yea it does. Do Adept 3's help, of course they do, and depending on your class they can help a lot. Do you need MC gear and Adept 3's? Nope. They are nice to have, they make the game to where there is more room for error. But if you live off of MC gear from the get go often a player may never truly learn to play their class to it's full potential because they have so much room for error now that they think they NEED it to survive when they see how "hard" it is without it.

My 2cp

edit: spelling

[Snowdonia]

bks6721 wrote:

the problem is that a lot of people think they NEED to be all adept 3 and in MC at lower levels.  It's nice, but not needed.  If you have patience you can be all decked out without costing a lot.  If you are in a hurry and want it NOW it will cost more.

Yeah, my hubby is one of those people. I just don't see it. If you're killing stuff, getting XP and levels, and not dying while you do it, why exactly do you need the best of everything at 30? /shrug

[Rijacki]

Snowdonia@Runnyeye wrote:

bks6721 wrote:

the problem is that a lot of people think they NEED to be all adept 3 and in MC at lower levels.  It's nice, but not needed.  If you have patience you can be all decked out without costing a lot.  If you are in a hurry and want it NOW it will cost more.

Yeah, my hubby is one of those people. I just don't see it. If you're killing stuff, getting XP and levels, and not dying while you do it, why exactly do you need the best of everything at 30? /shrug

I don't understand it either.  But, when anyone points out how it's not needed, they're villified.

[Thicket Tundrabog]

Put my vote in for rares not being rare enough. This definitely includes silicate loam. I like harvesting, but only do it on a casual basis now. I've got 17 silicate loams in the bank which I will use as I level up my bruiser (currently 72). My favorite spot for harvesting ore is Di'Zok caves. I kill non-grey mobs and harvest while regening power.

Yup, the RNG is streaky. About a month ago I harvested 5 silicate loams in about 3 hours over two days (kinda hard to say how much was actual harvesting, because I was killing mobs). The only other rare I got in that time was 1 fire emerald.

I used to sell rares, but now I hoard them. I got burned when the tradeskill epic came out and the price of T5 rares went through the roof. I needed rares for 9 epic tradeskillers. I regretted selling dozens of each kind. That was the last time I harvested specifically for rares.

And yeah... I don't have sympathy for people wanting an easy button.

[Spyderbite]

bks6721 wrote:

the problem is that a lot of people think they NEED to be all adept 3 and in MC at lower levels.  It's nice, but not needed.  If you have patience you can be all decked out without costing a lot.  If you are in a hurry and want it NOW it will cost more.

The only place that Adept 3 or higher is mandatory is the PvP servers. Like you said, its nice to have them on the PvE servers, but its not necessary if one is just hacking at mobs.

Pay for the loams or harvest the loams. There's a choice available. If it were one or the other.. then I might see it as an issue. For example, if you were an adventurer and were not permitted to harvest then this might pose a problem. If its an inconvenience to harvest.. well.. the priorities need to be put in order.

[Gnevil]

Wow did this get off topic and degenerate into quite the mire it always does.

I think a couple of posts up it was pointed out that 12 classes rely on one type of rare (silicate loam) while the 12 remaining classes split between rare soft metal and rare gem.

That is the base of the issue.  To make it equitable for all, simply do away with any particular type of rare entirely.  Make it smoldering material or such that drops off any of the nodes.  Then all have a truely equal chance at getting them.  I seriously don't see how understanding that the rarity of loams can not be understood.  My guess is that all those other 12 classes are the ones that are throwing up such a counter argument that all is well in the world because hey I can mine one silicate loam and make enough coin to buy 3 of my spell rares. 

Next time you are on the broker do a search for tier 8 rares, bet you find multiples of fire emeralds and tynonium that far outpace how many silicates are on the broker.  Now do a search of how many peeps are online.  Bet the balance is far more into the priests and mages then it is tanks and scouts.  At least the last 4 times i did this it was.

Yet supply and demand states that loams are worth 3x's as much as the far more common emeralds and tyno...

No one is asking for the easy button, they are asking for the rares to be split evenly between classes.  Why is it that incardinate cant be used as the tank rare?

