Award for Killing Fun Goes to: Whoever Nerfed Troops

[DeletedUser2753]

Mine personally? That petered out back in the day when you learned to code programs using an Atari.

However I do have two cousins that do it professionally and learned the hard way to not ask too many questions of what they do as the answers get long winded.

Thanks for being honest, at least. You don't know what your taking about.

 

[Buttrflwr]

Nope. And certainly not before they willingly took people's money.

If the game wasn't ready it shouldn't have been released. Or call it all beta. Be honest. You don't have a game yet, you have a game you are trying to create. Then people won't be conned into thinking they are paying for something that is stable.

You will see. EVERY change is ONLY about new players. Never about existing players. Don't worry, you'll get orc dunged on too. Just wait.

It is sold a ready for primetime live game. It is not sold as a beta game. Yet, the only difference between the beta version and here are 2 weeks.

Exactly. I didn't sign up for Beta, I have no patience for Beta games...been there, done that, got the T shirt. When I PAY to play a game, which I have for this one, I don't expect MAJOR OVERHAUL CHANGES to be made shortly after I have sunk money into it.


Finally, even if all of what you said was accurate and Inno had informed people of the future changes of this game, none of that changes the fact that they are chasing away tons of players with these changes. Many people actually enjoying PLAYING video games. Not waiting until the planets line up exactly so they can maybe engage in a fight. That is bad game design. You have been here a few weeks. Tell me how excited you are in 6 months, in 2 years. Tell me, when your game has completely stalled and you have zero to do, tell me then how much you agree that your progress should be slowed.

I absolutely hate watching paint dry.

My concern is over the fact that they released the update without having the full upgrade to roll out. It caused great disruption in the game, has harmed many fellowships, and players have left the game because of it. They could have waited until it was complete. They could have waited for the whole thing to be tested on beta, so even if it came here in pieces, anyone could see how all the pieces are supposed to work together.

Exactly, that is what Beta is for.

My concern is the way they suddenly, out of the blue, started saying that all the people who have been playing this game since day one are "too far ahead".

My concern is that they are saying that many players are "too far ahead" and there is a tiny window of where they are "supposed to be". That limits the game. You will not be able to fight and win in many situations. I think that is a bad thing.

I think it is bad to run off players and make them extremely angry. I think that is poor customer service. This could have been handled differently. It didn't have to be so bad.

If they knew this was coming, why did they let us, the new players, get so far ahead by playing the game the way they allowed? We were allowed to get used to one style of playing, only to have it jerked out from under us. Again, I didn't sign up for Beta testing, or I would never have sunk money into the game so quickly.

I'm sorry, but I must interject here. This is getting old, tired and redundant, Lionsmane. I am scouring in on these forums since I can't play the game much anymore, for some semblance of hope that I can find to move forward in this once great game! You continue to generalize and lump all of us together in this category and it just isn't true in many cases. These changes are effecting new players, not just older players...so to say we are being chased away from the game by anything Bobbykitty says is just ridiculous. I'm being forced away because I can't move forward! Many of us have not scouted ahead and are not able to open a new chapter because we don't have enough resources to negotiate and are unable to win a battle. I have been stuck two providences behind for a week now!

Same here. Time I used to spend in the game, fighting, scouting, etc. I now spend here, trying to find some semblance of sanity in this crazy update. I haven't been able to "win" an encounter since said update.

So where is the sweet spot for Elvenar? The developers have now started building various fences so that folks can't wander too far afield, because the developers want the challenges and puzzles to remain interesting and engaging.

They should not have allowed new players to spend cash on the game until AFTER said fences were put up.

What does this mean? Elvenar is a loser, not growing, but shrinking and the revenue is not growing as well, so ask yourself. What would you do next as the Program Manager with this team? What will turn this around?

Maybe try LISTENING to the player base that is still here?

 

[DeletedUser4417]

Thanks for being honest, at least. You don't know what your taking about.

