1st off Please feel free to add to this post on things that you would like to see changed.

What I would like to see changed are.

1). Be able to get a drop down window on an adventure and pick exactly what type of adventure that you want. The 30 sec timmer thing sucks.

2). In the LFG Window, you should be able to highlight up to a certain amount of players (say 5 or 6?) and give a mass tell. The reason I say this is when you are asking people to join your group, you usually have to give multiple people tells. This will make it easier and quicker for the player.

3). Some type of duck commant while on a horse. Maybe Kneel?

4). Make more spell/song slots available. Give it pages, the 1st page is 10 spells/songs the 2nd page has the same.


Gnore 65 Bard

More spell slots and a quick weapon change button, like that of Diablo 2 or NWN.

More spell slots would be unbalancing.

I'd like to see a nuclear bomb hit SoE headquarters and the home of every designer who has ever been involved with the massive degrading of this once amazing game. Until that day though, the best thing that can be, and should be, done is not feeding this incompetant company that 13 bucks a month + expansions for their piss-poor lack of.... anything for its customers. I promise you that will change tons of things in half a second.

If people pay for it its because they like playing the game. If you dont like it you aint forced to pay for it anymore.

Impresario Almadar Tegleftyln
Retired

I pay my $13 a month because, since its release I've enjoyed the game. If you don't like it, stop playing. However, you've decided its much better to post on the community message boards for a community that enjoys and actively participates in that game ... and thus make yourself out to look like a total ass that no one would listen to anyway. If the game bothers you so much, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and leave ... and leave the various message boards that are related to it.

Now, on to the original topic: More than 8 song gems would be unbalancing, and would shrink the gap between the unskilled and skilled players. There isn't a lot of skill involved in playing EQ (as compared to Warcraft or Counter-Strike) but those few decisions as to what spells / songs to have memorized and to use (based on location you are hunting, type of group, etc.) just like as you should appreciate the bard epic has greatly reduced the skill required in playing a bard ... instrument twisting is almost non-existant anymore.

The pulldown menu relates to the above a bit too, as the designers expected people to be given a random adventure and accept it / complete it. Not, "hrm I don't like that so much lets do another" while the poor little gnome you were asked to rescue rots away in the dungeon. Its more about versatility, can your group conquer any task they are set upon. Sadly, however, all of the adventure types are very, very similar ... you need to kill 70 mobs, then do something, then zone out.

The multiple tells is a great idea.

Overhaul or just basically replace the outdated graphics engine which, from my understanding, is the cause for much of the lag and limitations SOE can do with EQ at times and its expansions. Heard possible they are considering doing just that ... (keeping fingers crossed)

God Mode.

Mykael i agree with graphic engine overhaul. I read somewhere that if they can replace it would actually use less resources cause the old engine cant use some of the improved compression out there in the world.

New engine, specially the one they were planning on using which uses no zone time, less than half the reqs etc is something I definetly look forward to.

I would really like something where I can see who is lfa/g in my guild.. lots don't put up lfg because they don't want pu groups, and I hate spamming /gu with /who all lfa/g

Or even better have a flagging filter thing in there so I can filter by elem planes access..

I would like to see assassinate work on mobs greater then 46.

Built-in weaponswitch and Spellcasting Mastery available to hybrids.

New engine for sure. On the fastest of systems, EQ still runs like crap.

holy shit thiose first 3 are genious, and haha deecee.
hmm lessee.

BETTER SLOW FOR SHAMANS.

Beastlord slow : 65%, no repop time, 1.8sec cast time, 70 mana cost.

Shaman slow : 75%, 4sec repop time, 3sec cast, 250 mana cost.

I'm not suggesting up the %, just make it more practical, its far too slow. Bring it in line with beastlords in terms of practicality, because its similar to an imaginary wizard hybrid with a nuke with half the cast time and mana cost for only 500 less damage.

Because really, all shamans do is slow, heal, and limited dps.
Beastlords slow more efficiently, have near the top dps in the game, good pet and pet spells, and one of the 3 classes who can buff mana regen on others, not to mention discs, fero.

