----- Original Message -----
From: kale eusi <kaleusi@...>
To: <EverQuest@onelist.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: [EverQuest] Fed up with EQ - any ideas?? - Rant

You definitely make some valid points. I find the "secret nerfing" to be
very frustrating. I do think, though that perhaps some of what may appear to
"nerfing" may be the introduction of new bugs as they attempt to fix old
one.

I hate to take some issue with your comments - particularly your assertion
(in your second post) that "and Verant chooses to
ignore those suggestions even though they're easily implementable"

First of all - your are 1 of 125,000 customers. To be surprised that Verant
seems to ignore your suggestion is, to say the least, naive. How much time
do they have to respond to suggestion vs. implementing their own? Also -
your suggestions may be in direct contraction to what others are suggesting.
So it's not really fair to say you're being ignored...

Also - it's impossible for anyone who doesn't have access to the EQ source
code and database definition to know how easy to implement any change is.
Very often what seems (even to the programmer!) to be an easy change can
cause major problems with the code.

> 1.) To spur a "player run" economy, add in item durability on armor,
weapons
> and such. The appropriate trade skill could repair the items durability -
IE
> smithing for armor and weapons, tailoring for clothing and tailor made
> items, bowyer/fletching to fix bows etc etc. If the player made repairs in
a
> shop with all the "tools" needed are assume to be handy, then there'd be
no
> reduction in the items durability. If it was done "out in the field", IE
not
> in a shop with the proper tools, then there'd be a permanent reduction in
> the max durability of the item. Also, have NPC's that you could go to who
> could also make these repairs (of course the NPC would charge more). If
the
> items durability hits zero, then there'd be a chance of it breaking every
> time it was used. If the item breaks, it would be permanently and totally
> useless.
>

I don't see how you can imagine this would be easy to implement. Verant
recently admitted that they had to dramatically change the way corpses decay
because the number of items in the item database was overwhelming. To
implement this - they would have to make an enormous change to each and
every item in the database and all the code necessary to support it. I
doubt that this could be added even in an expansion pack but only when "EQ2"
comes out.

On the other hand - I agree that it's a great suggestion...

> 2.) Have additional modes of transportation in the future add on - IE
> Horses, Flying Mounts etc. as an alternative to JBoots. The graphics are
> already in the game for them both. It would take some minor adjustments to
> add them in, and make them fully functional.
>

I vaguely recall Verant talking about this - and that they had problems.
But assuming I'm wrong - I doubt it's a "minor" adjustment to graphically
represent this. However - it would be nice thing to have - even if they
"kludged" the graphics. Probably easily done in the expansion at worst
case.

> 3.) Have NPC's in key locations that you could pay to bind you to an area.
> Would have fixed the need to remove the Ring of the Dead (which should
have
> worked before they put it on the live servers). Instead, they removed the
> ring (another band aid patch).
>

This is is a popular request - but Verant HAS addressed this issue. They
said it would negatively affect dynamics of having the players bind. Player
economy blah-blah-blah.. Most people disagree with them... Remember the
designers have very strong opinions regarding the philoposphy of design.
It's their party - they can cry if they want to...

> 4.) Have rubi as a lore, no drop quest loot for a long, involved and hard
> quest. Would have fixed the need to remove it to decrease camping/farming
of
> the armor. Instead, they removed it.
>

They did exactly that - but felt the need to make specific armor types per
class to continue to balance the classes the way they saw fit. I'm a bard
and they have Lambient Armor (stupid name) - not sure if they have
implemented all class' armors - perhaps that's the problem.

In summary - it seems to me you have some strong opinions regarding the way
the game should be implemented vs. Verant's - I'm not surprised you are
losing interest in the game. Unfortunately - I think you'll find that it's
the best the market has yet to offer. To add insult to injury - one of the
key players - Sierra - has reorganized - and put their "Middle Earth"
project on ice. They claim it's just on hold - not cancelled - but I'm
skeptical. The project that would most interest you would be "Neverwinter".
It's based on the Baldur's Gate Engine - and will allow players to set up
their own servers - tweaking the rules as they see fit...

Good luck to you!

Slyde of Xegony