Wizards and Ports: Will the Wizards ever regain the ability to port?

This is a reasonble concern, but I think you should consider the following.
There is a seriously dimished return to putting all of a wizards "eggs" in the damage basket. My experience has shown me that even if wizards walk around naked and permenantly snared, they would never raise wizard DPS beyond a threshold. This is because if you truely compensated wizards with DPS, it would be like double to triple what it is now. What does this mean? Well, in essence, wizards are, for lack of a better word, "hard capped" in terms of damage, by the impact that their DPS would have on balancing encounters.
So if wizards are "hard capped" at something like 50% of what they truely should have to offset their class weaknesses, then adding some non-combat abilites without nerfing their DPS would leave them at something like 60% of their deserved DPS. The goal should be to add enough "wizardly" things to get wizards to 100% of their deserved DPS without the need to reduce their current DPS. Quite frankly, I think a strong arguement can be made to fix wizard resist issues ( can you say lures?) AND add "wizardly" utility spells such as ports.

2,000,000 on my side.
250,000 on yours.
Keep digging in. Anyone with a memory knows that SOE said EQ2 was geared to small groups. They told the PvP people to "politely" piss off with that comment, but no-PvP is no-PvP. You can pretend there is PvP in the design, but your wrong. They also told the soloist/duelist to "politely" piss-off. Only the most diehard fanboy would try to deny this.
Even SOE admits now that it was wrong and is trying desperately to fix things.
Thanks for not reading my post. :smileywink:
Next fanboy in line for a smackdown please.
Message Edited by Kamujin on 07-18-2005 02:14 PM

Sorry, but you are wrong wrong wrong.

They always had solo content. And they never said NO to PVP. They said it was something they were looking into. The fact that both cities launched with areanas shows that it was in consideration as an option when the game was being developed. There is no point in putting in buildings for this, if they where never ever going to even consider PVP like your trying to imply.

Again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And like I said, I caught that scrolling by because You have to put large type in your posts because like southern people with big hair thinking it brings them closer to God, you think big type makes you more right then others.

But again, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Thanks again for not reading my post. :smileywink:
I didn't say they had NO SOLO CONTENT. I said they told the soloist to piss off. How did they do this? By making solo content TERRIBLE. They are trying to fix this now. http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/content.vm?page=TonsofContentAdded for some of the many changes they've made to try and lure back the soloist that they thought didn't matter.
PvP? No PvP at launch means ...NO....PVP.....AT......LAUNCH. So if you've wanted to play EQ2 and PvP, guess what? You can't!!! Yes, they worded their statement well enough to leave room in the future for PvP. We all know there is currently no PvP in EQ2. Putting a empty building in a city does not a pvp-game system make.
Remember WoW lauched with PvP, soloing, grouping, well developed classes, and a finished game! EQ2 had all the money and resource to do the same. They chose not to develop these areas intentionally and paid the price.
Thanks for the pleasure of correcting you again. Next time can you at least form a good arguement. This is too easy.

Message Edited by Kamujin on 07-18-2005 03:47 PM

Well, whatever. I just hate spending an entire raid stunned. Its sooooo boring.

Go read your own post. Here is what you said:

They also said no soloing and PvP.

I'm sorry, but that is pretty clear what you said. You are claiming that Sony said no solo and no PVP. But they didn't. Coming back and saying, well, they had terrible solo content doesn't change what you said. All it means is that you are now trying to spin what you said.

And no PVP at launch does not mean no PVP ever.

If WoW is so good, go play it. Oh wait, aren't you one of those people that claim you don't play WoW because the graphics aren't your taste. So your telling me that you would play such a broken horrible game, when another game in your own words is so amazingly better simply because of the graphics. If this is the case, then clearly, the only thing that really matters in the game is the graphics, and that would be EQ2 over WoW.

See, you haven't won, because you always make statements like the two above, that you then have to come back and put spin on. You claim you like this game, yet all you do is piss and moan about it, never offer contructive feedback.

So please, go play WoW, since it's such a better game over all.

I think I am definately agreeing with others here in that if you hate EQ2 so much, go play WoW then. Personally, as bad as Sony has been many times with changing things, they are definately trying at making the game better. Unlike WoW which does updates very rarely and had HUGE problems at launch, especially with the logon servers and still has almost no high-end content as well.