Really? Ok then let's flip the question. What is YOUR experience with coding?

 

[DeletedUser2963]

I do not envy anyone the challenge of going through 1 or more guest races with only the tech expansion increases. The pain of downsizing and/or missing out on certain things will be difficult.

Confused! Are you including required province expansions in the above comment, or just looking at tech expansions? Honest question, not trying to be a jerk.

 

[DeletedUser2753]

What is YOUR experience with coding?

1984 - 2007 20+ years, writing code , a Software Developer and later Project Manager, Consultant and Systems Architect with a Fortune 100 company. Then 5 years doing 3d animation and CGI, plus part time Adj., and Assist. Professor, all during or after 30 years as a practicing licensed Architect in NYS. Now retired

 

[Mykan]

Confused! Are you including required province expansions in the above comment, or just looking at tech expansions? Honest question, not trying to be a jerk.

No worries.

This was in reference to the people past the "line", for them they cannot gain province expansions until their tech aligns with their expansions. As such excluding diamonds the only option for more room to them is the expansions from technology. Yes they can negotiate but I was excluding this as we have no idea of knowing how long that avenue will be available and when it closes they will still have to go through the same process.

I hope that helps clarify the comment.

 

[DeletedUser2963]

Gotcha, thx

 

[Maz Mellor]

1984 - 2007 20+ years, writing code , a Software Developer and later Project Manager, Consultant and Systems Architect with a Fortune 100 company. Then 5 years doing 3d animation and CGI, plus part time Adj., and Assist. Professor, all during or after 30 years as a practicing licensed Architect in NYS. Now retired

Gotta admit, I was hoping he'd ask.

 

[DeletedUser4417]

1984 - 2007 20+ years, writing code , a Software Developer and later Project Manager, Consultant and Systems Architect with a Fortune 100 company. Then 5 years doing 3d animation and CGI, plus part time Adj., and Assist. Professor, all during or after 30 years as a practicing licensed Architect in NYS. Now retired

And yet NONE of that experience is with what we deal with here... online gaming and what you have drops off in 2007 so you will pardon me if your experience in coding, while impressive, is not the same as dealing with online live applications.

 

[DeletedUser4672]

Did I at ANY point say that over-scouting/Over-conquering was the 'only possible cause?' No. Point of fact I have not said that. That is however your false perception. Once again, I DID address the issue so your claim of 'refuting three times' falls flat as there is nothing to support it. I asked questions of the players and based on THEIR ANSWERS and what is known of the game mechanics, gave the answer. They did not like that answer and you either did not read it or did not understand what was written. There is no ad hominem. It's simple failure.

no, you did not at any point say that. however, it was the ONLY cause you presented- on multiple occasions. this is not my "false perception" - this is a fact.

you first did so in post 28:

When a person does NOT over-scout and over conquer then yes the battles are as they should be. Again it goes to tactics and figuring out the battle system.

while this does not specifically state the exact words "this is the only possible cause" or the like, it is at the very least directly implied. your statement pretty much states that this most definitely is the cause of it.

for a comparative analogy- "when a person does NOT enter a lake then a person does not get wet." ie- entering a lake is the cause of getting wet/over-conquering is the cause of combat difficulties.

your statement indirectly implies that only other possibilities (other than having over-scouted and over conquered) are that tactics are lacking or that the battle system is not understood by the player.

you mention it again in post 33:

When others complain about not winning battles I pointed out why, in that they had over-conquered and should rectify that if they wished to continue fighting etc.

stating the the cause was over-conquering AND how to rectify the problem is suggested (ie "slow down on the conquering").

and again in post 33 you restate the cause:

It is both a minimum and a maximum number for OPTIMUM results. That means that as long as you stay within that # / # you will be able to battle as it should be without taking massive losses or coming to an outright stall and having to retreat to save your forces.

