Mercenaries

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

RMT = Real Money Transfer between players
That is how the Industry (not necessarily the players) defines it.
However, I do agree that SC and LoN have made a sidestep method to 'legitimate' real money transfers between players but with SOE as a partial middle man (SOE getting paid somewhere between). But, that's the only slippery part of LoN and SC, really, when you use their definition of RMT as the benchmark to the quote.
On EQ2 (not EQ2x), are there ANY items sold which have 'game influencing' stats, like Mastercrafted gear? Yes, mounts have +5 skills and cloaks have featherfall, but those really aren't all that "game influencing". Would you really wear one of those cloaks in a non-appearance slot instead of a cloak with actual stats?
As for the allegation that mercs are only going to be on SC, that was stated otherwise at Fan Faire, you'll be able to get them in-game in the main cities and by questing. Would there -ever- be mercs on SC? that hasn't been said one way or the other and I don't expect anyone official to make that kind of pronouncement.
As for the allegation of "look at SC" as for how mercs will be morphed into thus and so or this and that.. it's a flimsy allegation that's only trying to promote kneejerk response.
If you want a game carved in stone that will never ever change from the day you buy it until the day you stop playing it, then I would suggest something other than MMOGs might be better for you.

Rijacki wrote:

I didn't mean for anything to come across as they would only sell mercs in SC, I ment that as they most likely will in the future (but not all inclusive to SC). The problem comes when they start selling mercs in SC that do not require progression much like they did with the mounts especailly being as the power of a merc otherwise obtainable without progressino would be quite dramatic.
The biggest argument I have with SC and mercs is being able to pay for their upkeep with (but not absolutely) Bayle Marks or something simular through sale of SC. If they're being put in the game, they need to be that plat sync to drive the plat sellers away, not give them another upper hand. That is my problem with the SC and Merc relation.
SC sells a lot of fluff right now, I'll give you that, but its slowly drifting out of that realm and into flat RMT. The good thing and unlike EQ1 there are no adornments in the market that gives people extra dps or whatnot so SC here still hasn't lost "ALL" of its confidence in maintaining pure fluff, but with the mounts being faster and the sale of exp potions, again the wind is just blowing in the wrong direction here.
Make no mistake, no one wants a game carved in stone. I think the introduction of BL's is an outstanding idea if only they would introduce Luclin too I'd be euphoric. But when an item is introduced thereby without feedback or giving the community an option to vote it out is already starting out on the wrong foot.

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

The item isn't actually on the merc though, no-trade or otherwise, it's just *displayed* on the merc if they are going to work like mannequins. You can display an item on a mannequin and then *delete* the item, and it will still be displayed on the mannequin until you swap out the display. So your alt displaying a no-trade item would just give the merc the appearance of the item, but the alt would still have the actual item. There's no exploit or issue here.

Drusi@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Well yeah, long as it stays in some player's inventory I can't see a problem with it. In that case I don't see a problem with another player doing it either. As long as there is there is no gear exchange.

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

When I started typing this post, this thread had 13 pages and a total of 186 posts. In just 13 pages you've managed to rack up 51 posts in this thread. Over of a quarter of all posts in this thread have been made by one person: You. Are you going for a record or something? I thought the subject was "Mercenaries" not "Mercenary Q&A with Lalen". lol. I think you've gotten your opinion across by now.

Dethdlr@Butcherblock wrote:

Trolling are we? But I'll bite -- if someone replies to me and calls me out directly, I'll respond. You might not like that response, thats just fine, but I don't use the internet as some sort of a hiding ground either. Engaging in conversation can be very constructive, as I'm very set in tackling issues head-on. I've been shown my mistakes quite a few times and I expect and would like to hope this makes me a better person and player.
Answer your question?

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

Professional game development is not a democracy, nor is it done as a committee by the players. There is no voting in or out of features by the player base.
BUT, if you look back to posts over the last year or two, you will see player started threads of "Can we have Mercanaries" and "Mercanaries are Needed" type topics about once every other month. Going back even further (even to game launch), you will see player started threads on "We want Beastlords" type topics at least once a month, so much so that when threads were started on it just about every week or so, the CM at that time put the word 'beastlord' into the bad word filter.
One could easily argue that both mercanaries and beastlords are Player -requested- features (both of which have passionate opponents and just as passionate proponents). Because they are Player requested, one could even say that there has been ample feedback to their inclusion.
However, the exact details of both of these and the rest of the features in the Expac will have time for feedback on the specifics when Beta is opened. Insisting on providing your feedback now on your own perception of the details is really a bit premature. Comparing EQ2's mecanaries (or beastlords) to the detail on how they were implemented in EQ1 (especially since your EQ1 details have been proven to be very over exagerated or even completely erroneous) is a bit farfetched.

Rijacki wrote:

I looked a few days ago. Earliest post I could find of people asking for mercenaries was written 96 days after EQ2 launched. February of 2005.

As long as Lalen is the primary responder and not the devs there is no descussion here...just Lalen countering everyone elses opinion with his own agenda. Really, whats to discuss without dev input? All is speculation.

Imo, if the mercs are usless, don't bother putting them in. I won't QQ one way or the other. I group with guildies occasionally and thats about it. So no one is going to miss me out of their groups anyway. A merc would simply make it a bit more fun, maybe even allow me to progress further in quests that start solo then require me to get others to finish them....which is a bit of a downer for a soloist like me.

Tallithia wrote:

Try actually reading the thread.

