Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

regular EQ What do you say?

Tags:
  • Games
  • Classic
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 3:43:31 AM

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

From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
supported game?

More about : regular

Anonymous
August 26, 2005 4:10:54 AM

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
<rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:

>From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>supported game?


I still play every Thursday night and whenever I can in between. I
still enjoy it and have new things to see and do and loot. I have
people to play with almost every time I log on, both planned and
unplanned.

I've tried EQII but honestly I just don't have enough time for more
than one game like this and EQ is still providing loads of fun.

So yes.

~F
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:35:42 AM

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
<rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:

>From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>supported game?

The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.

Meldur
Related resources
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 3:09:10 PM

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

Still seems pretty populated on my server.

__________________________________________________________
Submitted by: Isloor
This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 4:17:31 PM

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

Meldur wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> >online.de says...
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
> >> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
> >> >supported game?
> >>
> >> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
> >> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
> >> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
> >> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
> >> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
> >> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
> >
> >Take that with a grain of salt.
> >
> >I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
> >
> >I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date UI.
> >
> >I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
> >screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
> >
> >But neither were serious problems.
> >
> >I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000 damage,
> >and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of them can be
> >worked around.
> >
> >No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
>
> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,

I've played since early 2002 and in my experience it is no more
unstable now than it was then. The more important problems do get
addressed, others not so much. For the map background, that has never
bothered me all that much. All of my windows have a zero-delay on fade
to transparency. Usually if I can't see the map because the lines are
white, I can just let the map fade to transparency and then look at
something dark in the background. I would agree that they should have
just made the lines all dark colors, or the background more
easily-altered, but for problems with simple workarounds they often
just let them persist.

> for example when
> switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
> select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
> have a character logged in" box.

I almost never crash, maybe once every few weeks? When I go LD its my
ISPs fault half the time.

> An issue I never had before a year or 2 ago.
> Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
> quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
> once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
> existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.
>
> And before you come and say its my pc,Morrowind

....always crashed on me if I played for more than a few hours. Also
had lots of bugs. Shift/CTRL/ALT keys would become "stuck" so that
pushing mouse buttons had oddball results until I figured out what was
happening. I became stuck in the geometry ALL THE TIME. Thank god if
you could cast a port spell or had saved recently. I had a robe that I
would put on to levitate and take off to walk. Levitate occaisionally
became stuck on me as a permanent effect, which was very annoying
because by the time I noticed it I had not saved for a while. The
automapping feature would fail and I would travel quite some distance
only to notice that I was surrounded by "darkness" on the map. There
was some bug that pretty much ruined the game for me at one point.
Something about being named Horator before finishing the Ashkhan
quests. I was no longer able to become Ashkhan but Vivec wanted
nothing to do with me and the mistake I had made was looooooong since
saved over. Going back meant pretty much restarting the game.
Finally, I tried to patch the game. The game became corrupted. I
tried to uninstall and the uninstall failed. I tried to reinstall, it
still would not load. I had to go use "Registry Magic" or some such
program before I could install the game again.

I stil thought it was a pretty cool game too.
August 26, 2005 9:10:12 PM

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

In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
> >supported game?
>
> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.

Take that with a grain of salt.

I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.

I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date UI.

I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
screen and windowed mode (occasionally).

But neither were serious problems.

I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000 damage,
and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of them can be
worked around.

No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:36:03 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>>supported game?
>
> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
>

As far as that goes, I rarely have EQ crash on me. As a matter of fact, I
don't remember the last time it crashed on me for any reason other than
WinEQ or custom UI issues.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:17:09 AM

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

Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> writes:
> As far as that goes, I rarely have EQ crash on me. As a matter of fact, I
> don't remember the last time it crashed on me for any reason other than
> WinEQ or custom UI issues.

I've only been playing for about two years. A year ago, I'd find that
I often went LD just standing around, especially with my Bazaar mule.
Nowadays, LD is very rare, EXCEPT if I've been running for several DAYS
without restarting the client, and/or if I've been doing LOTS of zoning
(which can include switching characters) or I've been alt-tabbing back
and forth between windowed/fullscreen.

Usually what I do is /camp desktop when I'm switching from the bazaar
to another character, and then I'm fine, ending up back in the bazaar
at the end of the session.

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 57 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 52 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- Teviron, Knight 22 on E. Marr
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:47:11 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>online.de says...
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
>> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>> >supported game?
>>
>> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
>> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
>> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
>> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
>> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
>> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
>
>Take that with a grain of salt.
>
>I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
>
>I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date UI.
>
>I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
>screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
>
>But neither were serious problems.
>
>I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000 damage,
>and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of them can be
>worked around.
>
>No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.

It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,for example when
switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
have a character logged in" box.
An issue I never had before a year or 2 ago.
Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.

And before you come and say its my pc,Morrowind,NWN annd assorted
other games which are as hardware demanding as EQ or more,almost
never crash,even when playing for extended times.

And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
for quality.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:47:12 AM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>online.de says...
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
>>> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>>> >supported game?
>>>
>>> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
>>> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
>>> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
>>> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
>>> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
>>> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
>>
>>Take that with a grain of salt.
>>
>>I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
>>
>>I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date
>>UI.
>>
>>I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
>>screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
>>
>>But neither were serious problems.
>>
>>I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000
>>damage, and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of
>>them can be worked around.
>>
>>No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
>
> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,for example when
> switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
> select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
> have a character logged in" box.
> An issue I never had before a year or 2 ago.
> Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
> quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
> once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
> existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.

Network gaming is always more troublesome than single-player gaming
confined to one PC. NWN, for example, still has, to my knowledge,
trouble picking up some servers to display on the server select screen.
That is the same sort of problem. Connectivity and latency issues affect
all games, not just EQ.

> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
> for quality.
>

What exactly is the problem with the map background color? I'm not aware
of any issue there, as it looks ok to me.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
August 27, 2005 12:47:12 AM

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

In article <g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> >online.de says...
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
> >> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
> >> >supported game?
> >>
> >> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
> >> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
> >> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
> >> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
> >> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
> >> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
> >
> >Take that with a grain of salt.
> >
> >I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
> >
> >I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date UI.
> >
> >I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
> >screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
> >
> >But neither were serious problems.
> >
> >I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000 damage,
> >and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of them can be
> >worked around.
> >
> >No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
>
> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,

-insert- FOR YOU.

