> This one choice of how to fix a problem has caused innumerable others. I'm
> not sure how it could be fixed now, or if even it could without a lot of
> pain. I sure hope it is something they realize for EQ2 however. I wonder
> how bad it would really be if they took a stab at it. Reduced the hp's of
> all the mobs to the original pre buffed numbers and fixed the dual wield
> problem. It might appear ugly at first, but I think it would put the game
> back onto the track they think it is on.
>
> Thoughts?
Very well stated. I found myself in agreement on all your points.
You just knocked down that nail with a Butcherblock Hammer.
Verant is too protective of their game. If somehow I figured
out that a certain combination of skills and spells and classes
made a dragon or a god 50% easier to conquer - the next patch
would have a 'fix' for it. Verant doesn't want you to succeed
from strategy, Abashi has made that clear. They want you to
throw players and deaths at something to accomplish your goal.
Verant in that way is like a 12 yr old GM who always wants his
way. If you overcome his trap he set for you, he throws a tantrum
and you all of a sudden randomly encounter a mob who kills you
in a few rounds. I've played with GMs like this. I've GM'd games
myself and that temptation is there. Verant feels like players
are getting the better of them, and they need to separate this
ownership and concentrate on making better more challenging areas.
I'm kinda glad the private npc hp variable is a signed 2 byte
integer. Serves them right: No monster can have more than 32768
hit points. They won't be pulling this 'just up the hp' bullsh*t
anymore. Then again, they have other ridiculous options. Like
melee in the thousands, deathtouch(sm), and other countless 12 yr
GM tactics. If they would only design their game around the
mechanical foundation they put in place, they'd be ok. Instead
what does DEX really do? What does AGI really do? My CHA doesn't
amount to much as long as it's over 100. It makes me think they
wanted to base their system around a 100 point scale for stats.
You get diminishing return after 100, but you are heavily penalized
for having stats 75 or below. I am doing twice as good with STR,
AC, and HP items.
If stats clearly made a difference... If they would solve problems
instead of patching them with quick repairs... I think we'd be
looking at an entire different (and fun) game. As a player in any
RPG, the hooks are character advancement and items/accomplishments.
Verant is intent on making these two aspects of their game harder and
harder to the point where you don't feel rewarded for the effort. Sure
the day I got my picollo and the day I got boots and helm from hate were
great, but that's not the norm. That's the RNG working for a change.
Man this post is long... /yawn ;-) I played a game last night called
Airport, Inc. Sounded fun, looked cool, Airport Simulation, kinda
neat. Fired it up, had a blast building my airport and laying it
all out. But no matter what I did I couldn't make enough money to
keep the place running. The tutorial with the game even couldn't
do it, and that's horrible when your demo can't even succeed. I
tried different things, and in the end I was spinning my wheels.
Then I played Age of Wonders, (ala Warlords). Another awesome
game on the front, but as I advanced through one of their campaigns
I noticed that I could only upkeep 3 or 4 units at each castle
until I started losing money. I am the type of person who plays
defensive on all cases, and I like strong guarded towns/castles,
but this limitation forced me to give up the game after an hour
of playing it. I just have really high expectation from games I
play. If they don't allow advancement and the feeling of
accomplishment, I tend to give them up quickly. Everquest sways
back and forth across that line. Thus so does my playtime these
days.
Harmonic.