New Expansion is Velious and the best feature is...Flying Mounts?

Cusashorn wrote:

Gold levels and below certainly pay more for expansions, $43 in SC currently, you can buy SF for $15 from some online retailers, but unless I'm missing something, the retail expansion does nothing for an EQ2X player. When they activate the key, it'll set up a live account with rollup.
Maybe they'll need to reduce distribution of the retail versions to avoid confusion.

kela wrote:

I was permabanned from a mall for buying tokens in an arcade at the discount and reselling them when I was like 11. I think I'd made $40 by doing it all day.
That mall sucks anyway.

Barx@Antonia Bayle wrote:

I agree, I've seen end-game fabled available on the broker now than I've seen... ever.
I don't recall high end raid drops in EQ1 being tradeable. Some of the original dragon stuff was, but the Hate/Fear stuff wasnt. ToV stuff definitely wasn't.

Meaghan@Lucan DLere wrote:

There was an RP server in eq1 where EVERYTHING was tradeable.
And the 1 year sub in eq2live servers also gives 500($5) station cash. And a mount ($25) and appearance clothing ($15) and a cloak ($15).
.....................................E2X ................EQ2

Cost of yearly sub .............$200.........$144

Estimated price of Xpac...........0..........+40
Actual cash out of pocket......$200........$184


Bonuses from plans

less Station Cash Back......... -60............. -5

Value of 3 character slots..........0........ +0 (completely subjective)

Value of mount......................0............-25

Value of appearance armour.....0..........-15

Value of cloak.........................0...........-15

cost of bonuses....................-$60.......-$60
Now the question is whether you value 3 character slots at 16$ which I am sure some people do. But then again you have to play this plan on an eq2x server which requires you to purchase guilds $10.
But the bottom line is eq2live subscription is the CHEAPEST way to play eq2. I dont care about station cash or chracter slots or the appearance items and I dont feel the need to be forced to buy it in the platinum version. I also get to keep my expansions and free rewards with the expansions. I get to keep my races packs and my class packs regardless if I decide to pay yearly or month to month. The value of the eq2 yearly sub for most people is cheaper.

Pervis wrote:

I don't agree, I'll take one example of what you say is a timesink, travel. It needs to be there in a MMORPG because we are modelling a real world.

In EQ2 it is often boring, but it shouldn't be, in WoW air taxi's take 20 minutes to cross a continent, but there I can step away and take a break for that time (EQ's getting a bit more linked up at least now).
In planetside doing an ANT run can take 15-20 minutes, but there I'm interacting with the terrain to make a course, and under constant real threat of a very dangerous attack, that's definitely not a timesink, its fun gameplay.
Pervis wrote:

If the debate is reduced downto that for a particular game then I'm just not interested in playing that game. Somethings a timesink if its an element that has no chance of pass or failure, no enjoyment value and uninteractive.
Camping mobs is one such, I used to have to do that now and then in EQ2, and as a game mechanic it just pain sucks badly. Its not just the wasted time, but its the whole immersion thing, either the mob exists in the world I'm supposed to be killing/meeting.
Or they don't, in which case the quest to kill something that right now doesn't exist but will pop into existence at some arbitary time doesn't make sense.
Even good game design can turn into timesink activities, WoW is a good example of that where their badge system was implemented and then the game altered to allow more efficient farming of badges, really sucky since they just upped the reward again and again for what was by the end trivial content.
I think a good MMORPG should manage to make a enjoyable game out of real world style problems like travel, as a computer game it should reward players for completing challenging content, if things are just no lose activities that require constant player control then that's boring game design and a timesink.

Mirander@Unrest wrote:

They did announce at the Fanfaire that Ratongas were going neutral, so I think that solves the lopsided race select.
As for the expansion, I guess the mounts will just be the usual hover etc type, its probably too much to get something that banks and glides etc.
But the main desire here is for the core gameplay to be refreshed, no more AFKing in green zones and being invulnerable, less mindless AOE (even WoW is cutting down on this!), needing to do more then auto attack to beat anything non grey, fixing the itemisation where most people hit 100% and caps in various stats. I expect an epic amount of whining about this on the forums because they preceive their character is less powerful (and gasp, it makes the game harder) if/when they do it.
But they need to put the challenge back into the game as if people want dumbed down then WoW does easy mode much slicker then EQ2 could ever hope to.
I just want a challenging gameworld.