this explicitly states that as long as one stays within a certain range of provinces conquered that the battle will be "as it should be"- ie once again "over-conquering is the cause of the problem, don't do it and your combat will be fine."

at no point do you make any other suggestions (other than blaming the player for an inability to strategize or understand the system)

as for "nothing to support it" - i think the fact that i am not over-scouted and over-conquered and am still finding the new system to not work as effectively as something other than "nothing" - it supports my case that your presented cause is not the case. you have yet to present another possibility.

i ran into combat difficulties due to the cause you mention- when i first started playing. i realised i had to slow down and just wait for the KP to roll in in order to expand my squad size. so i did that. but it is not like the new system is put into play and suddenly i have over-conquered. as i mentioned, i am right within said range you specify.

to be specific, the issue you failed to address (or according to you 'did not have enough information') was this specific case. having not over-conquered, being within said range you specify as ideal for "battle as it should be" - it is still a pain in the arse.



there is much more to it than what you suggest. like for example, that heavy melee now has a bonus against heavy ranged, but at least for the elves, it is possible for said heavy melee to continually outrun the heavy melee due to the ability to move one extra hex per turn. sure, we could corner them, but being mostly dead by the time we can do so causes complications with that strategy. this is but one of the many problems that has been caused by the new system.

And yet NONE of that experience is with what we deal with here... online gaming and what you have drops off in 2007 so you will pardon me if your experience in coding, while impressive, is not the same as dealing with online live applications.

gotta love this, architect. you provide your credentials and this guy discredits you.

btw lionsmane, there are likely not "millions of lines of code" in elvenar.

and "lines of code" is an arbritary measurement, as they entire game could be written in one line of code. architect of desire knows what i am talking about

it's about semi-colon, not the enter key

 

[DeletedUser594]

1984 - 2007 20+ years, writing code , a Software Developer and later Project Manager, Consultant and Systems Architect with a Fortune 100 company. Then 5 years doing 3d animation and CGI, plus part time Adj., and Assist. Professor, all during or after 30 years as a practicing licensed Architect in NYS. Now retired

You may even be qualified for this job:
https://www.innogames.com/career/open-positions/#jobs:Development

 

[DeletedUser4672]

Note that in there you did not ask for/ stipulate anything BUT.. Five instances in reference to games implementing upgrades in stages. You changed the goalposts when, after replying and that was unacceptable to you, you added in the stipulation about the upgrade affecting combat. That IS changing the goalposts.

stipulation of upgrade affecting combat rescinded. i would just like you to specify what the system change was and what the stages were in everquest.

I remember the event, not the specifics of it. That was over 14 years ago and I doubt YOU remember the exact specifics that far back. It was freaking trivial. It happened, they fixed it, the game went on, life moved on. Now you are reaching in some vain attempt to support your flailing argument.

that's convenient. you remember the event well enough to mention it first on your list as an example of other games that implemented system changes in stages as you specifed, but cannot recall what these changes were. how can you be sure said changes even happened then? (they didn't btw).

if it was trivial, why do you recall it? if it was trivial it is also a poor example to bring up on this topic of the major changes to elvenar combat being done in stages is #@$%ing things up for a lot of people.

as a matter of fact, i certainly do recall every major change that far back and there were never any that occured in stages as you suggest- not a one.

i am not reaching in any vain attempt. my attempt is to point out that you are making things up and thus far you've provided nothing to suggest otherwise.

Actually it does not support your argument in the least as several things are in play that you conveniently overlook:

1) Further upgrades were not as massive
2) A change in coding platforms
3) A change in direction
4) More stable technology

which game are you talking about here? are you referring to everquest?

it appears so in the context of your replying thusly to the quote from me which was "even if there were, it would support my point- as your claim that said systems are "OFTEN implemented in stages into live games" - this would be ONE example in one game that happened 16 to 17 YEARS AGO. what does this tell us? while we cannot directly infer that such was the case, it is likely, considering that there have been no such "2 stage deployments of an upgrade" since, that verant/sony/whoeverownsitnow realised this was not a good idea- otherwise it would have happened again."