> for example when
> switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
> select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
> have a character logged in" box.

That happens to me maybe 1 time in 100. Would I like to see it fixed...
you betcha. Is it ruining my life and making me want to play something
else? Nope.

> An issue I never had before a year or 2 ago.

A year or 2 ago, people with particular nvidia cards were having all
sorts of stupid problem, before that it was particular brand new radeons
that couldn't run at more than 10fps.

You have a minor annoyance logging out where it won't let you
immediately log back in. I'm not surprised its a low priority fix.

> Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
> quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
> once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
> existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.

Nice scapegoat.

If the expansions were free the bugs would still be there. As long as
the playerbase wants new content, new content and features will be
added... this will invariably break stuff that worked before.

Sure, they could have left the graphics the same as they were in 1999
and the engine would probably have acheived excellent stability by now.
Of course, we wouldn't have the new spell effects, the new models, the
new complex zones, etc etc etc...

They traded stability for features. Stable enough and lots of new stuff
wins over rock solid and nothing gets added that might disrupt it.

Its a GAME not an ATM machine.

> And before you come and say its my pc,Morrowind,NWN annd assorted
> other games which are as hardware demanding as EQ or more,almost
> never crash,even when playing for extended times.

Anecdotal evidence. *My* PC doesn't crash on any of those games OR EQ,
nor other much more modern games either.

I don't know what the conflict is between your PC and and EQ is. I'm not
saying your PC is at fault, it could be a problem with EQ not supporting
some oddball driver or hardware you are running... but its probably
something that you could resolve. Because MOST people don't crash 5
times a day.

> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
> for quality.

Another minor annoyance. My maps look fine. Its pretty trivial to update
the maps to work with the default background.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:47:12 AM

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

<Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> >No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
>
> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,

I think you'll find that the vast majority of people will disagree with you
on this. Particularly the ones that actually remember Luclin's release.

> for example when
> switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
> select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
> have a character logged in" box.
> An issue I never had before a year or 2 ago.

I've seen a fix posted for this. It's a problem on your end. I wish I
could point you to the fix, but it never was a problem for me so I didn't
bother remembering what the fix was. I *think* it was something to do with
read-only files and/or a cluttered eqclient.ini.

> Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
> quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
> once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
> existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.

They have not varied their rate of releasing expansions since the very first
one came out more than 5 years ago. Every six months, regular as clockwork.
They have delayed a couple by up to a month or so, but never abandoned the
two-expansions-per-year business plan.

> And before you come and say its my pc,Morrowind,NWN annd assorted
> other games which are as hardware demanding as EQ or more,almost
> never crash,even when playing for extended times.

You should use games which are as hardware demanding as examples then. =)
I find EQ to crash about as often as Battlefield 2, WoW, Guild Wars, etc.
Ok, Battlefield 2 a bit more often, but it's only had once patch so far. =P

> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
> for quality.

What's wrong with the map background? Perhaps a more appropriate question,
is, you do realize it's just a text file that you can edit yourself, right?
I couldn't tell you what the default map screen is supposed to look like...
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:09:19 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:18:43 GMT, Rumbledor
<Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>>online.de says...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
>>>> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>>>> >supported game?
>>>>
>>>> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
>>>> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
>>>> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
>>>> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
>>>> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
>>>> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
>>>
>>>Take that with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>>I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
>>>
>>>I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date
>>>UI.
>>>
>>>I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
>>>screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
>>>
>>>But neither were serious problems.
>>>
>>>I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000
>>>damage, and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of
>>>them can be worked around.
>>>
>>>No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
>>
>> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,for example when
>> switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
>> select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
>> have a character logged in" box.
>> An issue I never had before a year or 2 ago.
>> Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
>> quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
>> once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
>> existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.
>
>Network gaming is always more troublesome than single-player gaming
>confined to one PC. NWN, for example, still has, to my knowledge,
>trouble picking up some servers to display on the server select screen.
>That is the same sort of problem. Connectivity and latency issues affect
>all games, not just EQ.
>
>> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
>> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
>> for quality.
>>
>
>What exactly is the problem with the map background color? I'm not aware
>of any issue there, as it looks ok to me.

When maps went in,you could actually change the background color,
of the map,now the same function changes the background color of the
border of the map window.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:21:08 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:52:27 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>online.de says...
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>> >online.de says...
>> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
>> >> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>> >> >supported game?
>> >>
>> >> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
>> >> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
>> >> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
>> >> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
>> >> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
>> >> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
>> >
>> >Take that with a grain of salt.
>> >
>> >I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
>> >
>> >I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date UI.
>> >
>> >I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
>> >screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
>> >
>> >But neither were serious problems.
>> >
>> >I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000 damage,
>> >and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of them can be
>> >worked around.
>> >
>> >No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
>>
>> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,
>
>-insert- FOR YOU.

I have the exactly same mashine for 3 years now.

>
>> for example when
>> switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
>> select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
>> have a character logged in" box.
>
>That happens to me maybe 1 time in 100. Would I like to see it fixed...
>you betcha. Is it ruining my life and making me want to play something
>else? Nope.

I quote myself:
"I am almost every time thrown back to the server select screen"
Sometimes,it makes me quit playing EQ.

>> Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
>> quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
>> once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
>> existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.
>
>Nice scapegoat.
>
>If the expansions were free the bugs would still be there. As long as
>the playerbase wants new content, new content and features will be
>added... this will invariably break stuff that worked before.

How many postings did you see prior to OoW release,where people
were requesting to raise the level cap?

>Sure, they could have left the graphics the same as they were in 1999
>and the engine would probably have acheived excellent stability by now.
>Of course, we wouldn't have the new spell effects, the new models, the
>new complex zones, etc etc etc...

Most players I know,have a horrible time in OoW zones,if they dont
turn the clip plane way down,so what it is this graphic update good
for?