It needs to be looked into and fixed, not looked into and stated that all is well the balance is there and everything is wonderfull.  Go harvest 20 fire emeralds sell them for 80gp per and by 6 silicate loams, rinse and repeat... Oh and good luck selling all those fire emeralds as there are plenty on the broker lol...

Yeah its all good.

[sliderhouserules]

Gnevil wrote:

...

To make it equitable for all, simply do away with any particular type of rare entirely.  Make it smoldering material or such that drops off any of the nodes.  Then all have a truely equal chance at getting them.  I seriously don't see how understanding that the rarity of loams can not be understood. 

...

140 posts into the billionth thread on this subject, and you're still throwing out the same drivel that's been spewed ad naseum. All rares have an equal chance of being harvested. So please explain to me how we don't *already* "all have a truely [sic] equal chance at getting them"...

[Meirril]

sliderhouserules wrote:

Gnevil wrote:

...

To make it equitable for all, simply do away with any particular type of rare entirely.  Make it smoldering material or such that drops off any of the nodes.  Then all have a truely equal chance at getting them.  I seriously don't see how understanding that the rarity of loams can not be understood. 

...

140 posts into the billionth thread on this subject, and you're still throwing out the same drivel that's been spewed ad naseum. All rares have an equal chance of being harvested. So please explain to me how we don't *already* "all have a truely [sic] equal chance at getting them"...

Your ignoring the use issue. The entire crux of the argument is use and demand. Nobody is arguing that there is less silicate loam than fire emeralds or tynnonium clusters. Silicate loams are in twice as much demand as other spell materials due to twice as many classes depending on it.

Hell, take and move 4 of the fighter classes to the other 2 spell rares and you have a "fix". Move crusaders to gems. Move monks to the soft metal. Bingo, 8 classes depending on each spell rare. Next expansion the rare market should adjust to make all of these aproximately equal in cost. Sure alchemists will hate having to send clients back to get the "right" rare but after everybody figures the change out it won't be awful.

Actually, it would be awful for alchemists but its a semi-decent fix that only changes the spell recipes for 4 classes. Re-introducing an ink recipe would actually be less work for Domino. I think?

[Amphibia]

Meirril wrote:

sliderhouserules wrote:

Gnevil wrote:

...

To make it equitable for all, simply do away with any particular type of rare entirely.  Make it smoldering material or such that drops off any of the nodes.  Then all have a truely equal chance at getting them.  I seriously don't see how understanding that the rarity of loams can not be understood. 

...

140 posts into the billionth thread on this subject, and you're still throwing out the same drivel that's been spewed ad naseum. All rares have an equal chance of being harvested. So please explain to me how we don't *already* "all have a truely [sic] equal chance at getting them"...

Your ignoring the use issue. The entire crux of the argument is use and demand. Nobody is arguing that there is less silicate loam than fire emeralds or tynnonium clusters. Silicate loams are in twice as much demand as other spell materials due to twice as many classes depending on it.

You're also ignoring the use issue. As it has already been stated 300 times before, rare loam is only used for adept 3's and nothing else. Tynnonium and fire emerald already have plenty of other uses, so moving more over to those rares will probably end up taxing them too much. As soon as the level cap is raised again, nobody is going to care about silicate loam anymore and it will quickly become the cheapest T8 rare on the broker by far, due to the simple fact that it's only used for adept 3's and nothing else.

Personally, I wish they could just make these durn loams drop in chests from heroic mobs. That would at least bring more of them into the market and get the prices down, without affecting other TS-classes in a negative way.

[Seidhkona]

sliderhouserules wrote:

140 posts into the billionth thread on this subject, and you're still throwing out the same drivel that's been spewed ad naseum. All rares have an equal chance of being harvested. So please explain to me how we don't *already* "all have a truely [sic] equal chance at getting them"...

QFE!

[Oakum]

Whether more classes use it or not, is not the question like others have stated.

How many many people who need them are actually harvesting to get them?

I know on befallen I will go to Venrils Crown and kills skeletons and harvest for loam for one of my wifes alt. I am normally the only person harvesting and their is easily room for 2 or 3 people to harvest while they continously kill the skeletons.

Their are also places to harvest in kp, fens, and kj with nothing but easily killable solo mobs without a lot of people camping the nodes.