 

[DeletedUser4417]

no, you did not at any point say that. however, it was the ONLY cause you presented- on multiple occasions. this is not my "false perception" - this is a fact.

you first did so in post 28:

while this does not specifically state the exact words "this is the only possible cause" or the like, it is at the very least directly implied. your statement pretty much states that this most definitely is the cause of it.

for a comparative analogy- "when a person does NOT enter a lake then a person does not get wet." ie- entering a lake is the cause of getting wet/over-conquering is the cause of combat difficulties.

your statement indirectly implies that only other possibilities (other than having over-scouted and over conquered) are that tactics are lacking or that the battle system is not understood by the player.

you mention it again in post 33:

stating the the cause was over-conquering AND how to rectify the problem is suggested (ie "slow down on the conquering").

and again in post 33 you restate the cause:

this explicitly states that as long as one stays within a certain range of provinces conquered that the battle will be "as it should be"- ie once again "over-conquering is the cause of the problem, don't do it and your combat will be fine."

at no point do you make any other suggestions (other than blaming the player for an inability to strategize or understand the system)

as for "nothing to support it" - i think the fact that i am not over-scouted and over-conquered and am still finding the new system to not work as effectively as something other than "nothing" - it supports my case that your presented cause is not the case. you have yet to present another possibility.

i ran into combat difficulties due to the cause you mention- when i first started playing. i realised i had to slow down and just wait for the KP to roll in in order to expand my squad size. so i did that. but it is not like the new system is put into play and suddenly i have over-conquered. as i mentioned, i am right within said range you specify.

to be specific, the issue you failed to address (or according to you 'did not have enough information') was this specific case. having not over-conquered, being within said range you specify as ideal for "battle as it should be" - it is still a pain in the arse.

there is much more to it than what you suggest. like for example, that heavy melee now has a bonus against heavy ranged, but at least for the elves, it is possible for said heavy melee to continually outrun the heavy melee due to the ability to move one extra hex per turn. sure, we could corner them, but being mostly dead by the time we can do so causes complications with that strategy. this is but one of the many problems that has been caused by the new system.

I'm guessing that once again you did not pay attention. If you had you would have seen those were specific cases where people mentioned specific details. IE that they HAD over-scouted and over-conquered. I guess you further failed to read in the dialogue that players that were advanced as the ones claiming the difficulty, had no problems at all with the battles.

You picked a bad analogy for obvious reasons. Battles are not supposed to be easy affairs. This was part of the problem with the old Battle System and this was fixed with the new update(s). Battle should always be risky and relay on strength, units, positioning and tactics.

stipulation of upgrade affecting combat rescinded. i would just like you to specify what the system change was and what the stages were in everquest.

that's convenient. you remember the event well enough to mention it first on your list as an example of other games that implemented system changes in stages as you specifed, but cannot recall what these changes were. how can you be sure said changes even happened then? (they didn't btw).

It's called real life Rainboots. It's like asking a guy that was in a vehicle accident a decade and a half ago what color of hair the other driver had. You remember the accident but the not the specifics of it. Your expectations are unrealistic and I DOUBT even you could remember that far back. And yet you claim they did not happen without a shred of anything to back you up. I believe that is called when you 'pull something out of thin air.' Another of your fond phrases.

if it was trivial, why do you recall it? if it was trivial it is also a poor example to bring up on this topic of the major changes to elvenar combat being done in stages is #@$%ing things up for a lot of people.

You might want to edit that as you are breaking Elvenar's forum posting rules. I brought it up because while yes it was trivial I remember getting my first reimbursement in game from that outage and an apology message from support.

as a matter of fact, i certainly do recall every major change that far back and there were never any that occured in stages as you suggest- not a one.

Caught you in a lie Rainboots as you claimed that you did not START playing Everquest religiously until 2002. You just shot what could have remained of your credibility.