Context is your friend. I know your desperate to win once, but you need to be right to do that.
Here is my original statement which is correct
Some people think crab juice is a good drink too. Most people would agree that crab juice is actually not a good drink. Now, people like Steveham will say they drink crab juice better then most, or other people don't know how to drink crab juice, or that the flavor of crab juice get better if your standing or sitting. The rest of us know its still crab juice.
You can pretend that EQ2 is a well designed game that most people enjoy, but the facts don't support that arguement. EQ2 currently has roughly 250,000 subscribers. EQ1 had roughly 400,000 at its peak. WoW has 2,000,000.
EQ2 couldn't even hold on to its player base from the original game in a market that is exploding!!!
EQ2 made a bunch of bets and lost.
Bet1) Small groups were morally superior to soloers, duelist, and raiding guilds. They actually said EQ2 wasn't the game for you if your not into conventional group play.
Bet2) Homogenize all classes to eliminate "class envy" and simplify balancing. Design the game around the smallest number of abilities possible and give them different names.
Bet3) PvP was for griefers.
Bet4) Tune leveling to require roughly 150-300 kills per level, while keeping quest exp very low.
Anyhow, we went back and forth so much on your attempt to hijack this thread that I'll just let my previous posts stand on what I have claimed regarding PvP and Soloing. They are accurate when read in context of the discussion.
BTW, thanks again for not reading my post. :smileywink:

Message Edited by Kamujin on 07-19-2005 08:24 AM
Message Edited by Kamujin on 07-19-2005 08:28 AM

Kam, you have gone off the deep end.



With all the large text, colors, quotes within quotes, you are the desperate one. That post is so hard to make sense out of.



You don't even play a wizard anymore. You have nothing good to say about a game your paying for. You make statements that aren't true and then try and twist them to being true. You've always had an unhealthy obsession with me. The consent quoting "Maybe I play a better" without being able to prove that, along with the Best Wizard ever. Half your posts go on and on about that.



Look at the way you post, the quickness of your responses, the inaccuracy of your statement, the bitterness towards the game and the makers of the game. And you can't even quote the correct post I took your words from. Wrong again. Anyone this wrong so much should just go have a rest.



You got problems.



Now of course, your next post will be to say that all these is what I do.



I SOOOOO wish that the ignore all posts feature actually worked.



You are one of those people everyone else always needs to back away slowly from, and avoid eye contact.
Message Edited by Stavenham on 07-19-2005 08:51 AM

The irony.

Sigh, often when someone knows they are wrong, they change subjects.

This is true. Like when you tried to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate about soloing and pvp.

It takes a big man to admit when they are wrong. Its encouraging to see your starting to make progress.

If we aren't going to get the DPS which we deserve and are entitled to ebcause we give up so much, a port would atleast assauge my bloodlust.

Sorry, Kam, I'm not the one that brought up soloing and PVP. I responded to YOUR post about about soloing and PVP in this thread about porting. Wrong again.

To bad you can't be the man you say I am. Thanks =)

Tar, save your anger till after the revamp. I'm not saying I'm 100% right, but I do feel things will be better balanced after it goes live. If not, then post away your frustration about wizards.

Lamprey_02 wrote:
Actually, wizards should be careful what they wish for. Given ports, they'd lose their remaining claim to the #1 damage dealer spot. Currently, warlock damage is better than wizard since warlocks do nothing *but* damage, while wizards get somewhat less damage but are compensated with buffs.

Many argue that wizard buffs are bad and therefore don't warrant a damage potential reduction. With ports given to wizards, that argument becomes much tougher to make.


stavenham wrote:
"Thank you for seeing my point.

Ports take away from what we have, and offer nothing of value, except for those that played wizards in EQ1 and are being sentimental. "



still don't see y we would have to lose any thing....every game i played with ports i did not lose/get weakened because i had ports.....we would not need to lose buffs or damage or anything there are ways around that and i dont understand y every other game has them but it would be O so bad to put them in this game and how it would make everything sux and everyone write blah blah blah blah.....it is expected that a mage have ports! would not change anything and if it is money thing like i keep hearing you complain about stavenham i could complain that healer types get paid to rez or join groups to heal [i have gotten these offers with my healer and heard it from healer friends all the time] but i dont care it is not like that big of a deal really and everyone i talked to said they would be more then happy to use a wizzies port and would not complain....
Message Edited by AkashaShaw on 07-19-2005 11:22 AM

I thank God every day that I am not the man I think you are.

