Will TLP Players get Equal Representation on the Community Council?

I'm a long time EQ veteran that stated playing EQ in April of 1999. I played hardcore to 2005 and took a detour into Azeroth for many years. I have come back now and then and played both on live and TLP servers.

I've noticed that in recent years that the devs seem to focus more on creating new EQ expansions than they do working on the TLP servers. This is understandable as every new expansion is another notch developers can add to their belts and their resumes. I get it.

I'm happy that Jen Chan and Darkpaw have decided to offer an olive branch of outreach to their paying customers via the proposed Community Resource Council. You would think that the official forums would have been used far more frequently for meaningful dialogue between devs and players but sadly that has not been the case in recent years. I'm conflicted. I am both skeptical and optimistic. But I'm willing to take a chance and think, maybe this once, that the EQ devs will finally start listening to the players. We shall see.

I am wondering if DarkPaw will be ensuring that an equal number of council members will represent the both the live and TLP communities? I think equal representation from both the EQ live and TLP communities is only fair.

Both players and developers need each other. We also need to have open lines of communication too. Too often our relationship seems adversarial. I am hopeful that the announcement of the player council is a long overdue sign of goodwill and generosity on the part of Darkpaw's management toward their players. I trust we will see more acts of kindness and beneficence from Darkpaw in the future.

Well said.

I don't think that is the reason at all. The business model that EverQuest has had since it was released, was subscription based and expansion-sales based. Expansions are a huge driver of the economics. Developer resumes don't get to drive the business. Darkpaw and ownership likely rely on the boost expansion sales, reinvigoration from the Live player base, and additional related store sales each winter.

That said, the previous studio head did mention TLP/Live split about 50/50 of the revenue. My guess is TLP's provide more net revenues, as expansions are not cheap to make. So your argument that there should be equal representation is valid and I completely agree.

What I hope to see from this council are ways to revitalize the live product, while continuing to push TLP/classic experiences. Why are there nearly 100,000 AAs? Why haven't the sheer amount of buttons to push (Warriors with 8 hotbars?!) been minimalized. Why is the default UI still the same from the Luclin expansion? This barrier to entry that the live game represents keeps the TLP money from being consistent. When TLP interest wanes, EQ Live should be competing to retain those players. Make the Live experience easier to step into, and new and returning players may consider returning.

2022 Roadmap:

• January:
  • Community Resource Council Application Relaunch - Your chance to help advise on the future of EverQuest.

It sounds like this is about planning on where the game goes from this point forward. TLPs are not the future, they're literally the past. I'm not sure someone who solely plays on TLPs has any relevant information about the future of the game, especially if they're a recycler that never plays past PoP and doesn't know anything about the game that includes 20+ more expansions beyond that one expansion.
I don't think it hurts anything to have a token TLPer or two, sure, but equal representation seems a bit lofty to me. I'm not sure what, exactly, a TLPer rep would even chime in on, other than future TLP rulesets, which if you read these boards at all it's evident there are about as many ruleset suggestions as there seem to be players.

There are new TLPs every year. The TLPs that will launch 4 months from now, will launch in the future. Not the past. Because that's how future works.

as long as they dont get bobbybick on there so he can whisper grima wormtongue awful takes into the devs ears like he did with mischiefs velious 'tiering'

Rulesets wouldn't be necessary. Features or preventative measures to stop the recycle behavior, or ways to keep TLP's populated as they move into deeper expansions would be useful. For instance:

Live servers have fresh level 85's you can purchase/redeem. When TLP's reach certain expansions, they should have a similar, scalable feature to bring people back, or bring in fresh new players for that TLP. Guilds recruit across TLPs, this would help guilds bolster ranks. Strong guilds and strong communities prevent melt from the player base. Players are paying for PLs, why not at least absorb some of that revenue back into the game. Example of this:
- At Luclin, allow for a level 51 purchased starter character
- PoP/GoD, level 55
- Omens - level 61

Continue to scale that up as the server moves closer to live. You could even auto grant some AAs at certain expansions so the grind to catch up isn't a barrier to entry.

That's just one idea to enhance TLPs, and I know this community has hundreds buried in our minds and in these forum posts. With some representation on this council, and argument for repeatable and scalable development could help our communities.

TLP rulesets, expansion launch schedules (a lot of support out there for shortening unpopular expansion eras such as DoN, PoR, etc.), flagging bottlenecks that need revisited (Plane of Storms was the big one that was recently adjusted, hello SoF raids granting 12 flags per clear), adjusting revamped zone eras (Cazic-Thule should be Luclin not PoP so that players actually go there, VP should be GoD not OoW so it is actually useful, etc.), seasonal/anniversary content unlock schedules, just to name a few. Just because TLP's are revisiting old content doesn't mean there is nothing to be adjusted to improve the player experience in the future.

I hope not, too many things from TLP went on to be nerfs to live servers. No thanks.

Like what?

Oh, we can make you a list. Never underestimate the hate a Live player have for TLP :=)

Jokes aside. Do you realize that a lot of Live players are also TLP players?

I wouldn't expect an equal split, but I would expect some representation for TLP servers.

I was a member years ago, I seem to remember it was something like 1 for each class, plus a couple of extras for TS & quests. But that was back before TLPs, so I would expect 1 or 2 people from them to be added to the team.

If you read the Q&A post the program is more about developer checking ideas they have with players, rather then a forum for community leaders to bring up concerns they have.

An example: Dev posts about increasing the heroic character level 100. Then the member can share there thoughts on that idea.

It not: The community leaders asking Dev to look into flagging for SoF-SoD-HoT.

However it would be nice to representation for to see each TLP have a couple reps.

TLP more than likely are funding a large portion of the development of the year's expansion.

the TLP player of yesterday is the live player of tomorrow.

Please no more input like this. I really don't want pay-to-win any more than we already have. This will turn a lot of players off and it won't bring them any extra funds. More likely it will result in reduced funds

Not to mention a lot of dev time to make all the needed parts to get a character to a given level with correct level gear.

Yeah, really don't want to see the limited dev resources used on frivolous stuff.

I have no opinion at this time on more character templates but people always say things like "this takes a lot of dev time" and in most cases, no, it really doesn't. This would not take a lot of time at all. Heck, they have betabuff character templates for many expansions when you do a beta and could reuse those.

Sure they have beta buff characters set up for every 5 levels but they are geared up with beta in mind and are likely not suitable for live servers. I haven't tested the lower level ones but for all I know is they have gear that would make them a bad fit on a TLP server (under/over geared)