Anestacia wrote:

From Smedleys comments (and hints of thoughts) at the EQ Next panel it sounds like you'll get your wish for cross server grouping, personally I hate that feature from WoW with a passion since it feels like it requires dumbed down instances to make the groups work (imagine random grouping a vigilant instance!), and destroys the social community on a server.
But Smedley was keen on keeping seperate servers, oddly because he saw the seperate communities as being a strength of EQ1 (even though Ghostcrawler on WoW admitted that cross server dungeons had actually removed some of the community feeling). He did rule out a shard server though, he said it would be comparitively easy to implement such an architecture now, but prefered the community of seperate servers

OK, so flying mounts. Um....ok. I'm going to list, just off the top of my head 5 things that probably would get players more jazzed about the upcoming expansion than flying mounts:
1. Dragons - you love 'em - we got 'em - wait until you see the encounters we have lined up for DoV - Western Wastes - OMG!
2. Coldain Prayer Shawl and Coldain Ring quests - we can't wait until you see what we did here. Can you say epic questlines? We're bringing back the 8th ring war and it's going to be sweet!
3. Kael Drakkal - just wait until you see how HUGE this place is! Lots of giants everywhere and your friends (and mine) King Tormax and the Vindicator will make a re-appearance.
4. A robust and extensive faction system - Coldain, Giants or Dragons - you have to make a choice and your actions will determine who you are alligned with.
5. Tower of Frozen Shadow - wow, the art deparment really outdid themselves here - we're talking about 5 levels of undead, puzzles to solve, contested spawns - if you loved this zone in EQ1, wait until you see what we've done with it.
I feel like I've read most of the "what do you want in Velious" threads. Not once did I see anyone mention flying mounts. At this point I feel the EQ2 team has lost it's connection to what the players want and why they get paid. They get paid by providing entertainment to their players - they are only limited by time, imagination and resources. So why, in so many cases over the past couple years, have they provided entertainment that a majority of us DON'T WANT while completely neglecting the things we do?
Instead of that class that controls the beasts that everyone has wanted for like, forever, we get Battlegrounds. Fail.
Instead of a really meaty GU with lots of new content, we get EQ2x. Fail.
People wonder why everyone is always raging at everything the EQ2 team does lately, it's because of this reason. They have lost their way. Who are they designing this game for if they consistently fail to deliver what the customer wants? That's why this game is failing. That's why there's so much animosity. That's why the players are constantly raging and the devs are getting defensive and grouchy. It's because there was so much information out there about what the players wanted for Velious and instead you gave us flying mounts. That says a lot.

Hecula wrote:

I'm just going to select this one sentence out of your whole valid paragraph and ask:
What the heck does adding Battlegrounds have anything to do with adding that one class that the developers have said NO! to a bazillion times? They can't add it because they would have to completely balance out TWO new classes for one of the 4 archetypes that it would be added to, completely re-itemize the ENTIRE GAME, and make sure all the encounters have new gear usable by that class. It would also mean one archetype would have more classes than the other 3.

The answer to your question is easy. Battlegrounds is something very few people ever asked for. That class is something that people have been pining over since 2004. While I feel it would be a generalization to say that noone wanted battlegrounds and everyone wants that other class, I still have to ask: why spend time - any time at all, in fact - on a feature that noone really asked for while completely neglecting something that many have asked for since the release of the game?
Now, there may be limitiations to implementing a new class - I understand that. But it was brought up to serve the point.
I mean, it really doesn't sound altogether difficult: try and figure out what players want in EQ2 and then try and do it. And I'm talking large-scale things, not UI tweaks or spelling corrections. Spend your time - all your time - DOING THOSE THINGS that the players want.
I thought that's what FanFaire was supposed to be about but based on what I heard from people who attended this year, I suggest for future FanFaires they just scrap the panels, put everything into the opening remarks and then just host a three-day open bar with EQ2-themed stuff. Seems like it would be more productive.