I mentioned these issues to support my opinion that sorcercors/conjurors should get ports. You tried to hijack this thread by taking what I said out of context. I don't expect you to uderstand this. I've come to realize that you have limitations that make this hard to understand.

Maybe you should continue to not read or respond to my posts. You've been doing an excellent job of it.
Maybe you should continue to think you "play a wizard better then most" and enjoy life as "Stavenham, The BEST wizard EVER."
I am not here to continually thrash you, but I will not allow you to shout me down. You've used your pandoring fanboy tactics to try and silence people with real concerns.
I want to discuss these issues. I want to hear what other people think. I'd like to see EQ2 hit 1 million subscribers. I don't care about your little personal fiefdom.


I don't think wizards should feel that they have to sacrifice anything to get ports. I believe wizards were "short changed" when it came to abilities. When you've been given less then you deserve, you ask for the rest. You should not feel obligated to give up something to get what you deserved in the first place.

Message Edited by Kamujin on 07-19-2005 11:31 AM
Message Edited by Kamujin on 07-19-2005 11:38 AM

Which would you rather have, more nukes and debuffs, or ports.

Each class gets roughly the same number of spells, between 54-56 I believe. This doesn't include fun spells.

So, if they suddenly gave us ports they have to give every single other class something too.

Because the number of spells each class gets is part of it's percieved value. If one class where to clearly have more spells then other class in a significate amount, then players would regard that class as having more value because of the number of spells it gets. Regardless of what those spells actually do. So if we get them added, we have to lose something to keep that balance.

Also, everyone right now has to spend the roughly the same amount of time traveling. If you don't have speed buffs, you have the option of horses. Yes, they cost money, but with work, it's easy to make enough money to buy a horse. If a few classes get the ability to port, the fact that we don't have to pay to travel would be considered unfair by every other class.

If they are given as part of an expansion, that means instead of getting nukes and usefull buffs, we get ports. I would much rather have a heat based debuff/dot or more cold based nukes then a port.

Like so many people have said, wizards are a DPS class, I don't see how porting would fit into that.

And on top of that, porting would give those classes that get the spells an oppurtunity to charge for them. Even if you personally wouldn't charge. It was a big issue in EQ1. Classes that could cast buffs or port, would stand around doing just that, and yes, getting rich. The aren't going to allow that. They have set ways for characters to make money, and this isn't one of the ways they want. And it would put a plug in one of the ways money leaves the world.

They said from the begining, porting was gone. They also said that the idea of what wizards were in EQ1 are gone too. I suggest getting used to it.

I have yet to have a healer ask for payment once. Since healers still can't rez from outside the group, and reviving will put you in the same zone, there isn't much need for people to come and rez players in zones like there was in EQ1 for money.

I diagree with the notion that ports must come at the expense of DPS. This pre-supposes the idea that wizards are correctly implimented in terms of DPS. I don't think this is the case.
Also, there are many "movement" abilities. Ports can be returned to the game without breaking it. I see potions of ALL kinds in the game.
Why not port potions? Doesn't the idea of a wizard who makes potions to port totally fit in a roleplaying sense?
Why is the idea that I can click on a bell and instantly travel around the "world" somehow acceptable, but the idea that a wizard can use magic to do the same thing is considered "over powered"?

Ports are a non-combat ability. The beauty of adding ports is that they will strengthen a class that is poorly implimented without making them too strong in combat. This allows SOE to correct the DPS/Resists issues WITHOUT worrying that ports will have an unexpected compound combat benefit.

Why shouldn't magic users have more spells? Why shouldn't fighters have more armour choices and weapons choices. This idea of the "generic combatant" with different "ability labels" is horrifying to me. Spellcasters should have the MOST spells. THEY ARE SPELLCASTERS!!! Classes should be different in more ways then just the names of their abilities and their HP/AC.