Fuck me! beastlords are overpowered, thats all. (gogo hijack)

lucy.allakhazam.com/spell...ource=Live (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=3462&source=Live)

Level 65! .5 seconds MORE base casting time, but a better refresh time. All hybrids get an innate detrimental spell haste. A shaman could actually cast faster with the right focus items/spells. Mana 150.

lucy.allakhazam.com/spell...ource=Live (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=1588&source=Live)

Level 51! Recast time of 6 compared to the beastlord 5. Well, you get it 14 levels sooner, and it still slows more. Mana 250.

lucy.allakhazam.com/spell...ource=Live (http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=2634&source=Live)

This is the level 50 beastlord slow, perhaps a fairer comparison. Slows only 30%.




-Z

well then a beastlord friend of mine misled me, although i still think shamans should get a level 65 version of slow, to provide seperation between the levels. Slowing is a shamans main job, much as a wizard's is nuking, to me it is much like if a wizard's most powerful nuke was Ice comet. It also doesnt change my view that beastlords are overpowered.

Soz for the misinformation !

regards.

God Mode. U,U,D,D,L,R,L,R,B,A,B,A,Select,Start!

of course you would know the cheat Prez

I'd like to see a nuclear bomb hit SoE headquarters and the home of every designer who has ever been involved with the massive degrading of this once amazing game. Until that day though, the best thing that can be, and should be, done is not feeding this incompetant company that 13 bucks a month + expansions for their piss-poor lack of.... anything for its customers. I promise you that will change tons of things in half a second.

I find it funny that people talk like this but still play the game like a crack addict.

Spellcasting Mastery available to hybrids.


/snicker

Ya, ok.

Go dump 12 aa's into it and let then us know how many more specialization checks you are making...

I'd just want a dev team that really plays the game they work on...

SCM3 is a god send, 3rd best AA I ever got next to canni v and lr5

Cristo, stick to flaming stuff that you might have a clue about, however limited that may be.

I used to be able to heal on par with any druid or shaman (better for the most part) until Luclin came out. Then SCM created a pretty big disparity, and the new heals (massive quickheals, partial CH) pretty much ended that parity. Naturally, the mobs hit harder too. As a result, I can't really play healer for anything other than a normal adventure anymore - even then, only with a slower and a solid tank.

Obviously, I can't expect to get heals comparable to the ones priests have, but SCM is a fairly reasonable thing to ask for.

first AA i ever got (after run3 and regen)

It seems to me that Blizzard is addressing one very BIG issue that a lot of players of EQ have a beef with. This is of course the ability to Solo!

Sure, being a bard I can solo, but can a Warrior do the same? Or a Rogue? I'm sure there are people out there who are very creative, but for the most part this is where things become unfair.

Blizzard has pretty much stated that, you wanna solo, stay above ground. Want groups? Hit the dungeons. They are trying to have this work for ALL classes.

Now I understand that the game isn't even out yet, so I'm going on what they have released and what those lucky few that have actually played the work in progress have said. However, it's a hell of a lot better than Sony's response to this issue, namely " This is an MMORPG. If you don't like grouping, there are other games that you can play". I mean, how conceted can Sony be? This makes me wish.........no PRAY that Blizzard beats them at their own game and publishes a better product.

Sure it's delayed (not unlike other Blizzard products) but that is usually followed by a very solid game. And if things work out, then I just might take Sony's advice and go play another game, taking my money with me at that.

I want a red warder... with bigger fangs... and a pony

And if things work out, then I just might take Sony's advice and go play another game, taking my money with me at that.

Hurray! I can't wait, im get sick of eq myself.

Will, hybrids don't get specialization, so SCM is halfway useless for a hybrid. You'd still get the increased chance for mana redux and less fizzles, but Crist0 is technically correct.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to see a nuclear bomb hit SoE headquarters and the home of every designer who has ever been involved with the massive degrading of this once amazing game. Until that day though, the best thing that can be, and should be, done is not feeding this incompetant company that 13 bucks a month + expansions for their piss-poor lack of.... anything for its customers. I promise you that will change tons of things in half a second.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I find it funny that people talk like this but still play the game like a crack addict.

