Itemization

Dreamweaver opened the "Bug Reports" forum on both EQ1 and EQ2. If you can state your concerns objectively and succinctly, the devs will respond in kind (EQ1 devs Ngreth & Prathun do a great job on EQ1. I invite you to check the EQ1 forums).

I think if you link some agenda (unfounded Pay to Win accusations), you kind of deserve some sort of censure. The devs may even remember the names of those individuals who have an agenda or maybe whom they perceive as negative individuals - rabble rousers.

 

You raise a valid point about negative events and memory. The fact is, negative events have a higher priority in associative memory - they are more readily available and more easily recalled. And since it is human nature to avoid bad outcomes, you want to do everything possible to avoid being associated with bad experiences.

The way DBG handles it's business/marketing falls into Feldon's "keep doing dumb things and refuse to learn from them" bucket.

In a non-competitive market, you can get away with it. There are also folks selling stuff who only want to make one sale, they can can get away with it also - once.

For everyone else, loading up bad experiences on your customers and expecting them to love you anyway is just beyond dumb.

 

Do you think they failed to "meet your expectations" with Chaos Descending?

 

Benito, the most glaring issue in regard to itemization in BOL is that it leaves very little room for linear progression. As Mermut and others have pointed out, once you have done the signature line and some over land achievements, there is no sensible way made available to proceed to higher end heroics or raiding.

Therefore, there is very little content for people to enjoy. Running solos rewards gear that is worse than the signature line and the gear you get from over land achievements is equal to what you get from T1 heroics. So, there is no way for any one to progress to higher heroics or raiding.

Also, they have trivialized crafting. This information is all over the official forums in much better detail than I am supplying here.

The previous 2 expansion didn't have this level of problems. They aren't just simple bugs.

 

Valid concern. It should be brought up in the Bug Reports forum. Ngreth, on the EQ1 forums today, responded to similar concerns about itemization in EQ1: Required 115 to equip T2 gear.

 

This isn't a bug, it was poor design and implementation of content. Also, this has been reported during beta and also repeatedly on the official forums. What they have done is to essentially make progression almost impossible and to an extent, the game unplayable. That is why you are seeing very low populations only a month and a half after the expansion release.

 

I bailed out on the game during KA; and yeah, that expansion was terrible. I kinda saw where things were heading during TOT with the shop, and KA was clincher.

I post here and on the OF mostly because misleading decision-making information offends me. It's not just DBG, when anyone does it, I tend to speak out.

On the OF, I provide alternative view points and leave it up to readers to contemplate it. Here, I'm more vocal and blunt about things I observe, but, a lot of folks do lurk here also.

Originally, I had hope that DBG might adjust their philosophy, but these days I'm convinced it's not merely about ending dumb things. I think they are intentionally misleading folks.

 

Fair enough. However, it seems to follow somewhat with the new model implemented in EQ1 (i.e. you need max level to equip T2 gear). I understand that EQ2 suffers from stat bloat, and resolve/potency requirements. If really detrimental, it could well be a misunderstanding (Ngreth, who is mostly familiar with EQ1 itemization, may have worked on EQ2 itemization as I've heard the two games share devs). I think you can make your claims on Bug Reports forum with a well reasoned, objective post.

 

If you don't play the game, are you in any position to critique it? (I ask this impersonally).

I think most people were pleased by Chaos Descending.

 

I am referring to gear that is for max level, which is currently 120. Without progression, there is no challenge for people. Again, these aren't bugs. A bug would imply that some thing isn't working as intended. I am referring to itemization that affects all of the gear and they have been made aware of it, but to no avail. If people run solo missions and do T1 heroics and the gear that they are rewarded from those is worse than the signature line, that is a problem. Also, the mastercrafted gear is worse than what you get from the signature line. So as you can see, that eliminates the need to do most of the content that people could normally enjoy.

 

I don't comment on anything related actual game play per se. In other words, I'm not making any claims about whether or not the game is fun. Like the revenue model, that's up to each person and their tastes. I don't make judgments about that for either DBG or their customers.

What I tend to comment on are business practice issues, and those states are easy enough to discern from the comments here and on the OF and compared against the marketing/PR information eq2 publicizes. If I felt like the team was being honest with customers and treating them with respect, I wouldn't post a single comment.

 

I guess I am equating misunderstanding with bug (yeah, it's a huge bug). It's possible that you had an EQ1 dev (Ngreth) work on EQ2 itemization. (Ttobey and Klanderso have spent a larger portion of time on EQ1 than in the past). Or, they were overwhelmed and/or rushed. Communicate your concerns clearly. From my experiences on EQ1, they will listen.