Class envy is a MUCH better problem to have then class homogeny.

This is an interesting thread.

I too miss the ports, gates and xlocs from EQ1.

However I do remember quite well the four main day to day gripes from players in EQ1.

1. Druids and Wizards complaining about getting begged for ports. (Druids complained more than the Wizards did.)
I never complained as I used it as major source of income. lol I would /occ that I was available for ports but never asked for payment or even mentioned a donation but most people would give me a tip.

2. The SoW'ing classes would gripe about getting begged for SoW all the time.

3. The Chanters, especially after KEI came on the scene would gripe about C, C2 and KEI begging.

4. Clerics griped about getting begged for Rez'es

So in EQ2 they take away these sources of complaints and still people are not happy. lol


Here are my humble thoughts on Ports in EQ2.

1. Fix the resist issues before worrying about ports.

Giving us ports and not fixing this is not an acceptable solution.

2. Fix the Warlock vs Wizard DPS issue.

Giving us ports and not fixing this is not an acceptable solution.

3. Make sure that Wizards AND Warlocks both sit at the top of the DPS pyramid since both classes give up so much to be there. Equal yet different.

Giving us ports and not fixing this is not an acceptable solution.

4. If all the above are fixed, then and only then, consider giving Wizards AND Warlocks Ports/Gates/Xlocs.
Don't give me the Wizlock crap again because that argument does not hold up.

Ok, ok, maybe the Druid folks should get them also.

Something could be done to balance between getting new utility with ports and yet not making traveling a pain to those who cannot port.

This is a tough thing to do. Some of my greatest adventures at low levels when I first started playing EQ1 was to travel from one place to another. I vividly remember when a friend dragged, my little young Wizard Alfgand, from the nice safe Qeynos local area, to half way across the world to this scary place called Oasis. Good grief, they had huge giants, crocodiles and these really horrifying spectres there !!

A trip from Qeynos to Freeport in those days was quite an adventure.

That was dwarfed when I took my first trip from Freeport to Kunark. It took two ships and boat to get there ! The farther I got from Qeynos the more worried I would be. lol

Then as I gained ports and gates as I leveled the world was not so big and not so scary. Then when the age of PoK came about, the world became a tiny place, all connected and very small.

Yes, it is easy to travel now in EQ1 but it is sad the scale of things now is so small. On the other hand waiting for boats, running your butt off was pain and a big time sink.

I never had this sense of size with EQ2. Why? No matter where I was, no matter how dangerous a place, I was and am no farther from Qeynos than a ten second second cast of Call of Qeynos. Yes, it makes it convenient but also takes something away.

I can see where this is a nightmare issue for the Dev's or MiB's as I now call them. lol Its a tough balancing act.

On a side note, can someone please, please tell me why the scout class'es have EVAC and why it makes sense?





Message Edited by Alfgand on 07-19-2005 12:30 PM

Kamujin wrote:

Why is the idea that I can click on a bell and instantly travel around the "world" somehow acceptable, but the idea that a wizard can use magic to do the same thing is considered "over powered"?

Ports are a non-combat ability. The beauty of adding ports is that they will strengthen a class that is poorly implimented without making them too strong in combat. This allows SOE to correct the DPS/Resists issues WITHOUT worrying that ports will have an unexpected compound combat benefit.


The bells don't magically teleport you. You use the bells to let the boat know you are ready to depart. You travel by ship, not by magic when you the bells. You just don't see it, because if they used a cut scene to show that, or you had to wait for the ship to come, people would be made about the time wasted doing that. Biggest complaint about boats from EQ1, the time they wasted (when you didn't just miss them).

Ports add nothing to combat. Even if they did add ports, don't you think they would make them just like the Call spells, unable to cast in combat. So they add nothing to wizards. They don't fix resists, they don't increase our DPS, they don't offer better buffs.

They offer nothing that will actually make wizards better at what they do.

Which is your biggest complaint right now, Kam, that wizards suck in DPS, utilities are a joke, and the only good thing we have is the ability to feed mana.

How in the world is adding ports going to improve any single one of those issues? Traveling by boat/bell is cheap. Yes, some people think 60 silver is alot.