I haven't found anything to replace it yet that keeps me involved this much. I did get a new LibTech yesterday though, but ice and skateboarding breaks things on ya. so, back to eq and continued disgruntlement

I haven't found anything to replace it yet that keeps me involved this much. I did get a new LibTech yesterday though, but ice and skateboarding breaks things on ya. so, back to eq and continued disgruntlement

If I didn't enjoy most of my time in eq, I would definetly not be playing. Stop playing just do it.

Spell Casting Mastery is unrelated to specialization, despite the in-game description. There's nothing random about it; it's a fixed percentage off of the mana cost of all spells (10% at SCM3 if I remember right).

I disagree Palarran, sometimes spells cast at full mana cost, and sometimes they cut almost a third off, this is most noticeable when casting a huge mana cost spell, like MGB fo7, half the time it takes 68% of my mana, the other half it takes 50 something. That could be a specialisation check i guess, but it happens so often it must increase it. Besides, MGB Fo7 costs 3600 mana, from my 4800 manapool, so 75%, my manapres 4 (which i switch out to do this) takes off 10% of 75%, 7.5%, = 67.5%, if there were another 10% manapres (based on your description of SCM) it would take at most 60% every time, which it doesnt.

Hmm, aren't some mana pres focii variable?

Cristo, stick to flaming stuff that you might have a clue about, however limited that may be.


Evidently it is far less limited than the things you have a clue on..


Obviously, I can't expect to get heals comparable to the ones priests have, but SCM is a fairly reasonable thing to ask for.


..since(as it has already been pointed out) scm would do dick for hybrids, not having specialization for it to up the check success rate on and all.

Don't worry, you can carry on and act like I was wrong after the facts back up precisely what I said again...you do it so well after all.

scm doesn't require you to have specialization, it just checks which one your higher in, you could have it preset for hybrids

so technically they could have scm for hybrids, just not the one (the good one) us casters get

Considering the description for scm is that it increases the chance of making your specialization checks..I would say actually having specialization in the first place is pretty much required....

all it needs to know is which one is prefered

Not really. You put points into all 4(you can't go past 50 if you don't), which is why scm saves mana on everything..in fact most of the parsings/general wisdom I am aware of showed no improvement on mana savings(pre aa mind you) after reaching 50 skill. So really it was already saving mana across the board.

Even what you are trying to say does nothing to change the fact that you need to have specialization in order to take advantage of the specialization aa. In order for them to take advantage of it they would have to get specialization to begin with, there isn't any getting around that.

If I remember correctly:
[Specialization skill]
Skill 50: ~3% fixed mana savings (maybe 2.5%?)
Skill 200: ~11% fixed mana savings (maybe 10%?)

[Spell Casting Mastery]
SCM 1: 2% fixed mana savings
SCM 2: 5% fixed mana savings
SCM 3: 10% fixed mana savings

[Focus effect]
Random savings between 1% and the maximum for the focus effect.

The three categories are completely independent of each other, and add together to get the combined mana savings. SCM is always 2%, 5%, or 10% regardless of specialization skill.

Here we are...from Graffe:
www.graffe.com/library.php?id=3 (http://www.graffe.com/library.php?id=3)

SCM - Spell Casting Mastery (costs 2, 4 and 6 points - 12 total)
SCM will give you a FLAT mana reduction on EVERY spell cast.
SCM1 will save you 2% of the mana cost on each spell you cast.
SCM2 will save you 5% of the mana cost on each spell you cast.
SCM3 will save you 10% of the mana cost on each spell you cast.

Sony's description of SCM says it gives you an increased chance of specialization activating on each spell cast (i.e. you will get variable mana cost depending on whether a specialization roll is successful) - extensive player testing (http://pub140.ezboard.com/fgraffeswizardcompilationfrm28.showMessage?topicID =23.topic) says this is incorrect. For the actual operation of SCM, please see the first line under the "SCM" heading. Also, SCM savings are in addition to any mana savings derived from Specialization. Specialization at 200 (in Evocation, for us) gives 10% mana savings (on Evocation spells) and 50 specialization (in everything else) gives 2.5% mana savings (on everything else). Specialization is also a flat mana reduction on every spell cast.