 

[DeletedUser4672]

I'm guessing that once again you did not pay attention. If you had you would have seen those were specific cases where people mentioned specific details. IE that they HAD over-scouted and over-conquered. I guess you further failed to read in the dialogue that players that were advanced as the ones claiming the difficulty, had no problems at all with the battles.

You picked a bad analogy for obvious reasons. Battles are not supposed to be easy affairs. This was part of the problem with the old Battle System and this was fixed with the new update(s). Battle should always be risky and relay on strength, units, positioning and tactics.

the fact that i was able to provide specific quotes from you from specific posts suggests to you that i was not paying attention? seriously?

i think most people would get the opposite viewpoint on that one.

so where else in this thread did you suggest what other reasons might be?

what posts in this tread are from the players that "had no problems at all with the battles?"

your post in #33 is pointedly NOT a specific case where people had mentioned specific details.

It is both a minimum and a maximum number for OPTIMUM results. That means that as long as you stay within that # / # you will be able to battle as it should be without taking massive losses or coming to an outright stall and having to retreat to save your forces.

if it was, then you are suggesting that the above statement of yours does not apply to all players. and of course, it does- as the minimum is required to enter the expansion and while there is no specified maximum, obviously if someone moves too far ahead in the provinces without the necessary number of squad upgrades, they will have difficulty.

if this was a "specific case where people mentioned specific details" than in what cases would your above advice not apply?

 

[DeletedUser43]

You may even be qualified for this job:
https://www.innogames.com/career/open-positions/#jobs:Development

Hey!! That's mean. I LIKE architect of desires.

 

[DeletedUser68]

it appears so in the context of your replying thusly to the quote from me

You picked a bad analogy for obvious reasons.

the fact that i was able to provide specific quotes from you

Could you guys please get back to posting stuff that's actually interesting. I don't really care which one of you is the wrongest.

 

[DeletedUser4672]

Caught you in a lie Rainboots as you claimed that you did not START playing Everquest religiously until 2002. You just shot what could have remained of your credibility.

what "remained of my credibility?" what world do you live in? do you think that your perceptions of me are accurate and reflect the community's opinions? it has been suggested by more than one individual in this thread alone that YOU are lacking in credibility.

you did not "catch me in a lie." you did however, fall for an intentional deception. it was bait. i play chess. i intentionally suggested a gap in my play time, figuring you'd take the opportunity to suggest that the "system change" you fabricated took place of course within that small window. one which you later claim was so far back you cannot recall (and yet you cite it as the first one in your list). NO such change took place. you took the bait.

here is what i wrote: "as a 14 year veteran everquest player, beta-tester, and volunteer guide- there has NEVER been a system change which was implemented in stages"

and

"as for EQ though, i played religiously since 2002. i began beta-testing shortly thereafter. there were NEVER any 'huge systems implemented in stages.'

i played RELIGIOUSLY since 2002. i began playing when the game was released, albeit more casually at first. i quit playing in 2013. that's 14 years. so no, i did not lie. even if i did it really does not matter, you still took the bait.

i don't think you ever even played everquest at all. and yes, "thin air" is swiftly becoming a favourite of mine as regards you and the claims you make. although "full of hot air" might be more appropriate.

what class was your main in everquest? what server did you play on? what guild were you in? what were your first weapons?

It's called real life Rainboots. It's like asking a guy that was in a vehicle accident a decade and a half ago what color of hair the other driver had. You remember the accident but the not the specifics of it. Your expectations are unrealistic and I DOUBT even you could remember that far back. And yet you claim they did not happen without a shred of anything to back you up. I believe that is called when you 'pull something out of thin air.' Another of your fond phrases.

for an auto accident i was in on dec 24, 1990- the driver of the other car had long, slightly wavy medium brown hair. the guy who caused the accident but drove away had short dark brown hair and was wearing mirrored sunglasses. the guy who witnessed the accident and ran over to it with the license plate number of the aforementioned vehicle had short curly black hair.

anywho, your first sentence is more condescension, but it is evident from most of your posts that you are a condescending individual. you near-constantly talk down to others. "it's called real life Rainboots." are you actually a grown man writing stuff like this? if you were indeed playing everquest in 1999 as you claim, you'd have to be at least close to 30 (if you were playing when you were like 10) and yet you talk to other people like this?
how you spoke to bobbykitty was even worse.

