Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mobhunter: Topics of the New Year

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 3:20:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Topics of the New Year

by Loral on January 02, 2005

With SOE's developers on vacation this week, life in Norrath has been
quiet. So let us sit back, relax, and enjoy our new year with a look at
some of Norrath's most recent topics of discussion. Four big topics
continually seem to dominate the live forums: EQ's lifespan, server
consolidation, class balance (egads), and the summit.

Let us get the most painful one out of the way first. For nearly the
entire time I've written for Mobhunter, people complain about class
balance. I covered it a couple of times before, but let me step back
from my own views on the matter and talk about what we see.

Early on when the new EQLive forums stood up, Kytherea and Ashlanne
began keeping track of the top ten class issues for each class.
Regardless of the continuing disclaimers on these threads, people
assumed this meant these class issues would all be addressed. Now even
though many classes have had some of their issues addressed, people
lean towards statements like "SOE isn't listening" and "none of our
class issues are being met". How easily we forget. I had a conversation
a couple of days ago with someone who stated that even though some of
their class issues were met, they were things that should have been
fixed anyway and didn't count.

My head swam with the spiral I see people swimming down. Then, my
friend Boanerges from EQClerics linked a document called The Laws of
Online Game Design gathered by Raph Koster. Raph worked on a variety of
online games including Ultima Online, and Star Wars Galaxies and now
acts as the Chief Creative Officer over at SOE. One of these rules
shined like Frodo's Light of Earendil:

"Hans Henrik Staerfeldt's Law of Player/Admin Relations: The amount of
whining players do is positively proportional to how much you pamper
them. Many players whine if they see any kind of bonus in it for them.
It will simply be another way for them to achieve their goals. As an
admin you hold the key to many of the goals that they have concerning
the virtual environment you control. If you do not pamper the players
and let them know that whining will not help them, the whining will
subside."

Another one might articulate this better:

"Hal Black's Elaboration: The more responsive an admin is to user
feedback of a given type, the more of that type the admin will get.
Specifically, as an admin implements features from user suggestions,
the more ideas for features will be submitted. Likewise, the more an
admin coddles whiners, the more whining will ensue."

We might argue that not listening or responding to player concerns ends
their whining simply because they go away. If you don't listen to your
customers and address the issues that must be addressed, they will go
away. Sometimes, however, I wonder if badgering the developers into
making changes has become its own progressive massive online game. Why
should I hunt for a new hammer when I can get the developers to make
the one I have better? Why fight so hard against the Luggalids in Nadox
when I can convince SOE to make them easier? It seems the EQLive forums
became their own sort of meta-game. I might receive more improved items
and upgraded spells there than I will hunting in game.

This brings up a multitude of questions. Should SOE have ever validated
class issues by keeping track of them on an open forum? Do those class
issues really represent the whole set of players who play those
classes? Now that they have validated these concerns, what should they
do to address them? Will simply addressing them as-is result in
breaking the game even further? Do the players really know whats best
for the whole of the game? There are few easy answers and a whole lot
of theory.

Let us shift paths and discuss server consolidation. Recent threads
reveal no official words on any move by SOE to consolidate servers
although I stand by my rumor that they at least consider and discuss
Zek consolidation. It makes more sense for those servers with their
wide variety of rule-sets on top of population issues. While more and
more threads pop up each day, I wouldn't expect SOE to make any other
move to consolidate servers until after the release of the next
expansion.

Shifting paths again we reach the Guild Summit. SOE had originally
planned a summit in January but announced that they pushed the date
back to July. The original January announcement started a series of
interesting feedback threads on soloing and tasks, user interface, and
grouping improvements. While it would have been nice to get a deeper
look at the next expansion, a June summit may hit at a more opportune
time to offer feedback. As far as the summit effecting the longevity of
the game, I don't think opinionated egotists like myself have as much
impact as we would like to think. For all we know, Firiona Vie's
hem-line has more to do with EQ subscriptions than any feedback found
on a website.