>They traded stability for features. Stable enough and lots of new stuff
>wins over rock solid and nothing gets added that might disrupt it.
>Its a GAME not an ATM machine.

Hm,I prefere stability by far,at least I would expect that it stays
the same when adding new stuff.

>> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
>> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
>> for quality.
>
>Another minor annoyance. My maps look fine. Its pretty trivial to update
>the maps to work with the default background.

The maps were working fine when released,its an impertinence by SOE
that they dont fix it.Why should the player use annoying workarounds
which make the game less enjoyable?Really this cant be hard to fix.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 7:46:08 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:0ne0h1tsld0qb79is6hf9qp0agg9q7end9@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:18:43 GMT, Rumbledor
> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>news:g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com:

>>
>>> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
>>> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
>>> for quality.
>>>
>>
>>What exactly is the problem with the map background color? I'm not
>>aware of any issue there, as it looks ok to me.
>
> When maps went in,you could actually change the background color,
> of the map,now the same function changes the background color of the
> border of the map window.
>

I still don't see much need to change it other than personal preference, so
how can that be considered a significant issue? Am I missing something
here? Is it causing other problems of which I'm unaware? I understand that
white doesn't show up very well on it, but I can still see it well enough.
/shrug

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
August 27, 2005 10:14:09 PM

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

"Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125083850.963026.136000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Meldur wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>> >online.de says...
>> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
>> >> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
>> >> >supported game?
>> >>
>> >> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
>> >> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
>> >> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
>> >> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
>> >> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
>> >> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
>> >
>> >Take that with a grain of salt.
>> >
>> >I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
>> >
>> >I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date UI.
>> >
>> >I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
>> >screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
>> >
>> >But neither were serious problems.
>> >
>> >I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000 damage,
>> >and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of them can be
>> >worked around.
>> >
>> >No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
>>
>> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,
>
> I've played since early 2002 and in my experience it is no more
> unstable now than it was then. The more important problems do get
> addressed, others not so much. For the map background, that has never
> bothered me all that much. All of my windows have a zero-delay on fade
> to transparency. Usually if I can't see the map because the lines are
> white, I can just let the map fade to transparency and then look at
> something dark in the background. I would agree that they should have
> just made the lines all dark colors, or the background more
> easily-altered, but for problems with simple workarounds they often
> just let them persist.
>
Which maps are you talking about? PoK and all the newbie zone maps do use
black lines. Higher level zones do not have maps provided from Sony. If a
player is downloading maps from a 3rd party (like maps.eq-toolbox) then the
issue is really with the maps others are making and not those made by Sony.
The mapping system in game would suggest that each person make their own
maps as they explore zones; in which case a person could use whatever colors
he or she desired.
--
Sinaiel Soulmerchant
Wraith of Misericordia
on Brell Serilis
August 27, 2005 10:51:44 PM

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

In article <f0f0h1dv5adtv742l37hkg2mrghojel929@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:52:27 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> >online.de says...
> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <q3ssg198jr3gjg03u0hcogmjdhi6hba6ge@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> >> >online.de says...
> >> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:43:31 GMT, mike allegretto
> >> >> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >From your own experience is EQ classic still a populated, well
> >> >> >supported game?
> >> >>
> >> >> The last remaining european server is very busy now,dont know
> >> >> what you mean with "well supported",if you expect a bug free stable
> >> >> game stay away,its not unusal that it crashes 5 times a day,even
> >> >> when you are just standing in the "Bazaar",doing nothing.
> >> >> SOE is more busy to throw out another expansion which nonone has
> >> >> asked for instead of fixing year old bugs.
> >> >
> >> >Take that with a grain of salt.
> >> >
> >> >I haven't had EQ "just crash on me" in several years.
> >> >
> >> >I've had issues where it would crash when i was using an out of date UI.
> >> >
> >> >I've had had issues where it would crash when alt-tabbing between full
> >> >screen and windowed mode (occasionally).
> >> >
> >> >But neither were serious problems.
> >> >
> >> >I've had issues of getting stuck in geometry, falling for 20000 damage,
> >> >and so forth. None of those are crashes though, and all of them can be
> >> >worked around.
> >> >
> >> >No game in continuous development is going to ever be perfect.
> >>
> >> It has become more unstable in the last 2 years,
> >
> >-insert- FOR YOU.
>
> I have the exactly same mashine for 3 years now.

That would be part of the problem. My Pentium 2 with 3dfx voodoo 3
doesn't even run EQ anymore. Personally I'm glad the game isn't still
being targeted at that platform.

SOE is doing its best to keep the game current. That's going to leave
older systems in the lurch. Its not exactly fair but that's life. The
hardware specs in long term multiplayer games is a rolling target.


> >> for example when
> >> switching chars,I am almost every time thrown back to the server
> >> select screen,watching for 5 minutes or so the dreaded "you already
> >> have a character logged in" box.
> >
> >That happens to me maybe 1 time in 100. Would I like to see it fixed...
> >you betcha. Is it ruining my life and making me want to play something
> >else? Nope.
>
> I quote myself:
> "I am almost every time thrown back to the server select screen"
> Sometimes,it makes me quit playing EQ.

by quit you mean take a break. How many times have you cancelled?

> >> Probably a symptom of adding too much expansions without proper
> >> quality control,game was much more stable when we got an expansion
> >> once a year,but hey why not try to squeeze the last cents out of
> >> existing customers,because they have no intentions to win new.
> >
> >Nice scapegoat.
> >
> >If the expansions were free the bugs would still be there. As long as
> >the playerbase wants new content, new content and features will be
> >added... this will invariably break stuff that worked before.
>
> How many postings did you see prior to OoW release,where people
> were requesting to raise the level cap?

So now new content should be what decided by whoever posts the most on
the forums? Great, I can see it now the next expansion will bring the
hillgiants back in full force, double the amount of cash they drop, come
with a signed contract fro SOE that every giant will drop at least 20pp
and the amount will never be nerfed, and remove the place holders so its
nothin but giants. Maybe even instance Rathe Mountains so the farmers
can each have their own little giant farm. Preferrably with a banker who
doesn't care about faction in each corner, and one in the middle. And a
vendor who sells mana regen, and haste potions next to them.