Now if there were 2 people fighting over every 3 available nodes, then I would say their was a definite shortage. Right now it is a matter of opionion and if that was the case they could up the number of nodes available. What it seems like is that people want to buy their rares cheap but dont want to go harvest for them.

If they harvest for them, all it takes is time and they can get vender trash or even rare trash masters to also help pay for them.  Its a matter of choice.  lol.

If they really wanted another rare to use, then use incarnadine. Their are lots of it around, lol.

For another post where they suggested shifting some of the fighters to gems and soft metals, yes it would be a pain, more so for the classes trying to get then for us alchy's probably.

[SilkenKidden]

Oakum wrote:

 What it seems like is that people want to buy their rares cheap but dont want to go harvest for them.

QFT

[Meirril]

Amphibia wrote:

Meirril wrote:

sliderhouserules wrote:

Gnevil wrote:

...

To make it equitable for all, simply do away with any particular type of rare entirely.  Make it smoldering material or such that drops off any of the nodes.  Then all have a truely equal chance at getting them.  I seriously don't see how understanding that the rarity of loams can not be understood. 

...

140 posts into the billionth thread on this subject, and you're still throwing out the same drivel that's been spewed ad naseum. All rares have an equal chance of being harvested. So please explain to me how we don't *already* "all have a truely [sic] equal chance at getting them"...

Your ignoring the use issue. The entire crux of the argument is use and demand. Nobody is arguing that there is less silicate loam than fire emeralds or tynnonium clusters. Silicate loams are in twice as much demand as other spell materials due to twice as many classes depending on it.

You're also ignoring the use issue. As it has already been stated 300 times before, rare loam is only used for adept 3's and nothing else. Tynnonium and fire emerald already have plenty of other uses, so moving more over to those rares will probably end up taxing them too much. As soon as the level cap is raised again, nobody is going to care about silicate loam anymore and it will quickly become the cheapest T8 rare on the broker by far, due to the simple fact that it's only used for adept 3's and nothing else.

Personally, I wish they could just make these durn loams drop in chests from heroic mobs. That would at least bring more of them into the market and get the prices down, without affecting other TS-classes in a negative way.

That is just an indication that people don't strive for the "best" spells until they don't expect to outgrow them soon. Also when t9 is introduced incaradine clusters will start to grow in price until they reach the same level as the rest of the t5+ hard metals. Why? Because there won't be a huge glut of harvesters looking for the loam but there will still be the same level of demand for armor.

Supply and demand. People want 1 rare from any metal node. It doesn't matter which one. They will harvest both kinds of mining nodes because they share a respawn table/area. Ergo, therefore you will get the same number of all 4 kinds of rares. How many get harvested is dependent greatly on demand. As it slips from the top tier supply decreases as the majority of harvesters go on to a higher tier. Supply also goes up a little due to higher skill meaning a larger percentage of rares per harvest. As the market for 1 tier rises to a certain threshold, more harvesters will move to that tier to take advantage of "easy" profits. Generally the price of t5-t7 rares runs around 1p on AB due to harvester looking for a quick plat responding to market demands.

So yeah, I actually have a fairly good idea of what is going on. That's why I framed the arguments in the top tier. I didn't bother saying t8 because this will change eventually, the problem will keep occuring until real changes are made.

If your interested in lowering the prices of jewelery rare materials in t2-t7, then try making ink. Not only would it even out the cost of adept 3 spells in t8, it would mean people looking to make adept 3 spells in lower tiers could use the cheapest material available. So loam would raise in price, and the other two materials would come down to a little above the loam price. Inks work for everybody involved. Inks are where we started off. When inks were removed everything went to hell and we have the whole stinking mess we have now. Bring back inks. Spread the recipes for inks to all the scholars. Heck, make it a general recipe that everybody gets. Horray ink.

[Oakum]

Meirril wrote:

made.

If your interested in lowering the prices of jewelery rare materials in t2-t7, then try making ink. Not only would it even out the cost of adept 3 spells in t8, it would mean people looking to make adept 3 spells in lower tiers could use the cheapest material available. So loam would raise in price, and the other two materials would come down to a little above the loam price. Inks work for everybody involved. Inks are where we started off. When inks were removed everything went to hell and we have the whole stinking mess we have now. Bring back inks. Spread the recipes for inks to all the scholars. Heck, make it a general recipe that everybody gets. Horray ink.