"And yet you claim they did not happen without a shred of anything to back you up."

that is YOU, sir. you have nothing to back up your claim of a system change that took place in stages on everquest in 1999/2000. you can't remember what it was, just that it happened- because, as you say- "It's called real life"

your fallacy is

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof


you made the claim that everquest (first on your list of 5) made huge system changes in multiple stages. (as you listed everquest in your first list regarding your initial claim: "Systems that are hugeare OFTEN implemented in stages into live games.")

it is your responsibility to provide evidence for said claim. it is not mine to provide evidence to the contrary as i am refuting the claim, not making it. unless you provide evidence to substantiate your claim, it is you who is lacking credibility.

i'd say "You just shot what could have remained of your credibility" but based upon what others have written of you, this apparently has already happened.

 

[DeletedUser4417]

you did not "catch me in a lie." you did however, fall for an intentional deception. it was bait. i play chess. i intentionally suggested a gap in my play time, figuring you'd take the opportunity to suggest that the "system change" you fabricated took place of course within that small window. one which you later claim was so far back you cannot recall (and yet you cite it as the first one in your list). NO such change took place. you took the bait.

How ahem, laughably convenient that you now 'claim' such. Sorry Rainboots, you lied, you got caught at it and now you backtrack with this lame excuse. Not buying what you are attempting to sell. IF you had done as you suggested, then you would have had your 'ah-ha gotcha' moment immediately after but you did not. It was only after several more posts where I caught your lie that you now.. apropo 'pull this "bait" lie out of thin air.' You got busted.

To quote a previous poster. "Some people are what the ignore button is for." You just made it to mine.

 

[DeletedUser4672]

How ahem, laughably convenient that you now 'claim' such. Sorry Rainboots, you lied, you got caught at it and now you backtrack with this lame excuse. Not buying what you are attempting to sell. IF you had done as you suggested, then you would have had your 'ah-ha gotcha' moment immediately after but you did not. It was only after several more posts where I caught your lie that you now.. apropo 'pull this "bait" lie out of thin air.' You got busted.

To quote a previous poster. "Some people are what the ignore button is for." You just made it to mine.

you certainly would like to think that- this is evident. you chose to respond as you did rather than again- present ANY evidence to support your claims about everquest.

interesting you should think this is what i do. i would bet bottom dollar this is because this would be precisely what YOU would have done- as evidence by several of your posts in this thread thus far.

i played on the torvonillous server. it is one of the oldest servers in EQ. my first character was a wizard and my first weapon was given to me by a guild member of "guardians of shadow" which was the first guild i joined. it was a "fine steel staff" and it happened in the platforms of the elven city of kelethin, during the night, i think- but it is hard to tell in that area due to the heavy tree canopy. (it is called "faydark" with good reason)

wizards have a method of combat known as "kiting" and i have been kiting you this entire engagement- stringing you along, letting the thread unravel for you to hang yourself with. which is precisely what just occurred.

i have an elephantine memory, btw if you did not notice.

think what you will- there were no such "huge system changes" made to everquest in stages in 1999-2000, or ever and if you were interestedin facts, you'd be addressing that rather than writing as you just have.

i stand by that you never played everquest as well.

 

[DeletedUser61]

If you (and ten of your friends) have ever been thrown out of a data center for doing Drum Riffs on a Chain Printer,
or some similar nonsense, then we can talk.

Otherwise, I have more relevant experience than you do. Have you EVER written anything in assembly language??