Players are decidely short sighted. Especially the whiners on forums.
The last thing we need is development by forum-vote.

> >Sure, they could have left the graphics the same as they were in 1999
> >and the engine would probably have acheived excellent stability by now.
> >Of course, we wouldn't have the new spell effects, the new models, the
> >new complex zones, etc etc etc...
>
> Most players I know,have a horrible time in OoW zones,if they dont
> turn the clip plane way down,so what it is this graphic update good
> for?

Well... I quite like the translucent webbing on the murkgliders, and I
love the way the new models skins looks rough, or shiny, or rubbery
depending on the model. The water finally looks like liquid.

It looks like a modern game.


> >They traded stability for features. Stable enough and lots of new stuff
> >wins over rock solid and nothing gets added that might disrupt it.
> >Its a GAME not an ATM machine.
>
> Hm,I prefere stability by far,at least I would expect that it stays
> the same when adding new stuff.

I hope you enjoy raiding negafen then.

You can't just add new stuff without breaking old stuff in a complex
system. The amount of regression testing is astronomical and
expensive... in a critical system it gets done. In a GAME it doesn't;
there's no time, and no money.

FWIW I agree SOE can be pretty lax, lets some real bonehead mistakes
through, and seems drag their feet fixing annoyances, especially little
ones that should be easy fixes.

But that's hardly call to stop developing new content.

:) 

> >> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
> >> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
> >> for quality.
> >
> >Another minor annoyance. My maps look fine. Its pretty trivial to update
> >the maps to work with the default background.
>
> The maps were working fine when released,its an impertinence by SOE
> that they dont fix it.Why should the player use annoying workarounds
> which make the game less enjoyable?Really this cant be hard to fix.

Maybe the bug team is busy trying to sort out why you get dropped to the
desktop 5 times a day.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 7:21:46 AM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Rumbledor
<Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:0ne0h1tsld0qb79is6hf9qp0agg9q7end9@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:18:43 GMT, Rumbledor
>> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>>news:g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com:
>
>>>
>>>> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map background,thats
>>>> most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a sign they dont care
>>>> for quality.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What exactly is the problem with the map background color? I'm not
>>>aware of any issue there, as it looks ok to me.
>>
>> When maps went in,you could actually change the background color,
>> of the map,now the same function changes the background color of the
>> border of the map window.
>>
>
>I still don't see much need to change it other than personal preference, so
>how can that be considered a significant issue? Am I missing something
>here? Is it causing other problems of which I'm unaware? I understand that
>white doesn't show up very well on it, but I can still see it well enough.
>/shrug

The point is that they dont fix it.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 7:21:47 AM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:qb42h198qu4jesk4tch74n2b8iujhdqjj0@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Rumbledor
> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>news:0ne0h1tsld0qb79is6hf9qp0agg9q7end9@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:18:43 GMT, Rumbledor
>>> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>>>news:g8oug1dkfd1788i340ds688rtmp74vqsah@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> And as another poster mentioned,what about the map
>>>>> background,thats most annoying,this cant be hard to fix,clearly a
>>>>> sign they dont care for quality.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What exactly is the problem with the map background color? I'm not
>>>>aware of any issue there, as it looks ok to me.
>>>
>>> When maps went in,you could actually change the background color,
>>> of the map,now the same function changes the background color of the
>>> border of the map window.
>>>
>>
>>I still don't see much need to change it other than personal
>>preference, so how can that be considered a significant issue? Am I
>>missing something here? Is it causing other problems of which I'm
>>unaware? I understand that white doesn't show up very well on it, but
>>I can still see it well enough. /shrug
>
> The point is that they dont fix it.
>

Well, then I wouldn't call that a blatant disregard for quality, as its
impact is quite minor.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 7:26:16 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:17:09 GMT, Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:

>Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> writes:
>> As far as that goes, I rarely have EQ crash on me. As a matter of fact, I
>> don't remember the last time it crashed on me for any reason other than
>> WinEQ or custom UI issues.
>
>I've only been playing for about two years. A year ago, I'd find that
>I often went LD just standing around, especially with my Bazaar mule.
>Nowadays, LD is very rare, EXCEPT if I've been running for several DAYS
>without restarting the client, and/or if I've been doing LOTS of zoning
>(which can include switching characters) or I've been alt-tabbing back
>and forth between windowed/fullscreen.

Thinking about it,its probably the server,when I played on SolRo I
rarely had such problems,it started when I moved to AB(Hardware is
located in Paris).

Meldur
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:38:17 PM

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

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> FWIW I agree SOE can be pretty lax, lets some real bonehead mistakes
> through, and seems drag their feet fixing annoyances, especially little
> ones that should be easy fixes.
>
> But that's hardly call to stop developing new content.

Seconded.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 3:17:28 PM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Rumbledor
<Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:

>I still don't see much need to change it other than personal preference, so
>how can that be considered a significant issue? Am I missing something
>here? Is it causing other problems of which I'm unaware? I understand that
>white doesn't show up very well on it, but I can still see it well enough.
>/shrug

The problem is that quite a few maps are unreadable against the
standard background colour. Pale grey lines, white text - all too
faint for my poor eyes to discern. In the last week or two I
discovered a program called "Mappie", which lets you change colours in
maps, and now I'm a happy chappy :) 

As someone mentioned, it shouldn't take a 3rd party to make a
work-around for something like this.


Palindrome
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 3:17:29 PM

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

<damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Rumbledor
> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I still don't see much need to change it other than personal preference, so
> >how can that be considered a significant issue? Am I missing something
> >here? Is it causing other problems of which I'm unaware? I understand that
> >white doesn't show up very well on it, but I can still see it well enough.
> >/shrug
>
> The problem is that quite a few maps are unreadable against the
> standard background colour. Pale grey lines, white text - all too
> faint for my poor eyes to discern. In the last week or two I
> discovered a program called "Mappie", which lets you change colours in
> maps, and now I'm a happy chappy :) 
>
> As someone mentioned, it shouldn't take a 3rd party to make a
> work-around for something like this.