Which leads into the last path we will walk today, the life of
Everquest. I wrote an article for Caster's Realm titled Is Everquest
Dying?. Anyone who read any of my other articles already knows my
answer but in case you have not, the answer is "no, it isn't". When we
look at the longevity of previous MMOGs and how few users can still
finance new expansions, I think it is safe to say that Everquest has a
long life.

This brought up an interesting question for me, however. Can Everquest
last the rest of our lives? While it is obviously difficult to predict
forty or fifty years of technology, we can assume that bandwidth and
server costs will continue to go down. The value of continuing to
maintain Everquest may be worth the bragging rights of maintaining a
MMOG for ten, twenty, perhaps fifty years. Will people still want to
play? People still want to play Pong, so probably.

For my last act, I would like to make a formal statement. I was wrong.
Yes, I know it is hard to believe and I risk influencing the vast
markets in the bazaar with my mere spoken word, but...I was wrong. The
prices of Muramite Runes still seem to fluctuate between 20 and 30k in
the bazaars well after my Thanksgiving 10k prediction. While I am
confident that the prices will continue to go down, it would appear
that more people are willing to pay for runes at that price to keep the
market high. Shame on you.

Keep an eye out next week for a new article entitled "Loral's 2005
Predictions" for more lies, propaganda, and inaccurate financial
outlooks. In the mean time, enjoy the new year and all of the
possibilities it brings.
Loral Ciriclight
2 January 2005
loral@loralciriclight.com

More about : mobhunter topics year

Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:03:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Mike Shea" <mshea01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105474840.771038.255270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Let us shift paths and discuss server consolidation. Recent threads
> reveal no official words on any move by SOE to consolidate servers
> although I stand by my rumor that they at least consider and discuss
> Zek consolidation. It makes more sense for those servers with their
> wide variety of rule-sets on top of population issues. While more and
> more threads pop up each day, I wouldn't expect SOE to make any other
> move to consolidate servers until after the release of the next
> expansion.

Annie, get your list out! Right now, players logging into the Zeks are
getting a poll on server consolidation. It's coming soon. I called March,
didn't I?

> Which leads into the last path we will walk today, the life of
> Everquest. I wrote an article for Caster's Realm titled Is Everquest
> Dying?. Anyone who read any of my other articles already knows my
> answer but in case you have not, the answer is "no, it isn't". When we
> look at the longevity of previous MMOGs and how few users can still
> finance new expansions, I think it is safe to say that Everquest has a
> long life.

But will the game be "dead"? UO is still running, but ask anyone but a
diehard UO fan and they'll tell you that UO is dead. Is EQ entering a
UO-like "life support" phase is more the question, not if the plug is going
to be pulled.

> Keep an eye out next week for a new article entitled "Loral's 2005
> Predictions" for more lies, propaganda, and inaccurate financial
> outlooks. In the mean time, enjoy the new year and all of the
> possibilities it brings.

Loral, something for you to keep an eye on:

http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board...

A dev posted his exact XP for a given kill in lower guk, in response to
player questions about LDoN XP being nerfed. Using the standard XP formula,
I was able to demonstrate that the ZEM for Lower Guk was 64. When the ShowEQ
crew first mapped out ZEMs, it was 80 - a 20% reduction. The dev stated that
LDoN adventures have the same ZEM as Lower Guk. Do you happen to have access
to the patch message when the expanded group XP bonus was put in game, and
the date of that change? I'm wondering why they'd reduce the ZEM of Guk by
20%, and the only thing I can come up with is this was a global nerf at the
time of the group bonus change. If that is the case, it would have been a
massive change to the solo player.