Gninja has posted multiple times in it about the Mercs

Tallithia wrote:

I almost wonder, do you get off on attacking me right out or do you get pleasure in harrassment? Like you haven't had one post in the past 4 days that didn't have my name in it. Seriously that is borderline harrassment or stalking
Rijacki wrote:

From what I have always seen in the past, with the blinding exception of SC, when something is in the mix, it is usually announced as a possibility, and either a go/no-go based on the community input. But the thing is, we were flat out told, no matter what mercs are coming out regrdless of input and feedback which makes the entire discussion mute and futile.
I'm not drawing any exact details based on anything. The idea is to make their inclusion not make any new players feel like they're stuck in a catch 22 while still making the game challenging. With this in mind many of the features of the EQ1 mercs would be bad ideas here.
The details on how mercs were introduced is provable and in very plain English overpowered for the cleric mercenaries. I had a T6 mercenary (raid merc) that could sit and heal longer and better than any group geared player. The only exception (ONLY) is where the healer had to be responsive in scripted events. Of course a real player had their spot, but other than the few group scripted events there were, there was really no use for me to include a real player cleric/healer in my group unless they were at least raid geared.

Geothe wrote:

For some insaine reason she only reads MY posts and "just" to take them out of context. I mean it is quite scarry.

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

I am seeing you PRIMARILY respond and many with personal attacks. Such as this one.
Lalen

Server: Everfrost
Guild: Divine Reapers
Rank: Elder Officer
Loremaster

Joined: Jan 2, 2009
Messages: 741
Offline
Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Don't worry there is about 20 (+/- 2) that have a hotkey ready with the link to my thread saying "I TOLD YOU SO". So no need to freat there.
The fact you don't question what's raining down on your head is the part that startles me, if you'd bother to look up you might notice its urine. I guess the clamness of the flow of liquid is rather soothing until it begins to stink.
But about my 50 posts, most here (but this one being you attacked me personally) have been quite constructive, especailly considering the community was told we have no choice in the matter of mercs being pushed out. But it is that same attitude as that in which SOE feels compelled to cater to those that exert no effort -- that attitude of if I have more time than you I still should only be able to post as much. Reminds me a lot of those that say because I have more time than them they should still be able to match my armor/aa/level. This entitlement attitude is what has already brought this game to its knees and definately not going to be constructive when deciding on the final tweeks of a merc.

I am not intending to derail, just explain my reason for my post.
I have nothing more to say on the issue. But am waiting excited for Mercenaries to rain down on Norrath!!
My apologies to Ginja, I didn't intend to be dissmissive of your input here. My point was that Lalen was (again) primarily responding to peoples concerns, rather then letting the dev respond to them directly.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".
Once I realised this was the case with responding to Lalen, and the fact that he was also taking a moral high-ground and insulting me personally and making baseless judgements about my character, I stepped out of the conversation. I encourage everybody else to do the same and let the mercenary threads die.
The fact of the matter is, mercenaries ARE coming to EQ2. The fact of the matter is, none of us have any facts whatsoever on what mercenaries will bring to EQ2. So I will just wait until they're here and see what happens. Until that time, I'm done engaging in this particular brand of insanity.

Streppoch@Guk wrote:

QFT
QFE
I think mercs have the potential to be a positive addition to the game. And like Streppoch says, they are on the way. So let's all just wait and see what happens. Grouse if you like, people - ain't gonna change a bloody thing.

Streppoch@Guk wrote:

+1
well said

Tallithia wrote:

Really now? It is an attack to say or speak that someone's actions illicit an emotional response? Really? Because, according to the rules, I'm accusing someone of "trolling" and breaking the rules which is what I would expect some people would have read into. Is that where you're seriously trying to take this?
As for the analogy, that was not a "personal attack" unless you are going to claim and back it that she was the only one playing SOE games. But lets look at a personal attack a second shall we? This is when the person is attacked, not the topic or the opinion. Now with the 2 times you have posted, every mention of "my name", you have no where near attacked a topic or opinion, you have attacked the fact and manner in which that I have spoken, this is personally attacking someone.
Likewise if you call me out, you can expect me to respond unless you have mistaken me for a coward. If you're upset about your post count, say you're upset about your post count -- there is no reason for anyone in these forums to feel inferior to someone else because they have less posts or have not been as opinionated.

We had all this "sky is falling" nonsense prior to Mercenaries being added to EQ1.
When they came they turned out to be an excellent addition to the game, almost everyone liked them and used them and in a matter of days it was as if they'd always been there and you could hardly imagine the game without them.
As for whether they killed grouping, of course they didn't. They led to more groups because they added huge flexibility. Maybe someone else who plays EQ1 would like to come on here and describe any downside to mercenaries there; I can't because in my experience they were 100% a positive addition, as I'm sure they will be in EQ2.

Bhagpuss wrote:

Exactly... Where is the "sky is falling" IN THIS THREAD? Or did you just decide to drop in here and troll out a response from someone?
Besides a few people (now you're on the list) trying to purposely derail this topic, no where does it dicuss or concern whether or not they should be in the game, or that "the sky is falling" etc because everyone here has accepted that mercs are coming and are just trying to get answers and make sure they're not going to be running away more NEW players than what they would retain (as a balence discussion not whether or not they should be here).
Folks that post like this remind me of those people that sleep in raids, then come back in and pretend they've been fighting the good fight the entire time and go "where's the mob?" and expect DKP.
Bhagpuss wrote:

It was already done so by at least 10 or so people in the "JUST SAY NO TO MERCENARIES" thread. This is not that thread and its purpose is not to discuss mercenaries in EQ1 but rather how to improve current ideals of them, balence them in EQ2, and provide other [big key word here] CONSTRUCTIVE feedback for them.

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

I didn't say it was, seems we are in violent agreement . So yes, 'win-win'