|
Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Aenovae on January 26, 2005, 12:08:01 AM Scott Hartsman, the Senior Producer for EverQuest II, posted an update on the EQ2Players site:
http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive.vm?id=336§ion=Development&month=current It's a very long, but very interesting read (at least, for those few f13 readers who still play). He mentions how the live team hears about and responds to player concerns. Assuming the post isn't a total lie, SOE has a team that actually slogs through obnoxious forum posts to find the players' issue-of-the-nanosecond. They even parse recent petitions to see if a lot of players have been petitioning the same thing over a week's time. According to Scott Hartsman, SOE actually has testers checking the validity of /feedback submissions. Other than addressing player complaints, the post also describes how EQ2 is going to try to cater to the solo player a bit more. The game will never be ideal for solo play (it's not designed to be), but maybe these changes will prevent friendless hermits (Sky) from quitting. Personally, I could care less about solo play enhancements. It's worth mentioning that the SOE of today seems very different than the Verant of yesterday. Dev response has been frequent and informative so far, like the update above. Patches have been coming faster than you can read their attached notes (nearly a patch a day). Along with bug fixes, the patches have been adding a LOT of content. In general, all parts of the SOE engine have been operating to my satisfaction, from programming fixes to content additions to dev response on the forums. This effort is one of the reasons that I'm still playing the game. I'm having fun now, and it's clear that EQ2 is going to be strongly supported and enhanced in the future, so my investment isn't wasted. P.S. Please keep WoW out of this thread kthx. Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Polysorbate80 on January 26, 2005, 08:43:02 AM Quote from: Aenovae The game will never be ideal for solo play (it's not designed to be), but maybe these changes will prevent friendless hermits (Sky) from quitting. Personally, I could care less about solo play enhancements. Pet Peeve: The phrase is "couldn't care less" (unless you meant to imply that you actually *do* care about solo play.) And personally, I could not care less about anything related to group-related play. Don't have time to waste on that noise. Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Righ on January 26, 2005, 09:05:05 AM Quote from: Polysorbate80 Quote from: Aenovae The game will never be ideal for solo play (it's not designed to be), but maybe these changes will prevent friendless hermits (Sky) from quitting. Personally, I could care less about solo play enhancements. Pet Peeve: The phrase is "couldn't care less" (unless you meant to imply that you actually *do* care about solo play.) And personally, I could not care less about anything related to group-related play. Don't have time to waste on that noise. I bet somebody else's pet peeve is not starting sentences with a conjunction. But I don't care. Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Polysorbate80 on January 26, 2005, 09:12:39 AM Quote from: Righ I bet somebody else's pet peeve is not starting sentences with a conjunction. But I don't care. Obviously. However, it is not incorrect to begin with a coordinating conjuntion. Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Calantus on January 26, 2005, 10:25:31 AM Quote from: Polysorbate80 Pet Peeve: The phrase is "couldn't care less" (unless you meant to imply that you actually *do* care about solo play.) Actully, both are valid. A phrase is defined by popular use and both are used often enough. PS. I love derails. I'd add something, but what I'd add is verbotten by Aenovae. Maybe I'll start a new thread in the forum for the-game-that-shall-not-be-named-in-this-thread. Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: murdoc on January 26, 2005, 11:03:36 AM From the way this thread got derailed, WoW might as well of been mentioned. At least WoW is marginally more interesting than grammar.
Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Polysorbate80 on January 26, 2005, 11:40:32 AM I don't think many people really care about either game, so we might as well pick nits over unrelated minutiae.
Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: WindupAtheist on January 28, 2005, 01:35:30 AM Quote from: murdoc From the way this thread got derailed, WoW might as well of been mentioned. At least WoW is marginally more interesting than grammar. UO! UO!! UO! UO!!!! [ricflair] WOOO! [/ricflair] You goddamn kids and your 3D graphics! Sprites are all you really need!!! Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: buttons on January 28, 2005, 01:40:06 AM I've come out of lurking to say, shut the fuck up about UO.
Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Azhrarn on January 28, 2005, 01:43:36 AM Quote from: buttons I've come out of lurking to say, shut the fuck up about UO. I'd have to say you were never actually lurking.Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: WindupAtheist on January 28, 2005, 09:15:49 AM Quote from: buttons I've come out of lurking to say, shut the fuck up about UO. Asheron's Call! Asheron's Call! Asheron's Call! The third most popular MMOG in the world! (When there were only 3 major MMOGs...) Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Avatard on January 28, 2005, 09:34:45 AM I love me some me.
Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Big Gulp on January 28, 2005, 11:58:32 AM Quote from: Polysorbate80 Obviously. However, it is not incorrect to begin with a coordinating conjuntion. It is this kind of nonsense up with which I will not put. Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Signe on January 28, 2005, 01:13:42 PM You people are beginning to sound like Jedi.
Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Furiously on January 28, 2005, 01:24:49 PM Where not should I dangle my participle at?
Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Avatard on January 28, 2005, 01:29:54 PM Quote from: Furiously Where not should I dangle my participle at? Where at should I not dangle my participle? Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Mesozoic on January 28, 2005, 01:49:54 PM Quote from: Avatard Quote from: Furiously Where not should I dangle my participle at? Where at should I not dangle my participle? Is my fly open? Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Kenrick on January 28, 2005, 03:34:37 PM Did you guys know that they're working on a re-release of UO using the Sims 2 engine? Or is that old/lame news?
Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Polysorbate80 on January 28, 2005, 03:38:06 PM Quote from: Big Gulp It is this kind of nonsense up with which I will not put. Me be am un-positive about what to which you be complainifyin'. My pointless bitching about grammar, my argument about conjunctions, or...? Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Strazos on January 28, 2005, 07:49:14 PM Quote from: Polysorbate80 And personally, I could not care less about anything related to group-related play. Don't have time to waste on that noise. Then why bother playing a "Massively Multiplayer Online" game? Save your money and go with single-player games. Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Signe on January 28, 2005, 08:25:49 PM Yes, and it has to be one gigantic group or how does it qualify as massive?
Gee, you really are quite the dullard tonight, Strazos. Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: AOFanboi on January 29, 2005, 01:42:43 AM Quote from: Strazos Then why bother playing a "Massively Multiplayer Online" game? Save your money and go with single-player games.
HTH. BETEO. Title: Re: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Alkiera on January 29, 2005, 06:26:12 AM Quote from: Strazos Quote from: Polysorbate80 And personally, I could not care less about anything related to group-related play. Don't have time to waste on that noise. Then why bother playing a "Massively Multiplayer Online" game? Save your money and go with single-player games. We so need an FAQ here. Just for the 'pulverized horse' questions like this one. Alkiera Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Signe on January 29, 2005, 06:58:41 AM No, no FAQs! People who make statements like that should just be pounced on and given a good verbal thrashing! FAQs would spoil the fun and people would become dull and unable to communicate maliciously like God intended. They would simply say, "Read the FAQ". This board would become a wasteland.
Anyway, they wouldn't read it. Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Sobelius on January 29, 2005, 02:59:35 PM Maybe too little too late for some of you, but here's the "official" line (http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive.vm?section=Development&id=339&month=current) on the recent changes for soloers and small groupers...I have yet to try this out -- been too busy levelling my lowbie alts in CoH with the awesome Winter Lords XP. However, prior to this XP boost, I did discover some new NPCs that offered highly soloable-quests.
Quote Big Changes for Soloists and Small Groups! With all the recent buzz generated by Scott Hartsman's EverQuest II Producer's Letter, we thought we would take a moment to call out all the big changes in experience gain that have just occurred for soloists and small groups of adventurers. Yes, that's right, solo and small group experience gain has been boosted across the board. Loot drops have been increased for these soloers and small groups too! These changes went into effect after Wednesday's patch and immediately spurred a spirited discussion between player and developer alike. Here's a recap of yesterday's big news: For soloists and small groups, dozens of new quests and hundreds of new NPCs have been added all over the game world since launch. Expect the steady stream of additions like this to continue over the coming weeks and months. In yesterday's update, a significant boost in small group and solo experience across the board will allow for advancement that will be much more visible and feel much more satisfying. Brand new item rewards will be added for soloists and small-groupers. Additionally, some of the rewards that have been reserved solely for groups will also make their way, though more rarely, to the solo and small group encounters in the world. Group rewards have improved as well. The chances for some of the group-only ultra-rare drops have been increased. In the weeks following, expect new dungeon instances to be made available for those who solo, duo, and trio. Soloing and small grouping should be a way to advance at a satisfying rate. You should be able to earn good rewards that are exciting in their own right. Soloing and small grouping should also provide a chance at the great rewards that people might not expect in anything except the traditional six-person group. Grouping will still provide the fastest overall experience gain, but the advantage won't be as drastic as it is today. Grouping will also provide better chances at the spectacular ultra-rare rewards. Title: EQ II Producer's Letter Post by: Sky on January 31, 2005, 05:27:39 PM Quote but maybe these changes will prevent friendless hermits (Sky) from quitting. I may be a hermit by choice, but I'm hardly friendless. It's the huge amount of sucking the game does when my friends aren't around. Kind of reminds me why I got into crpgs in the first place...to play when my friends weren't around. Funny cycle thing. Here's the skinny on EQ2, though: it ain't lack of solo content. It's the extremely blatant anti-solo bias the game exhibits at its very design core. And beyond that, the punitive and unfriendly path it trods. And then there's those patch notes: Quote - First round of advanced solo encounters added for soloers and small groups! Quote The Thundering Steppes - "A Pirate's Hidden Stash" is intended for groups in their low 20s. - "The Rumbler Caves" is intended for groups in their mid-20s. - "An Open Grave" is intended for groups in their high 20s and low 30s. Zek, the Orcish Wastes - "Tallon Hording Halls" is intended for groups in their low 30s. - "Sullon Mines" is intended for groups in their mid-30s. - "The Dark Den" is intended for groups in their high 30s and low 40s. The Enchanted Lands - "The Cave of Wonder" is intended for groups in their mid-30s. - "Cavern of Tangled Weeds" is intended for groups in their high 30s and low 40s. I'm trying to not post in EQ2 threads, because the game will never be 'fixed', any more than SWG combat will be fixed. The game is broken at the very core, and short of scrapping major systems, wysiwyg. I can deal with that, I just don't play EQ2 nor have any interest in it at all (even though I thought it was pretty cool for the most part). But hey, you called me out. Reading the condescension that drips from every EQ2 staff post when discussing solo play....yegods I'd never pay them a dime. You can have your fucking group-only game, don't do me any favors. And really, then the asswipes who trot out ye olde "go play a single player game" will have a place to congregate without us fucking up their uber circle jerk. |