I used notepad for my third-party program...
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 6:51:21 PM

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

Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:ej33h1lt29sc5sqahs51cfc3ebng9m5ghb@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Rumbledor
> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I still don't see much need to change it other than personal
>>preference, so how can that be considered a significant issue? Am I
>>missing something here? Is it causing other problems of which I'm
>>unaware? I understand that white doesn't show up very well on it, but
>>I can still see it well enough. /shrug
>
> The problem is that quite a few maps are unreadable against the
> standard background colour. Pale grey lines, white text - all too
> faint for my poor eyes to discern. In the last week or two I
> discovered a program called "Mappie", which lets you change colours in
> maps, and now I'm a happy chappy :) 
>
> As someone mentioned, it shouldn't take a 3rd party to make a
> work-around for something like this.
>

I find that the maps that are not very readable with the background
color, are extremely readable when faded, allowing you to see the lines
on the map, and at the same time, see what is behind the map. I set my
fade time and level such that I can read the maps easilly, and also see
what is behind the map.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 6:59:17 PM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d7a5622b8244476989cc9@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <f0f0h1dv5adtv742l37hkg2mrghojel929@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> online.de says...
>> How many postings did you see prior to OoW release,where people were
>> requesting to raise the level cap?
>
> So now new content should be what decided by whoever posts the most on
> the forums? Great, I can see it now the next expansion will bring the
> hillgiants back in full force, double the amount of cash they drop,
> come with a signed contract fro SOE that every giant will drop at
> least 20pp and the amount will never be nerfed, and remove the place
> holders so its nothin but giants. Maybe even instance Rathe Mountains
> so the farmers can each have their own little giant farm. Preferrably
> with a banker who doesn't care about faction in each corner, and one
> in the middle. And a vendor who sells mana regen, and haste potions
> next to them.
>
> Players are decidely short sighted. Especially the whiners on forums.
> The last thing we need is development by forum-vote.

If you ask me, they did too much listening to the players in the last
couple of years or so when making changes to the game. Not to say that
all player requested changes were bad, but far too much of it, in my
opinion, was directed at making the game too easy.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 12:00:58 AM

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

On 29 Aug 2005 14:59:17 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>If you ask me, they did too much listening to the players in the last
>couple of years or so when making changes to the game. Not to say that
>all player requested changes were bad, but far too much of it, in my
>opinion, was directed at making the game too easy.

I agree wholeheartedly. To much "wish list" stuffgets actioned, while
fundamentals are ignored.



Palindrome
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:36:21 AM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:00:58 +0100, Palindrome
<damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>On 29 Aug 2005 14:59:17 GMT, Graeme Faelban
><RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>If you ask me, they did too much listening to the players in the last
>>couple of years or so when making changes to the game. Not to say that
>>all player requested changes were bad, but far too much of it, in my
>>opinion, was directed at making the game too easy.
>
>I agree wholeheartedly. To much "wish list" stuffgets actioned, while
>fundamentals are ignored.

I've seen this sort of comment a lot, and I'm genuinely curious...
what fundamental changes should / could have been made to Everquest
that would have preserved its essential character and yet expanded the
game in such a way to keep it fresh and interesting?
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:20:00 PM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:36:21 GMT, murdocj <murdocj@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:00:58 +0100, Palindrome
><damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Aug 2005 14:59:17 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>><RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you ask me, they did too much listening to the players in the last
>>>couple of years or so when making changes to the game. Not to say that
>>>all player requested changes were bad, but far too much of it, in my
>>>opinion, was directed at making the game too easy.
>>
>>I agree wholeheartedly. To much "wish list" stuffgets actioned, while
>>fundamentals are ignored.
>
>I've seen this sort of comment a lot, and I'm genuinely curious...
>what fundamental changes should / could have been made to Everquest
>that would have preserved its essential character and yet expanded the
>game in such a way to keep it fresh and interesting?

Make ships working again,link ship trips with quests and tasks.
Make quests more transparent,easy to do just add a little hint
on quest item description what it is good for.
Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need
for DoN. :p 
Make zones more dynamic,war style events like the last ones or
the FV/DL ones with fixed end are stupid and boring.Make it so
that the results can differ from server to server,e.g. one server
has GFay overtaken by Orcs on an other it is still in the hands of
elves.Depending on how much Orcs or Elves are killed the owner
ship of zone may change.Would be very interesting to see,what
happens when one cannot enter his home zones.

Well,one can always dream,but probably we will get another round
of unbalancing items with absurd stats with next expansion,cause
higher numbers sell sooo well,or where do the increased numbers
of subscribers come from? :p 

Meldur
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:20:01 PM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:20:00 +0200, Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:36:21 GMT, murdocj <murdocj@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>I've seen this sort of comment a lot, and I'm genuinely curious...
>>what fundamental changes should / could have been made to Everquest
>>that would have preserved its essential character and yet expanded the
>>game in such a way to keep it fresh and interesting?
>
>Make ships working again,link ship trips with quests and tasks.
>Make quests more transparent,easy to do just add a little hint
>on quest item description what it is good for.

Fix broken quests, make more quests actually *worth* doing

>Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need
>for DoN. :p 
>Make zones more dynamic,war style events like the last ones or
>the FV/DL ones with fixed end are stupid and boring.Make it so
>that the results can differ from server to server,e.g. one server
>has GFay overtaken by Orcs on an other it is still in the hands of
>elves.Depending on how much Orcs or Elves are killed the owner
>ship of zone may change.Would be very interesting to see,what
>happens when one cannot enter his home zones.