I like the idea of making ink again but only alchemist should make them. It would replace one of the four recipies lost per tier when MC cure potions were removed.

[SilkenKidden]

Oakum wrote:

Meirril wrote:

made.

If your interested in lowering the prices of jewelery rare materials in t2-t7, then try making ink. Not only would it even out the cost of adept 3 spells in t8, it would mean people looking to make adept 3 spells in lower tiers could use the cheapest material available. So loam would raise in price, and the other two materials would come down to a little above the loam price. Inks work for everybody involved. Inks are where we started off. When inks were removed everything went to hell and we have the whole stinking mess we have now. Bring back inks. Spread the recipes for inks to all the scholars. Heck, make it a general recipe that everybody gets. Horray ink.

I like the idea of making ink again but only alchemist should make them. It would replace one of the four recipies lost per tier when MC cure potions were removed.

Are you suggesting that inks be used as an alternative to the current rares or replace them in the recipes? I would not like to be dependent on an alchemist in order for my sage to make spells.

Thanks, Oakum,  for the explanation.  I was trying to reply to you and ended up editing my previous post.  Just as well I guess.

Although I'm not opposed to the idea, I wouldn't want to see itimplemented at the expense of any other item on the Wish List. I don't think it is necessary and it will benefit only a portion of the players, alchemists and those who don't want to harvest. I actually like the current situation with harvesting. It makes it more interesting to hope for a silicate when you hear that lovely ding ding ding. I'm never really disappointed with getting a fire emerald or tynnonium though. I just keep on harvesting until I have enough of them to sell for the cost of the silicate I need. And that I can always do.

Everytime I see this subject being active I think it subject line actually says Silicate Ward instead of Woes. I guess Wars would be more appropriate.

[ReturnOfMadness]

i think he is suggesting this:

The recipes either use the current materials or Ink

this ink can be made of any spell/ca rare, but can only be made by an alchemist

and yeah i do approve of this idea and would love to see it implemented

[Zacarus]

Meirril wrote:

Amphibia wrote:

 Also when t9 is introduced...

What makes you think there's going to be a tier 9?

They didn't cram 14+ levels worth of spells into t8 for no reason.

They didn't introduce mythicals at level 80 for no reason.

They didn't raise the level cap in TSO for no reason.

Level 80 *is* eq2's cap.  Period.

EQ2 is in sunset mode.

Silicate loam prices will fall as more t8 masters drop, and as server populations dwindle.  Price is ~5p / ea. on nagafen today (11/14/0.  I bet the price is halfed within six months.

[Oh]

Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:

Meirril wrote:

Amphibia wrote:

 Also when t9 is introduced...

What makes you think there's going to be a tier 9?

They didn't cram 14+ levels worth of spells into t8 for no reason.

They "cram'd 14+ levels worth os spells" into one tier to proove they can do it, and can easly do it again.

They didn't introduce mythicals at level 80 for no reason.

They gave a long signature quest, player base decided to use the coin'd phrase epic. They are similar to previous quests in previous tiers. IF anything I would say these quests are MUCH MUCH simpler then in previous tiers. SHHHH don't tell the dev's that. 

They didn't raise the level cap in TSO for no reason.

Actually my believe is that every other expansion is a level increaser. Basically RoK raised the cap, TSO gave an extension of the cap. THe previous expansion from rok gave a new ap tree and the expansion before that i believe raised the cap. Since I haven't been playing EQ2 forever and a day and know everything about it i could be wrong, but it seems to me that is the current design. Level cap increase one expansion, ap increase the next expansion, rinse repeate.

Level 80 *is* eq2's cap.  Period.

Today that is correct, I just disagree on a permenant point of it never increasing.

EQ2 is in sunset mode.

yea kind of true, but games if done well can live for a very long time in sunset mode. EQ1 is still going i hear..

Silicate loam prices will fall as more t8 masters drop, and as server populations dwindle.  Price is ~5p / ea. on nagafen today (11/14/0.  I bet the price is halfed within six months.

Actually I disagree, if anything the price will increase simpley because of all of the folks "feeling" they need to betray due to the new AP's. Fortunatly or unfortunatly for me it wouldn't make a hill of beans difference if I was a warden or a fury as far as the AP tree's go.