First off, 10 tests isn't extensive testing..as for the rest, I believe soe has it right and you just aren't looking at what they say the right way...and looking at their "testing" I don't think they are drawing the correct conclusions at all, especially given their small sampling.

SCM increases the rate of successes by a set percent. It is a fixed bonus, however it doesn't give you a fixed rate of mana savings because it is applied to specialization. Since specialization is not a fixed mana reduction(it is a random check that averages out..otherwise when you tried to test it you would be able to cast the same exact amount every time, and that doesn't happen - just look at that thread to see it) what you really end up with is a set increase in your average mana reduction, which is not the same as a set rate.

None of which changes the fact that you need specialization for scm to take effect.

"Extensive testing" includes the tests done by the other posters, not just the person who started the thread. It is supported by further testing on other message boards, and agrees with the fact that I see very little variation in mana usage when I cast spells, particularly when I cast spells that are unaffected by focus effects.

I believe people using showeq were able to show conclusively that this is how it works, since they used to be able to see absolute mana amounts instead of percentages. I don't remember where the test results were posted though.

I'd like to see a big old loot all button on your corpses. Would make zerging soo much easier :rollin

I would like to see vendor purchasing and selling all droppable items. Meaning that if you want to sell a Fungi Tunic to the vendor you can get 45kpp selling to them. Also, vendors can sell these items back at a 10% markup from what they purchase the items for. By the way, 10% markup is a pretty good markup.

The vendor can only sell items that he has purchased from a player.

Comments please

I have more thoughts on it, but didn't want to get into every detail that I thought of on it.

Instead of that, perhaps, on bazaar trader while you're afk you could set items that you want to buy, and for how much you want to buy them, have cash on you, and people put em in a trade screen, it recognises the item as one youre buying, puts that much plat in the trade screen and clicks trade ~ and it only reveals the stuff you can afford, to other players.

that would be the easiest, no risk plat making scheme in game.and you could probably have a thrid party program cross check the WTB and the WTS lists. all you'd have to do is walk from one trader to another,unless those programs can handle that too.

i just want thunder of karana fixed, it's been a placeholder spell ever since velious came out.

such macros do already exist .... macroquest II made it possible

Your "linked tests" are all broken on that thread, and using parsed information sent client side as your only proof about your theories is iffy(as was even stated on your thread. It will mess you up like it did in this case where people start going off about flat rates.


grees with the fact that I see very little variation in mana usage when I cast spells


And that variation is exactly what disproves the theory. If it were a flat rate of mana reduction there would be no variation at all. There is, which means it isn't a flat rate.

Theory disproved.

Wrong. The variation comes from having inexact numbers, the percentage (since I don't use any sort of packet sniffing program). For example, suppose I had a mana pool of 1000. Assuming percentages are truncated (if rounded, subtract 5 from all mana ranges), 80% could represent anywhere from 800 to 809 mana.

Now, suppose I cast a spell and it costs 105 mana.
If I had 800 mana to start (80%), I'd have 695 mana afterwards, which would be displayed as 69%. If I had 809 mana to start (also 80%), I'd have 704 mana afterwards, which would be displayed as 70%. This is the extent of the variation that I see when focus effects are not being used. It reflects rounding rather than an actual difference in mana usage.

You don't like those tests? Fine. I cast Karana's Renewal (base mana cost 600) 20 times, always starting from 100% mana, with a few extra manastone clicks to guarantee that I started at full mana, not just at an amount reported as 100%. EVERY SINGLE TIME Karana's Renewal took me to 90%, and the next tick immediately put me at 91%. (I have FT13 and MC3 for a combined standing mana regen of 17-19/tick, given a base standing mana regen of somewhere between 1 and 3 at level 65.) So the variation in mana cost on Karana's Renewal is at most 17-19 mana out of 600. Specialize Alteration is 200 and I have SCM3. According to Magelo I have a mana pool of 5104. The actual mana cost is 9% of my mana pool plus 0 to 19 mana. 9% of 5104 is 459.36. The mana cost for each cast, then, is between 459 and 479. 459 is 76.5% of 600 and 479 is 79.8% of 600. The predicted mana savings is 11% (specialization 200) + 10% (SCM3) = 21%, for an actual spell cost of 79%. 79% is in the 76.5%-79.8% range.