Yes, all stuff I agree with, and which we have all mentioned many
times over the years. I'm surprised murdocj missed it, heh

>Well,one can always dream,but probably we will get another round
>of unbalancing items with absurd stats with next expansion,cause
>higher numbers sell sooo well,or where do the increased numbers
>of subscribers come from? :p 

Many a true word :D 


Palindrome
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:08:33 PM

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

On 30 Aug 2005 16:09:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:jvp8h156sh8g3hipgng673h51gd5accga6@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:36:21 GMT, murdocj <murdocj@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:00:58 +0100, Palindrome
>>><damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 29 Aug 2005 14:59:17 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>>>><RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If you ask me, they did too much listening to the players in the
>>>>>last couple of years or so when making changes to the game. Not to
>>>>>say that all player requested changes were bad, but far too much of
>>>>>it, in my opinion, was directed at making the game too easy.
>>>>
>>>>I agree wholeheartedly. To much "wish list" stuffgets actioned,
>>>>while fundamentals are ignored.
>>>
>>>I've seen this sort of comment a lot, and I'm genuinely curious...
>>>what fundamental changes should / could have been made to Everquest
>>>that would have preserved its essential character and yet expanded the
>>>game in such a way to keep it fresh and interesting?
>>
>> Make ships working again,link ship trips with quests and tasks.
>> Make quests more transparent,easy to do just add a little hint
>> on quest item description what it is good for.
>
>Yeah, I'm another one of those wierdos that actually liked the ships.
>
>As for quests, they should not make them trivial to do, but, they should
>make them possible to do with out total blind experimenting which is
>often required for quests in EQ. I don't want them to go as far as the
>quest journal in EQ2 where it walks you through the quests. I would not
>mind them adding a quest journal that tracks what quests you have done,
>what ones you are doing, and what you have completed for those you are
>doing, as well as what the NPCs said to you for those quests. They do
>have the journal in EQ, but it is a royal pain in the butt to find
>anything in it to say the least. I would love to see them fix known
>broken quests, and fix quests that are just unsolvable based on the
>information provided in game to make them solvable.
>
>> Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need
>> for DoN. :p 
>
>You mean add more Ldon instances? LDON is already suitable for all
>levels from 20ish up to 70.

Sorry,this bit was a little unclear,I meant they should add a mid
level difficulty,as it is now,normal is too easy and hard is still too
hard.

>> Make zones more dynamic,war style events like the last ones or
>> the FV/DL ones with fixed end are stupid and boring.Make it so
>> that the results can differ from server to server,e.g. one server
>> has GFay overtaken by Orcs on an other it is still in the hands of
>> elves.Depending on how much Orcs or Elves are killed the owner
>> ship of zone may change.Would be very interesting to see,what
>> happens when one cannot enter his home zones.
>
>I would love to see more of this, but, I want them to actually allow
>players to influence the outcomes instead of just doing a preset
>storyline with a preset result.
>
>>
>> Well,one can always dream,but probably we will get another round
>> of unbalancing items with absurd stats with next expansion,cause
>> higher numbers sell sooo well,or where do the increased numbers
>> of subscribers come from? :p 
>>
>
>Unfortunately, what I expect from SoE is just more of the same. The sad
>thing is, of the games I've tried, it is still the best one out there for
>me.

Again,same here,and probably I am too attached to my Characters
to abandon them.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:08:34 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:ee49h11vksoj7na2btq5d3p38c3h5nrd5b@4ax.com:

> On 30 Aug 2005 16:09:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>news:jvp8h156sh8g3hipgng673h51gd5accga6@4ax.com:
>>> Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need for
>>> DoN.
>>> :p 
>>
>>You mean add more Ldon instances? LDON is already suitable for all
>>levels from 20ish up to 70.
>
> Sorry,this bit was a little unclear,I meant they should add a mid
> level difficulty,as it is now,normal is too easy and hard is still too
> hard.

With the equipment levels available now, Hards are not that difficult. I
was doing them long before I had even Elemental gear. Hard LDoNs are
difficult to do if you don't have either a good mezzer, or a puller that
can always get single pulls.

I do agree that easy LDoNs are way too easy.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
August 30, 2005 11:08:35 PM

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

In article <Xns96C27457D3C8richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
> news:ee49h11vksoj7na2btq5d3p38c3h5nrd5b@4ax.com:
>
> > On 30 Aug 2005 16:09:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
> >>news:jvp8h156sh8g3hipgng673h51gd5accga6@4ax.com:
> >>> Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need for
> >>> DoN.
> >>> :p 
> >>
> >>You mean add more Ldon instances? LDON is already suitable for all
> >>levels from 20ish up to 70.
> >
> > Sorry,this bit was a little unclear,I meant they should add a mid
> > level difficulty,as it is now,normal is too easy and hard is still too
> > hard.
>
> With the equipment levels available now, Hards are not that difficult. I
> was doing them long before I had even Elemental gear. Hard LDoNs are
> difficult to do if you don't have either a good mezzer, or a puller that
> can always get single pulls.
>
> I do agree that easy LDoNs are way too easy.

Way too easy for who? I usually run easy LDoNs, and find them plenty
challenging thank you very much.

Of course, I rarely have a full group, I rarely even exceed 3 people.
Your dps drops considerably with only half a group.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:08:36 PM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d7e3fefffc831be989cd6@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96C27457D3C8richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
> RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
>> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>> news:ee49h11vksoj7na2btq5d3p38c3h5nrd5b@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On 30 Aug 2005 16:09:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>> > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>> >>news:jvp8h156sh8g3hipgng673h51gd5accga6@4ax.com:
>> >>> Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need for
>> >>> DoN.
>> >>> :p 
>> >>
>> >>You mean add more Ldon instances? LDON is already suitable for all
>> >>levels from 20ish up to 70.
>> >
>> > Sorry,this bit was a little unclear,I meant they should add a mid
>> > level difficulty,as it is now,normal is too easy and hard is still
>> > too hard.
>>
>> With the equipment levels available now, Hards are not that
>> difficult. I was doing them long before I had even Elemental gear.
>> Hard LDoNs are difficult to do if you don't have either a good
>> mezzer, or a puller that can always get single pulls.
>>
>> I do agree that easy LDoNs are way too easy.
>
> Way too easy for who? I usually run easy LDoNs, and find them plenty
> challenging thank you very much.
>
> Of course, I rarely have a full group, I rarely even exceed 3 people.
> Your dps drops considerably with only half a group.
>

