Specific hot topics to consider are
Why can't melees bind in outdoor zones? How do you feel this will unbalance the game?
It doesn't have to be these. It can be ANY topic of your choosing.
Folks should ONLY respond to what ever topic you choose to speak on. And you should make it specific. You can always start another thread next week on a different issue. But for cripes sake, RESPOND to peoples counter posts even if it is to disagree with them.
Your habit of 'drive by shooting' style posts is NOT helping your relations with the players.
Don't talk AT the players, instead engage them in a conversation.
(I'll repost what I've said about this recently, and add to it a little).
Why was feign death changed?
I will let Abashi re-post his several responses to this question and clarify and/or give the examples you are looking for.
If buffs from level 50 characters are unbalancing the game by allowing powergaming, why are you not putting some kind of limit on the levels you can buff? For example, you can't buff someone more than 20 levels lower than you are.
Because when we weighed the pros and cons, considered the long term effects on the game as well as how the players would react, we decided not to take action. I brought this up in another post to illustrate an example of us deciding not to 'nerf'. (I think the real solution, by the way, would be to scale the strength of the buff based on the recipient's level relative to the caster's).
Why do you object to Random spawning treasure? You have tried it in Paw (so maybe you are changing your position on this).
We're not against randomness in general, but we are against implementing randomness to the degree I've seen some players advocate (Diablo-style random loot). We feel the name and attributes of an item should have context relative to where and from whom you obtained it. But I think in general we could use more randomness and that's why you see more attempts at using the concept in Paw and elsewhere. I posted a detailed explanation of our position as it relates to random loot some months ago on alt.games.everquest - I can try to dig it up if you want more detail.
Why did it take so long for the Alchemy problem to be found when players were posting on the Shaman boards for 6 months that it was broken?
No real legitimate excuse here - we basically screwed up. We were testing it internally wrong (we were using GM commands to buff a Shaman to the appropriate level, which DID give alchemy to the character). We failed to test it properly by leveling a Shaman naturally which would have exposed the bug. When we heard people say it needing 'fixing', we'd test it as I described and when it worked we figured 'fixing' it really meant making the skill create more useful and effective potions, not that it was truly broken.
Why are you creating a group of 'second class' players who don't get the best items?
With all due respect, that's a pretty loaded and one-sided question.
Why are you rewarding powergamers by setting up quests that require sitting for 12 hours to get a chance at the quest item when the same quest could be implemented as six 2 hour parts which any player could complete.
Guilty as charged. As Abashi posted recently, we will slowly but surely revamp the class specific quests (and other applicable quests/spawns), making them more balanced not only as they relate to each other but also in terms of how long it takes to obtain specific quest components.
Why are some of these spawns EXACTLY 12 hours apart which allows kill stealing wizards/druids to teleport in 15 seconds before the creature spawns and kill it and steal it from the group that has been sitting there waiting for hours?
This is a tactic that has been rearing its head more and more recently, and we've started talking about possible ways to address it in the Tuning Meetings. We are considering randomizing spawn times (for example, a six hour spawn might spawn every six hours plus or minus X minutes) as well as some other ideas. Please feel free to post any ideas you might have that would address this issue.
- Brad
-Brad
So often (including your recent post) you and Abashi come in, make a single post and then never come back to it again.
Brad's Response:
I would like you to post on the "hot topics" of your choice and then -respond- to peoples polite commentary on your positions.
Why was feign death changed? I mean - specifically. No "ongoing game issues" but something blunt like "a group of 3 monks were observed killing dragons without risk" or "6 necromancers were using pets to kill dragons without risk."
If buffs from level 50 characters are unbalancing the game by allowing powergaming, why are you not putting some kind of limit on the levels you can buff? For example, you can't buff someone more than 20 levels lower than you are.
Why do you object to Random spawning treasure? You have tried it in Paw (so maybe you are changing your position on this).
Why did it take so long for the Alchemy problem to be found when players were posting on the Shaman boards for 6 months that it was broken?
Why are you creating a group of 'second class' players who don't get the best items?
Why are you rewarding powergamers by setting up quests that require sitting for 12 hours to get a chance at the quest item when the same quest could be implemented as six 2 hour parts which any player could complete.
Why are some of these spawns EXACTLY 12 hours apart which allows kill stealing wizards/druids to teleport in 15 seconds before the creature spawns and kill it and steal it from the group that has been sitting there waiting for hours?
I'll start by answering the questions you posed - if players want to break these out into separate threads, please feel free. Gordon and I will attempt to respond to players' responses, but keep in mind that Gordon is semi-unavailable (out of town until Monday) and I have a limited amount of time I can devote to posting (today being an exception).
Why can't melees bind in outdoor zones? How do you feel this will unbalance the game?
Binding is set up the way it is and always has been for balance.
It is part of the death penalty and is there to pace the game.
The idea is that casters are more prone to dying (especially in group situations, in the depths of dungeons, when something goes bad) and thus can bind in more places. It still paces the game, however, because groups need to wait for melee characters to return. If melee characters could bind anywhere it would alter the pace of the game, further minimize the death penalty, and let well balanced efficient groups just scream through dungeons.
I realize some players reading this might think that sounds great, but there has to be a pace to the game and a penalty for dying.
We are also considering making it such that casters cannot bind in Expansion dungeons (the fact that they can now is actually a bug that is too late to fix for the rest of the world).
Another aspect of this is that minimizing downtime in general is PART of the challenge of the game. The better groups work together, the less downtime there is. This includes not letting people die so you don't have to wait for their return, but also includes efficient tactics, mana use, placement, etc. Efficiency, cooperation, interdependence, etc. are all key to playing EverQuest effectively. When something goes down wrong (for whatever reason, i.e. your mistake, someone else's, or random fate) the penalty is an adverse affect on efficiency, whether it's traveling, waiting, re-earning experience, etc. This is fundamentally part of the design as it relates to advancement mechanisms.
Sometimes we eliminate items such that they cease to spawn. We do this for a variety of reasons, from simply doing so to make the game more dynamic to removing items that proved to be too powerful to removing items that were bugged. Unless there is a devastating problem with an item, we tend to leave existing items in the players' inventories. Regardless of whether one perceives this as 'fair' or not, it is fundamental to how these games work. I'd also like to point out that earlier players didn't have access to all the newer items in the game, for example items that would have been very useful for them earlier on but may not be useful to them now that they are higher level. This too could probably be deemed 'unfair' but is again necessary if we are to maintain an evolving game with an advancing player base and if we are to add content on an ongoing basis.
I think that the assertion that newer players are 'second class' is totally false. They have access to more items, better items, the economy is more mature and items are more accessible/cheaper to purchase, and there is more general knowledge about the game. I stand by my earlier statement that the game today is both generally significantly easier and also more balanced now than it was when we launched.
Aradune
Station Member
posted 12-31-1999 12:56 PM
Just wanted to say we're still reading this thread. I have limited time due to the holidays and Gordon is out of town -- Gordon will return to posting in ernest on Monday 