As to inks and the like, meh I don't really see it as a problem currently with the existing system, BUT IF such a system was to be introduced/re-introduced I definatly wouldn't want it to be 1 rare == 1 ink and 1 ink == 1 ad3 spell. Maybe if it was 2 or more rares per ink or 2 or more inks per ad3 spell. ALSO I really wouldn't want only alchemists to be able to make inks, that would put us in the same situation transmuters are for adornments.

[Meirril]

Nailaim@Runnyeye wrote:

i think he is suggesting this:

The recipes either use the current materials or Ink

this ink can be made of any spell/ca rare, but can only be made by an alchemist

and yeah i do approve of this idea and would love to see it implemented

The general gist of the ink argument was that ink could be used to replace any rare material used in spell production. Ink could be made from any of the spell rares in game. So the extra cost of using ink is the fuel cost for 1 extra combine and the time involved.

As for making it an alchemist only recipe, I'm actually not in favor of that. People hated interdependency with a passion. Ink is suppose to reduce the price of spell rares, not offer a new semi monopoly for one tradeskill to profit on.

FYI, I'm an alchemist.

[Meirril]

Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:

Meirril wrote:

Amphibia wrote:

 Also when t9 is introduced...

What makes you think there's going to be a tier 9?

They didn't cram 14+ levels worth of spells into t8 for no reason.

They didn't introduce mythicals at level 80 for no reason.

They didn't raise the level cap in TSO for no reason.

Level 80 *is* eq2's cap.  Period.

EQ2 is in sunset mode.

Silicate loam prices will fall as more t8 masters drop, and as server populations dwindle.  Price is ~5p / ea. on nagafen today (11/14/0.  I bet the price is halfed within six months.

Lets see...

People whined in multipe forums about the spell progression split over 15 levels. Things like Dispatch not improving with the tier really bugged people. So Devs responded and shortened the entire spell cycle to 10 levels.

Epic weapons are something that has been whined for since EQ2 launched. The mythical weapons are the "raid" version of the fabled epics the rest of us get. It wouldn't be epic if it was just another fabled raid weapon. Epic weapons were introduced with RoK because epic weapons were introduced in EQ1 with the Kunark expansion. Its funny, EQ2 does mirror EQ1 on a huge number of occasions.

If you have noticed, the last 3 years its been: advance game 1 tier, then an expansion where we add content and AA but no level increase. We're on the content expansion now. Next expansion should be this time next year and it should include a level increase. I'm really hoping it is *not* velious. Why? Mainly because I'd like to see it include the increase to level 100 and level 100+ dragons to match Nagafen.

If you were around during EQ2's launch and you paid attention to every scrap of information that came out of the EQ2 dev team you know that EQ2 was designed to include 200 levels. We're not even close to this design limit. At the current rate, we're talking about another 3 years just to reach level 100!

And if you haven't noticed, we're getting an influx of new players in EQ2. Most of them are ex-wow players that are looking for something different. Maybe its my guild. We take in mature players looking to have some fun and not be all serious. Maybe your a hard core raider and you have no clue what a noob is or any interest in raising the next batch of players.

And silicate loams should drop in price. The huge demand bubble was passed about 6 months ago if you didn't notice. The price of all the other t8 rares are also dropping, at the same rate silicate loam is. The only thing that will improve the ratio of costs is the persistant belief that you should get at least 1p for a "good" t8 rare.

[Zacarus]

Meirril wrote:

Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:

Meirril wrote:

Amphibia wrote:

 Also when t9 is introduced...

What makes you think there's going to be a tier 9?

They didn't cram 14+ levels worth of spells into t8 for no reason.

They didn't introduce mythicals at level 80 for no reason.

They didn't raise the level cap in TSO for no reason.

Level 80 *is* eq2's cap.  Period.

EQ2 is in sunset mode.

Silicate loam prices will fall as more t8 masters drop, and as server populations dwindle.  Price is ~5p / ea. on nagafen today (11/14/0.  I bet the price is halfed within six months.

Lets see...

People whined in multipe forums about the spell progression split over 15 levels. Things like Dispatch not improving with the tier really bugged people. So Devs responded and shortened the entire spell cycle to 10 levels.