Well, I was talking about for a full group. Easy LDoNs are quite
trivial, and do not require any more healing than one shaman, with even a
ranger tanking. I know because I've done it. Mind you, the ranger was
rather well equipped, but substitute in a tank class with lesser
equipment for similar results. I do have to admit that I have not done
any LDoNs since level 65, and I understand that the level 70 LDoN is a 65
hard, which, at least at level 65, was difficult, but doable, back before
OOW/DoN equipment, when I was equipped with a mixture of Ssra and PoP
pre-elemental gear.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 4:17:51 AM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:59:14 +0100, Palindrome
<damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:20:00 +0200, Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:36:21 GMT, murdocj <murdocj@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I've seen this sort of comment a lot, and I'm genuinely curious...
>>>what fundamental changes should / could have been made to Everquest
>>>that would have preserved its essential character and yet expanded the
>>>game in such a way to keep it fresh and interesting?
>>
>>Make ships working again,link ship trips with quests and tasks.
>>Make quests more transparent,easy to do just add a little hint
>>on quest item description what it is good for.
>
>Fix broken quests, make more quests actually *worth* doing
>
>>Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need
>>for DoN. :p 
>>Make zones more dynamic,war style events like the last ones or
>>the FV/DL ones with fixed end are stupid and boring.Make it so
>>that the results can differ from server to server,e.g. one server
>>has GFay overtaken by Orcs on an other it is still in the hands of
>>elves.Depending on how much Orcs or Elves are killed the owner
>>ship of zone may change.Would be very interesting to see,what
>>happens when one cannot enter his home zones.
>
>Yes, all stuff I agree with, and which we have all mentioned many
>times over the years. I'm surprised murdocj missed it, heh

I've seen the "fix the boats, fix the quests, fix xyz" stuff. It
sounds like "more of the same". Doesn't seem like it would keep
people involved.

As far as dynamic zones, that sounds similar to PvP play in WoW (even
on the PvE servers): as a result of a Horde raid, you might end up
with whatever town you are in decimated for awhile. It's interesting
and fun when people raid, but it can be pretty annoying, even though
the NPCs repop in a few minutes. If you are saying that it might be
days or weeks when you can't enter your home city to do quests, etc, I
think you've come up with a new way to get rid of people.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 4:25:06 AM

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

On 30 Aug 2005 17:26:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:ee49h11vksoj7na2btq5d3p38c3h5nrd5b@4ax.com:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2005 16:09:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>>news:jvp8h156sh8g3hipgng673h51gd5accga6@4ax.com:
>>>> Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need for
>>>> DoN.
>>>> :p 
>>>
>>>You mean add more Ldon instances? LDON is already suitable for all
>>>levels from 20ish up to 70.
>>
>> Sorry,this bit was a little unclear,I meant they should add a mid
>> level difficulty,as it is now,normal is too easy and hard is still too
>> hard.
>
>With the equipment levels available now, Hards are not that difficult. I
>was doing them long before I had even Elemental gear. Hard LDoNs are
>difficult to do if you don't have either a good mezzer, or a puller that
>can always get single pulls.

You need a Bard or FD puller for hard setting.I dont want to rely on
mezzes,one resist,and you wipe with no chance of finishing in time.
More specifically you need a monk for best chances of success.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 4:25:07 AM

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

>On 30 Aug 2005 17:26:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban said:
>>With the equipment levels available now, Hards are not that difficult. I
>>was doing them long before I had even Elemental gear. Hard LDoNs are
>>difficult to do if you don't have either a good mezzer, or a puller that
>>can always get single pulls.

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
>You need a Bard or FD puller for hard setting.I dont want to rely on
>mezzes,one resist,and you wipe with no chance of finishing in time.
>More specifically you need a monk for best chances of success.

When LDoN was new, this was true for a lot of groups. As a L65 enchanter with
~3500 HP buffed, I could reliably mez a double-pull ONLY because we had a
near-perfect group to back me up. Three mobs or bad resists caused a wipe.
We were fast at recovery, so we could still win even after a wipe, sometimes
after two. Damn, those were fun times. And there were AMAZING pets when
they didn't wipe us. Risk vs reward was a real topic of discussion in the
group over that :) 

Even when it was new, I sometimes grouped with hardcore raiders who simply had
no problem with them. It was nice because I always got to charm, but kinda
boring because there was no real risk of failure - they'd honestly be able to
finish without me.

Nowadays, I'd say the groups of L65-70 that struggle in WoS probably need a
bard or FD puller in LDoN, but they can do it. The groups that do well in
MPG or RSS can easily handle LDoN with "just" an enchanter, or even some other
class to root park adds if they're careful.

It's easy to forget just how wide the range of power level the game has, even
for groups of similar level.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
August 31, 2005 6:02:45 AM

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

In article <Xns96C282F41F35Frichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
thank you very much.
> >
> > Of course, I rarely have a full group, I rarely even exceed 3 people.
> > Your dps drops considerably with only half a group.
> >
>
> Well, I was talking about for a full group. Easy LDoNs are quite
> trivial, and do not require any more healing than one shaman, with even a
> ranger tanking. I know because I've done it. Mind you, the ranger was
> rather well equipped, but substitute in a tank class with lesser
> equipment for similar results. I do have to admit that I have not done
> any LDoNs since level 65, and I understand that the level 70 LDoN is a 65
> hard, which, at least at level 65, was difficult, but doable, back before
> OOW/DoN equipment, when I was equipped with a mixture of Ssra and PoP
> pre-elemental gear.