 

Don't take this as a personal attack but that's venturing into sheer opinion, or even worse, conspiracy peddling.

By the way, Massively OP is a horrible publication. It's a bunch of wannabe/reject journalists who base elaborate theories/predictions on innuendo. I hate it when any outlet (conservative or liberal) disguises opinion pieces as "news" (truth/fact).

 

Every one has communicated their concerns, during beta, on the official forums and I am sure in numerous bug reports, although the itemization issues aren't bugs, but an oversight in the content design and implementation. I can't speak for EQ1, but the very detailed feedback that is provided in EQ2 is most often over looked unfortunately to a larger extent.

Either way, if players perceive that their concerns aren't being taken in to consideration, and they have communicated in detail ad nauseam, then eventually they will stop caring and stop playing. Communication is and has always been a two way street.

 

I am not sure what is up with the EQ2 team then as long as the feedback has been objective and succinct. If they consciously ignore the feedback, then the game deserves its fate.

If you are trying to hint or push me to the conclusion of a broader conspiracy, you'll need more evidence. (I don't recall these kind of issues during Chaos Descending so I am inclined to think less that this is some nefarious plan).

Otherwise, those are valid concerns that I hope you can address.

 

I am not into conspiracy theories and I am not trying to influence you in one direction or the other, I am merely stating fact. This is the current situation with the BOL expansion. The CD expansion did not have the same issues that I am referring to here.

 

Already covered your objection in the other thread. Of it's course it's opinion, the only party that knows 100% of the facts about what eq2 is up to is probably Longdale and everyone above her.

What I do know a lot about however, are economic and marketing systems. And because of that, I can make plausible and credible inferences about what Darkpaw is up to based on the behavior I observe from them - it's old axiom: assign little credibility to what people say, and a whole lot of credibility to what you observe them actually doing.

I never state my opinions as fact. And most cases (unless I forget or if the response is part of a string of responses where the disclaimer has already been put out there), I note that I am providing opinion or speculation. I do forget to do that though, and I don't mind when people call me out on it.

Someone like me, who is in the business of discernment is NEVER blessed with all the facts (we call this the state of nature or perfect information). Even in a court room, one never has 100% of all available facts.

The two critical variables in anticipating or discerning what someone is up to are (1) and understanding of what they want, and (2) an understanding of how they like going about getting it. In economics, we use what are called "screens" to get people to reveal themselves. A screen is simply the observation of a choice between two or more alternatives given a context. So by observing the choices made, one can identify preferences. With DPG, I simply observe their choices and behaviors, which are often in complete disagreement with what they claim publicly. That is my bone of contention.

The stuff about statistical reasoning was because the system they use to generate scarcity and incentivize the shop is a statistical process (rng).

 

Let me clarify that you have every right to your speech. No one has the right to chill it. And, yes, the soapbox can be fun.

I am, however, annoyed and will react when opinion becomes gospel (with a missionary shoving doctrine down my throat).

Well, in court, to convict someone of a crime you need a very high standard of proof to prove their guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt." If there is any doubt that a person is guilty, then they are acquitted. (Thank goodness for the American justice system). In civil court, of course, it's based on the preponderance of the evidence (51% in favor of one side). This is the court of public opinion so you are granted a lot of leeway and allowance.

 

No doubt, when someone's freedom or life is at stake, a conservative presumption is valid. Still, many would argue that even in criminal court, there is evidence, and there is influencing the perception of evidence. It's and adversarial system, that's how it works (there was an interesting study done on parole hearings in isreal - I can't remember the exact number, but it was something like judges were 40% more likely to grant parole first thing in the morning and right after lunch. For those unlucky sods standing before the court right before lunch or quitting time, they were pretty much out of luck).

This is why I personally prefer working with data becaue it allows me to think probabilistically. Obviously that's not possible with this DBG stuff, so I rely on what I observe and my understanding of behavioral economics to speculate. It's up to the reader to decide what they think. I mentioned before lots of folks here don't think I'm right either.

 

The only concrete information we have is what decisions DBG has made in the past. An important factor in that is that those decisions fall consistently within a definite range. It's more likely than not that future decisions will continue to be made that fall within the past parameters, considering they have since day 1 of the sell out.

Will it predict the future? Of course not, but it's a better indicator of it than Holly's letters, or the fanatical adherence the Bubble Gnomes have to the idea that EVERYTHING IS FINE (and if you don't think so, you're just a hater and a conspiracy theorist). The sheer refusal to even consider that everything isn't peachy keen is nothing short of miraculous.