James
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 7:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"James Grahame" <jamesgrahame@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:JWYEd.83161$dv1.22177@edtnps89:

>
> "Mike Shea" <mshea01@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1105474840.771038.255270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Let us shift paths and discuss server consolidation. Recent threads
>> reveal no official words on any move by SOE to consolidate servers
>> although I stand by my rumor that they at least consider and discuss
>> Zek consolidation. It makes more sense for those servers with their
>> wide variety of rule-sets on top of population issues. While more and
>> more threads pop up each day, I wouldn't expect SOE to make any other
>> move to consolidate servers until after the release of the next
>> expansion.
>
> Annie, get your list out! Right now, players logging into the Zeks
> are
> getting a poll on server consolidation. It's coming soon. I called
> March, didn't I?
>
>> Which leads into the last path we will walk today, the life of
>> Everquest. I wrote an article for Caster's Realm titled Is Everquest
>> Dying?. Anyone who read any of my other articles already knows my
>> answer but in case you have not, the answer is "no, it isn't". When
>> we look at the longevity of previous MMOGs and how few users can
>> still finance new expansions, I think it is safe to say that
>> Everquest has a long life.
>
> But will the game be "dead"? UO is still running, but ask anyone
> but a
> diehard UO fan and they'll tell you that UO is dead. Is EQ entering a
> UO-like "life support" phase is more the question, not if the plug is
> going to be pulled.
>
>> Keep an eye out next week for a new article entitled "Loral's 2005
>> Predictions" for more lies, propaganda, and inaccurate financial
>> outlooks. In the mean time, enjoy the new year and all of the
>> possibilities it brings.
>
> Loral, something for you to keep an eye on:
>
> http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board...
> &message.id=53502&page=2
>
> A dev posted his exact XP for a given kill in lower guk, in
> response to
> player questions about LDoN XP being nerfed. Using the standard XP
> formula, I was able to demonstrate that the ZEM for Lower Guk was 64.
> When the ShowEQ crew first mapped out ZEMs, it was 80 - a 20%
> reduction. The dev stated that LDoN adventures have the same ZEM as
> Lower Guk. Do you happen to have access to the patch message when the
> expanded group XP bonus was put in game, and the date of that change?
> I'm wondering why they'd reduce the ZEM of Guk by 20%, and the only
> thing I can come up with is this was a global nerf at the time of the
> group bonus change. If that is the case, it would have been a massive
> change to the solo player.
>

As I recall, ZEMs were nerfed at the time of the group XP bonus, which in
effect hurt solo players. I thought this was well established, and known
by most folks.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 21 Dwarven Mystic, 19 Scholar
Related resources
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 7:17:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95DD5E889ED21richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
> "James Grahame" <jamesgrahame@shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:JWYEd.83161$dv1.22177@edtnps89:
>

> >
> > Loral, something for you to keep an eye on:
> >
> > http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board...
> > &message.id=53502&page=2
> >
> > A dev posted his exact XP for a given kill in lower guk, in
> > response to
> > player questions about LDoN XP being nerfed. Using the standard XP
> > formula, I was able to demonstrate that the ZEM for Lower Guk was 64.
> > When the ShowEQ crew first mapped out ZEMs, it was 80 - a 20%
> > reduction. The dev stated that LDoN adventures have the same ZEM as
> > Lower Guk. Do you happen to have access to the patch message when the
> > expanded group XP bonus was put in game, and the date of that change?
> > I'm wondering why they'd reduce the ZEM of Guk by 20%, and the only
> > thing I can come up with is this was a global nerf at the time of the
> > group bonus change. If that is the case, it would have been a massive
> > change to the solo player.
> >
>
> As I recall, ZEMs were nerfed at the time of the group XP bonus, which in
> effect hurt solo players. I thought this was well established, and known
> by most folks.
>

That was only supposed to be the PoP ZEM's though. Old world dungeons had
no need of a reduction, their bonuses weren't obscenely high to begin with.

--
Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 9:14:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Davian" <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote in
news:Cv6dnfXtW9tENnvcRVn-2g@adelphia.com:

>
>
>
>
> "Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DD5E889ED21richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
>> "James Grahame" <jamesgrahame@shaw.ca> wrote in
>> news:JWYEd.83161$dv1.22177@edtnps89:
>>
>
>> >
>> > Loral, something for you to keep an eye on:
>> >
>> > http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board...
>> > ans &message.id=53502&page=2
>> >
>> > A dev posted his exact XP for a given kill in lower guk, in
>> > response to
>> > player questions about LDoN XP being nerfed. Using the standard XP
>> > formula, I was able to demonstrate that the ZEM for Lower Guk was
>> > 64. When the ShowEQ crew first mapped out ZEMs, it was 80 - a 20%
>> > reduction. The dev stated that LDoN adventures have the same ZEM as
>> > Lower Guk. Do you happen to have access to the patch message when
>> > the expanded group XP bonus was put in game, and the date of that
>> > change? I'm wondering why they'd reduce the ZEM of Guk by 20%, and
>> > the only thing I can come up with is this was a global nerf at the
>> > time of the group bonus change. If that is the case, it would have
>> > been a massive change to the solo player.
>> >
>>
>> As I recall, ZEMs were nerfed at the time of the group XP bonus,
>> which in effect hurt solo players. I thought this was well
>> established, and known by most folks.
>>
>
> That was only supposed to be the PoP ZEM's though. Old world
> dungeons had no need of a reduction, their bonuses weren't obscenely
> high to begin with.
>

True, I had forgotten that, at the time, PoP was where I was playing.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 21 Dwarven Mystic, 19 Scholar
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 9:20:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Davian" <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Cv6dnfXtW9tENnvcRVn-2g@adelphia.com...
> "Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DD5E889ED21richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
>> "James Grahame" <jamesgrahame@shaw.ca> wrote in
>> news:JWYEd.83161$dv1.22177@edtnps89:
>>
>> > http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board...
>> > &message.id=53502&page=2
>> >
>> > A dev posted his exact XP for a given kill in lower guk, in
>> > response to
>> > player questions about LDoN XP being nerfed. Using the standard XP
>> > formula, I was able to demonstrate that the ZEM for Lower Guk was 64.
>> > When the ShowEQ crew first mapped out ZEMs, it was 80 - a 20%
>> > reduction. The dev stated that LDoN adventures have the same ZEM as
>> > Lower Guk. Do you happen to have access to the patch message when the
>> > expanded group XP bonus was put in game, and the date of that change?
>> > I'm wondering why they'd reduce the ZEM of Guk by 20%, and the only
>> > thing I can come up with is this was a global nerf at the time of the
>> > group bonus change. If that is the case, it would have been a massive
>> > change to the solo player.
>>
>> As I recall, ZEMs were nerfed at the time of the group XP bonus, which in
>> effect hurt solo players. I thought this was well established, and known
>> by most folks.
>
> That was only supposed to be the PoP ZEM's though. Old world dungeons
> had
> no need of a reduction, their bonuses weren't obscenely high to begin
> with.

What Davian said. The group XP ZEM nerf was supposed to mostly hit the
PoP zones, since the large ZEMs there would have allowed players to level at
a fantastic pace. Nerfing places like Lower Guk was unnecessary, especially
given that the zone greens out entirely before the really long levels of
55+. 20% reduction in solo XP across the board, in a game where low numbers
of players at lower levels is a problem? Not wise.

James
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:44:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"James Grahame" <jamesgrahame@shaw.ca> writes:
> What Davian said. The group XP ZEM nerf was supposed to mostly hit the
> PoP zones, since the large ZEMs there would have allowed players to level at
> a fantastic pace. Nerfing places like Lower Guk was unnecessary, especially
> given that the zone greens out entirely before the really long levels of
> 55+. 20% reduction in solo XP across the board, in a game where low numbers
> of players at lower levels is a problem? Not wise.

And SOE's *never* done anything unwise, right? :-)

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 51 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 41 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 35 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:07:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"James Grahame" <jamesgrahame@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:JZyFd.91856$dv1.66116@edtnps89...
> What Davian said. The group XP ZEM nerf was supposed to mostly hit the
> PoP zones, since the large ZEMs there would have allowed players to level
> at a fantastic pace. Nerfing places like Lower Guk was unnecessary,
> especially given that the zone greens out entirely before the really long
> levels of 55+. 20% reduction in solo XP across the board, in a game where
> low numbers of players at lower levels is a problem? Not wise.
>
> James
>

Thats not entirely accurate. I was in L-Guk with my 59 Ranger and there are
still some DB mobs in there, and most all of the nameds were DB. There wasnt
that many but the entire zone hadnt greened out entirely :) 

Z
!