Cusashorn wrote:

Honestly, Devs had prior said NO to RMT also, big deal. I understand the itemization but after they changed how the stats worked, they already borked itemization as it is. If you must have evil/good then just have two different names for the class but only different pets based on race.
Hecula was only really trying to make a point, not try to start a new class debate. I never could understand all the hate over a EQlive class. Gotten into my share of arguements over them on these forums but for whatever OPness they had when they launched, They were not OP when I played them years ago and are not now.
As can be seen with all the new content, Battlegrounds, RMT, Free to play etc, etc, obviously all it takes is a Dev or two to *think differently* and waalah content they said would never happen. Even if melee based pet classes never matierialize, I'm sure plenty of other horrors to some folks will. Disabled Qeynos and Freeport as starting cities ring a bell Cusa????? No reason to deficate on anothers wants. May soon be your wants that get told NO! or TOO BAD! As has already happened.

Hecula wrote:

Once again though saying adding flying mounts is nothing, and then railling against them "not giving us what the players want" is really talking out of both sides of your mouth, because... PLAYERS DO WANT FLYING MOUNTS. It is just that YOU don't want them, or probly more correctly you don't care about them one way or the other, but feel that there addtion robed you of something you want.
Guess what since the vaste majority of players on most "Player Want" items are fence sitters who don't care ether way, UNLESS, they think thier pet addtion was short changed because of it. Most of the "player want" items are going to have opposition when they finally are released, and yes Battlegrounds(aka an improved arena) and Flying mounts where both on the player want list. However, they also where among the few things on that list that DIDN'T have much if any pre-launch opposition. Unlike say adding new classes.

Grimknight@Kithicor wrote:

Hecula wrote:

Odd, I was accually AT Fan Faire, and in every panel on EQ2 I attended I heard ALOT of joyous outbursts about features, INCLUDING FLYING MOUNTS, that they anounced. I also saw them listening intently to what people wanted, BTW Battlegrounds was one of them a few Fan Faires ago. Most of the things people asked about or for they seemed like they thought where good ideas that they would look into adding. In fact it was only when people asked questions most knew the second the question was asked that a no was comming, that they got a true no. There was a few times that people asked questions that even accually started a debate among the devs on the panel as to wich way to go. So yes, the devs DO listen at Fan Faire, and maybe if you accually went instead of baising your assumtions on second or third hand information you would see that too. Heck, I have seen every year a ton of stuff added/changed that was brought to the devs attention at Fan Faire.

I was at Fan Faire this year too and have already seen changes attendees asked for added to the game. The Devs were very responsive to player requests.

LOL, except for the rickrolled class. They can't even balance the classes they have anyway. They'd just mess it up.

Howver, I don't buy into there *needing* to be 2 version of the same base class. Just because they did it in the past doesn't mean should *have* to do it in the future, hypothetically. The game has evolved so far beyond its original concepts that its really not constrained by legacy features and constraints very much anymore. See flying mounts as an example.

Meaghan@Lucan DLere wrote:

True. Besides like the above poster mentioned a couple posts up, SOE coporate types always leave a caveat. When all classes are perfectly balanced. It only takes one Dev to decide they are good enough to add a class. So yes, there are caveats.

Grimknight@Kithicor wrote:

And being "Pefectly balanced between all 24 classes between all archetypes in both PVE *AND* PVP" will be the only condition where they will add a new class.

kela wrote:

Were the joyous outbursts you're referring to the boos when they announced EQ2X?
I think you're in the minority here about those panels producing any good information for the players on features or direction. I read the synopsis of most of them and, as has been already stated, the responses were mostly canned, evasive and non-commital. I've heard the same from many people who attended - people who I trust and not fanbois.

kela wrote:
Who says instead? As it sits right now it was just the ONE FEATURE they accually fully anounced, EVERYTHING else about the expainsion they are holding back. You do realise that at this point befor EoF the ONLY thing anounced was the Fae, and it was just really a bad screen cap of a very early alpha model. No information about the rest of EoF was given. They DON'T anouce all the features of the game 6 months out NO ONE DOES. The most cool stuff really doesn't get anounced, like what zones you will see, etc until the game is about a month or less from release.
---
Where have you been the past 2 expansions..?