A Large-Scale Fundamental Change to EQ2 - Page 22

Crabbok · 12-05-2007, 03:53 PM

Yes Naar, you have a point. We as the customer have every right to complain about paying for an unfinished product.
I do sympathize with SoE from the standpoint that making an expansion for an MMO is hard work, and I am sure there are many challenges they face that we do not realize. However, we definetley need to let them know our dissatisfaction.

That being said, How long does it typically take, after a release, for the expansion to be complete? Well some woudl say that it is never fully complete, but lets say about 90-95% complete. this means all major and many minor bugs worked out, all zones working, all guild lvl rewards, quests, raids, itemization and all things tuned and retuned and worked out. This also means the inclusion of epic weapons, any extra AA issues, and everything. I have seen this take many months for an expansion to be fully complete. Hell in KoS, they never even finished all the class helms until after EoF if I remember correctly.

My point is: Would you rather have the expansion get pushed back for 6-9 months for fine tuning, or woudl you rather have it at it's typical 75-80% complete state, which it usuall ships?
I for one, would rather have it sooner than later, but thats just me. I'm impatient.

Illuminator · 12-05-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonis

You can't handle the truth.

Where are you going with this?

Caswydian · 12-05-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabbok

Yes Naar, you have a point. We as the customer have every right to complain about paying for an unfinished product.
I do sympathize with SoE from the standpoint that making an expansion for an MMO is hard work, and I am sure there are many challenges they face that we do not realize. However, we definetley need to let them know our dissatisfaction.

That being said, How long does it typically take, after a release, for the expansion to be complete? Well some woudl say that it is never fully complete, but lets say about 90-95% complete. this means all major and many minor bugs worked out, all zones working, all guild lvl rewards, quests, raids, itemization and all things tuned and retuned and worked out. This also means the inclusion of epic weapons, any extra AA issues, and everything. I have seen this take many months for an expansion to be fully complete. Hell in KoS, they never even finished all the class helms until after EoF if I remember correctly.

My point is: Would you rather have the expansion get pushed back for 6-9 months for fine tuning, or woudl you rather have it at it's typical 75-80% complete state, which it usuall ships?
I for one, would rather have it sooner than later, but thats just me. I'm impatient.

I'd say that RoK was easily 90%+ complete - there's only a few things that didn't make it in, like epic weapons. The majority of the issues people have with the expansion is not with the completeness or lack there of, but with design philosophy concerning itemization and solo vs. heroic content. Now, these areas may need to be adjusted, but it is not accurate to say the expansion is incomplete because you disagree with their itemization approach.

Crabbok · 12-05-2007, 04:47 PM

Well Cas, I was referring to expansions in general. I would have to say that itemization was incomplete though, even fireflyte said he'd go back and add some more items. Brawler loot and Non-Leather Healer loot are lacking in many places, so yes I say itemization is not complete. I'm not saying it's completely broken either, just not complete.

Talonis · 12-05-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illuminator

Where are you going with this?

I was going to make a funny about how the entire EQ2 team is only really 3 people and all of the content was made back in '04 and given to us like a big time-release capsule of ziltch a la Bob Rock/Metallica after the Black album.

You didn't bite and the moment is passed. Plus any chance to quote Jack is just, well, cool.

Vainamoinen · 12-06-2007, 01:03 PM

Be careful what you wish for... anything is Bob Rockissible.

Pudaan · 12-06-2007, 06:58 PM

I just dont understand how SOE is getting away with releasing the EoF epic questline several months after the expansion went live, and now epic weapons are god knows how long until release.

Illuminator · 12-06-2007, 07:31 PM

As if.

Caswydian · 12-06-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudaan

I just dont understand how SOE is getting away with releasing the EoF epic questline several months after the expansion went live, and now epic weapons are god knows how long until release.

What do you mean by 'get away with'?

Kasforen · 12-07-2007, 12:13 PM

Unless you add a LOT of limitations, which people will fight for obvious reasons, all this consolidation will only stress end-game building. Opimization of AAs will overcome classes. So lets say they combine monks/bruisers. You'll end up with something that is neither a monk nor a bruiser but a face smasher, with optimal setup. This creates a dynamic in which only one (maybe two if we are really lucky) possible AA setups that are even remotely acceptable. It really does sound a LOT like WoW talents.

The question is: Do you want this?

It seems like it would work well for Brawlers. Both sides seem to benefit. The bruisers will get the best of what monks have to offer, and monks will get the best of what bruisers have to offer. This class dynamic is very extreme in the fact that they are closely related. All around benefit, at the cost of a class title. The thing is, this gets tricky when you get into SK/Paladin, Conj/Necro, Warlock/Wizzie, Drige/Troub, Illy/Coercer. It would fundamentally change one or both of those two class dynamics at the very core.

Lets take Wizzie/Lock combo. You would literally HAVE to reduce the nuking power of the wizzie, and the AOE power of the Warlock, and combine them into the same class. If your goal was to combine them. Either that or that would be a remarkably OP class. One possible solution I can think of is, you nerf both sides, put them together, and make new AAs that make them as good as they were, in the aspect they want to focus on. But that would be a general nerf across the board. Granted, some of people will think about this and go "OMG OLD (I'm talking like LU 8) WARLOCKS ARE COMING BACK! YAY!" (BTW, We call these people idiots in common vernacular.) No. That is not how this reads. This reads, you will be a nerfed version of yourself until you get AAs just to make you as good as you are now.

The Paladin/SK problem offers an even greater obstacle to over-come. They are literally the antithesis of each other (the only really class dynamic that achieved the goal, IMO). I can't think of a way to combine them to make benefit for the player. Either way, you'd end up with the same thing you had before, but you'd be called a Crusader instead. And while you were sitting there doing what you always had been, everyone else would be fancy with their new shit.

The point is it would be the Status Quo for some classes, whereas others would gain a LOT. A whole LOT. And some of those classes that would gain a lot, are already pretty well off. Whereas some of the classes that wouldn't gain much are not so shit-hot. It could potentially totally skew class balance. Not saying that it necessarily would, but Sony is imperfect (LOL LIKE I NEEDED TO SAY THAT).

Dear god, Just think. Zerker+Guard... I'm sold. When is this coming?

Sarcasm aside. I think some additional AA choices that allow for individual customization that provide real utility for each of the class's weaknesses and some better itemization would redress the perceived problems.

Maybe I'm a pessimist when it come to trusting game designers to produce a complete overhaul at fan-request. When they do shit like that, it hurts the game. If they do it because it's an internal desire, and they themselves realize the problems, that's a whole new story. But if it's a player-initiated thing, I can't help but thing disaster.

Just my 2c.