My point was simply that LDoN easy is not inherently trivial. And
certainly not WAAAY to easy. There is no way I'd be able to reliably
three man a hard within the time constraints, and having to fill out a
group in order to succeed would take orders of magnitude longer than
getting a 3 man team going.... so I'm grateful there is an easy setting.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:20:48 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:blm9h1tj7irv12dhu2qn70ji35s480t0b4@4ax.com:

> On 30 Aug 2005 17:26:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>news:ee49h11vksoj7na2btq5d3p38c3h5nrd5b@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 30 Aug 2005 16:09:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>>> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>>>news:jvp8h156sh8g3hipgng673h51gd5accga6@4ax.com:
>>>>> Add some mid level Ldons,oh wait then there would be no need for
>>>>> DoN.
>>>>> :p 
>>>>
>>>>You mean add more Ldon instances? LDON is already suitable for all
>>>>levels from 20ish up to 70.
>>>
>>> Sorry,this bit was a little unclear,I meant they should add a mid
>>> level difficulty,as it is now,normal is too easy and hard is still
>>> too hard.
>>
>>With the equipment levels available now, Hards are not that difficult.
>> I was doing them long before I had even Elemental gear. Hard LDoNs
>>are difficult to do if you don't have either a good mezzer, or a
>>puller that can always get single pulls.
>
> You need a Bard or FD puller for hard setting.I dont want to rely on
> mezzes,one resist,and you wipe with no chance of finishing in time.
> More specifically you need a monk for best chances of success.
>

Yes, but, given a good puller, they are easy to do. Personally, I prefer
a good bard, it's faster that way.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:24:20 PM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d7eafa12011be08989cd8@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <Xns96C282F41F35Frichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
> RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
> thank you very much.
>> >
>> > Of course, I rarely have a full group, I rarely even exceed 3
>> > people. Your dps drops considerably with only half a group.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I was talking about for a full group. Easy LDoNs are quite
>> trivial, and do not require any more healing than one shaman, with
>> even a ranger tanking. I know because I've done it. Mind you, the
>> ranger was rather well equipped, but substitute in a tank class with
>> lesser equipment for similar results. I do have to admit that I have
>> not done any LDoNs since level 65, and I understand that the level 70
>> LDoN is a 65 hard, which, at least at level 65, was difficult, but
>> doable, back before OOW/DoN equipment, when I was equipped with a
>> mixture of Ssra and PoP pre-elemental gear.
>
> My point was simply that LDoN easy is not inherently trivial. And
> certainly not WAAAY to easy. There is no way I'd be able to reliably
> three man a hard within the time constraints, and having to fill out a
> group in order to succeed would take orders of magnitude longer than
> getting a 3 man team going.... so I'm grateful there is an easy
> setting.
>

I have not done any LDoNs in a long time, back when I did, it was not
hard to get a full group for one. When doing the easy ones, we didn't
worry too much about group composition either. Today, I would imagine
it's almost impossible to get an LDoN going.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 6:18:14 AM

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

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:
> I have not done any LDoNs in a long time, back when I did, it was not
> hard to get a full group for one. When doing the easy ones, we didn't
> worry too much about group composition either. Today, I would imagine
> it's almost impossible to get an LDoN going.

These days, when I do an LDON I bring my own half-group (me, a friend,
and either my wife or me using her account for a cleric), and if we
happen to find other people in the right level range that's fine, but
usually we end up running with 3 or maybe 4. At lower levels we have
no problem with "normal" LDONs given we're a bit twinked; in the 50s
we did okay until our group's average level crossed an LDON boundary,
and then we had to start being a lot more careful with our pulls.

I don't remember when's the last time I was in a full LDON group.

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 57 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 52 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- Teviron, Knight 23 on E. Marr
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 11:18:57 AM

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

Don Woods wrote:

> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:
>
>>I have not done any LDoNs in a long time, back when I did, it was not
>>hard to get a full group for one. When doing the easy ones, we didn't
>>worry too much about group composition either. Today, I would imagine
>>it's almost impossible to get an LDoN going.
>
>
> These days, when I do an LDON I bring my own half-group (me, a friend,
> and either my wife or me using her account for a cleric), and if we
> happen to find other people in the right level range that's fine, but
> usually we end up running with 3 or maybe 4. At lower levels we have
> no problem with "normal" LDONs given we're a bit twinked; in the 50s
> we did okay until our group's average level crossed an LDON boundary,
> and then we had to start being a lot more careful with our pulls.
>
> I don't remember when's the last time I was in a full LDON group.
>
> -- Don.

I used to play a mage along with a husband and wife warrior/cleric team,
and we did LDoN's exclusively from about 30 to 60. As the core group,
we had a list of people who we'd gladly add, and we'd take new people
who were LFG and give them a chance, adding them to the list if things
went well. If we had help we'd do hards, but if not we'd do normal and
never had a problem, in fact as we neared one of those LDoN boundary
levels we could do hards even though we clearly lacked key elements like
crowd control, haste, and slow. The key was being pathologically
careful about pulling, I was constantly scouting ahead with the eye, the
warrior would poke his head in and spot while the cleric would stand
back a little and lull.

The "core team" idea, getting a compatible subgroup, is I think a great
approach to EQ, if your core can play on its own then you never lack for
something to do, but at the same time its relatively easy to recruit
people to form a larger group to do even more interesting things. I
tend to make sure I can solo decently, which I guess is my way of making
my own small group core, but I don't find that the "an army of one"
concept really helps me form groups, quite the opposite, I'm generally
not disposed to bother, even though I know I actually enjoy grouping
more than soloing.

The "List" concept was also a great approach, as we went along we picked
up more and more people who met our criteria of reasonably competant and
fun to play with...and who played at the same times we did. Sadly,
differing leveling speeds meant some of those people fell off the list
simply by becoming too low level, and others jumped off the list by
leveling too fast for us, but by and large the idea worked pretty well.

I'm thinking, in todays low population EQ, that I should really look
into reviving that approach rather than my normal "solo with the LFG
flag on" plan which, to be frank, isn't really getting me many groups at
all.

Midi
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 3:56:11 PM

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

In alt.games.everquest, Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:

>Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:
>> I have not done any LDoNs in a long time, back when I did, it was not

>These days, when I do an LDON I bring my own half-group (me, a friend,
>and either my wife or me using her account for a cleric), and if we

[snip]

>I don't remember when's the last time I was in a full LDON group.

Every now and then a guildie needs a few points for something like the
enchanter ae stun, or the warrior hate augs, and we put groups together and
run through a bunch of LDoN's for them. I haven't done a pickup group LDoN
in a long while.

--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Stan Nicholls [http://www.stannicholls.com]
I'm not tense, just terribly, terribly alert.
Gemmell Mania : http://www.gemmellmania.co.uk
!