Epic weapons are something that has been whined for since EQ2 launched. The mythical weapons are the "raid" version of the fabled epics the rest of us get. It wouldn't be epic if it was just another fabled raid weapon. Epic weapons were introduced with RoK because epic weapons were introduced in EQ1 with the Kunark expansion. Its funny, EQ2 does mirror EQ1 on a huge number of occasions.

If you have noticed, the last 3 years its been: advance game 1 tier, then an expansion where we add content and AA but no level increase. We're on the content expansion now. Next expansion should be this time next year and it should include a level increase. I'm really hoping it is *not* velious. Why? Mainly because I'd like to see it include the increase to level 100 and level 100+ dragons to match Nagafen.

If you were around during EQ2's launch and you paid attention to every scrap of information that came out of the EQ2 dev team you know that EQ2 was designed to include 200 levels. We're not even close to this design limit. At the current rate, we're talking about another 3 years just to reach level 100!

And if you haven't noticed, we're getting an influx of new players in EQ2. Most of them are ex-wow players that are looking for something different. Maybe its my guild. We take in mature players looking to have some fun and not be all serious. Maybe your a hard core raider and you have no clue what a noob is or any interest in raising the next batch of players.

And silicate loams should drop in price. The huge demand bubble was passed about 6 months ago if you didn't notice. The price of all the other t8 rares are also dropping, at the same rate silicate loam is. The only thing that will improve the ratio of costs is the persistant belief that you should get at least 1p for a "good" t8 rare.

What matters is whether it makes sense for soe to invest resources in the game, not how many levels the game was designed to accommodate.

 

The scope of TSO is scaled WAY back compared to previous expansions.  This fits with all the other points I made.  EQ2 is in maintenance mode now.  Of course they will continue to milk subscriptions for years, probably five, maybe ten more years.  And they will invest the resources necessary to maintain that cash flow.

 

You will see mythical armor, jewelry and other trinkets.  More mounts, more instances, and so forth.

 

However developing ten levels, along with the spells, items, content, etc required to support those new levels is no longer warranted from an investment perspective.  That investment in resources would not return the value a big gaming company seeks.  Otherwise TSO would have included +10 levels like every other eq2 expansion.

 

MMO subscriptions levels ebb and flow for various reasons.  Expansions, new mmo's, pricing, economic conditions are have an impact.  You may observe an influx of new players from time to time, but the overall trend of eq2's subscription level is declining.  Its been declining for two+ years.

[Gargamel]

Zacarus stop trying to act like you have a clue since its obvious you don't know what the heck you are talking about. 

SoE is following, what has been a successful approach of alternating lvl increases between every other expansion.  The only exception was the first DoF expansion, since then they have done one expansion with a lvl increase, followed by one that increased the breadth of the game, rather than increase depth through a lvl increase.  (lvl increases in KoS, and RoK, and between -- EoF no lvl increase but vastly increased the amount of mid lvl content, ToS no lvl increase but vasting increasing the high end group content.

[Seidhkona]

Zacarus@Nagafen wrote (in part):

 

The scope of TSO is scaled WAY back compared to previous expansions. This fits with all the other points I made. EQ2 is in maintenance mode now. Of course they will continue to milk subscriptions for years, probably five, maybe ten more years. And they will invest the resources necessary to maintain that cash flow.

This has nothing at all to do with crafting, harvesting, or even silicate loams. Can y'all start a new thread in Expansions maybe?

[Calthine]

Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:

 

The scope of TSO is scaled WAY back compared to previous expansions. 

Just because an expansion does not involve level caps doens't mean it's scaled back.  There are almost as many zones as RoK and it accomodates a larger level span with scaling instances.  The contest is frankly, a ton of fun.

Everyone said this about EverQuest 5-6 years ago too.  And they were wrong.

[Galeden]

Why would anyone thing because this expantion didn't increase level cap it means anything? And a lot of players (myself included) do NOT want leveling every expantion, otherwise instead of being at 80 we might well be at 100 right now. I believe somewhere it was stated that the general progression is every other expantion will increase level, which I would say is a fair rate. I absolutly hated EQ1s continual level increase every 6 months, it was rediculous, you couldn't keep up with spells or anything. Anyway though, RoK (our last expantion) did have an increase, so it means nothing when this one doesn't increase it, because its following the general progression trait.