Not conclusive proof but strong evidence. What evidence is there to support a varying rate of mana savings?

So the variation in mana cost on Karana's Renewal is at most 17-19 mana out of 600.


Yet there is room for variation, which is why your "test" isn't accurate at all.


It reflects rounding rather than an actual difference in mana usage.


Bullshit. I will say it again, if it was a flat rate you could cast exactly the same amount of spells every time - you don't, so it isn't. It's completely illogical to suggest otherwise.

Let's refer to your "extensive testing" thread. In just ten tests he had 3 different results in the amount of spells he was able to cast. That is variation.

VARIATION != FLAT RATE.

So, instead of accepting that there is a margin of error in measurements (reading the percentage of the mana bar), you choose to believe that specialization randomly gives you up to 3% more mana savings some of the time?

I don't know what to tell you then. I suppose I could repeat my test after removing FT gear, but you could still claim a variation of up to 5 mana, less than 1%, due to base standing mana regen with MC3 possibly being up to 6 mana/tick at 65.

Margin of error in testing? Give me a break, this is cut and dry..if you could cast the exact amount of spells with every mana bar it would be a flat rate. If it were a flat rate there wouldn't be any variation at all. None. Zilch. Same exact number of spells every time.

Instead it is a random effect that averages out to a certain percent. I realize you may have a problem understanding the difference between something that is essentially random but averages out to a certain percent and a flat percentage rate reduction, but that is your problem(and your theory's), not mine.

That's the point, you can have a mana cost that is exactly the same every time and still have the mana bar report a difference of up to 1% of the mana pool. This is because a percentage of max mana is NOT an exact amount of mana; it's subject to rounding, and introduces a small amount of error into the measurement.

Suppose you had 0 hp out of a maximum of 1 million hp, and no hp regen. You cast a heal for 1 hp one million times to get back to full health. Most of the time those 1hp heals aren't going to show up on the health percentage, right? The health bar will show 0% at 1 hp, 2 hp, 3 hp, etc. But, over those 1 million casts, 100 of those times the health bar will jump up by a whole 1%. So, even though you're actually healing for the exact same 1hp per cast, you'll appear to be healed for either 0% (0 hp) or 1% (10,000 hp).

With a mana bar, this inexact percentage is all we have. We don't get the absolute numbers like we do for hp without using software that violates the EULA. Therefore any measurement of mana will be subject to some amount of error. I showed that _if_ there were any variation in mana cost, it would be extremely small, within the margin of error for that measurement (which I probably should have minimized by removing FT gear, and possibly by casting a spell with a higher base mana cost).

Understand now?

Again, even if it goes off of rounded percentages it would round the same every time, meaning you would always get the same number of spells every manabar.

Looking at your manabar and making assumptions because of the percentage you use to cast one spell is hardly a basis for any speculation on the matter.

Neither is some watery tart lobbing a scimitar at you!

the only problem with the vendor theory is programming in a fail safe for what it would accept as 'fair pricing' on the item he is buying.

The prices on items have been fluxuating so much, that while you could easily take the afore mentioned fungi tunic and sell it to him for 45k, why cant you take a single bone chip and sell it for the same price?

granted with bazaar Im sure no one would fall for that, but unless the vendor is either run by a team of people (like mayong mistmoore) who are constantly watching bazaar prices then the already terrible market would become even worse because level 1s would be selling the loot they pick up from the newbie zones that normally would sell for 1 copper to a regular vendor and selling it for millions and millions of plat to what your proposing.

Heh...shit...I must have been on another page when I hit reply =D