Will Kunark bugs exist?

[Bushwick]

There was an interesting bug in the Field of Bone involving that yellow spider that was a slightly rare spawn in the tunnels. Instead of proccing a weak poison, the spell attached to it's attack was instead one that summoned a mid-level mage pet. For the target player.

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Bushwick [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There was an interesting bug in the Field of Bone involving that yellow spider that was a slightly rare spawn in the tunnels. Instead of proccing a weak poison, the spell attached to it's attack was instead one that summoned a mid-level mage pet. For the target player.

Eat your heart out, brazier of elemental summoning...

[Falindorf]

I personally think the OP has a valid question. While I REALLY hope these bugs are not implemented, there are other *BUGS* the devs have specifically implemented. Lets take for example the Multiquest of JBoots. Is there anyone that can honestly say that multiquesting anything was not a bug? If it was intended to work this way why even make items no drop. Items were made no drop so people would have to get them items themselves to do the quests. The MultiQuest was a bug. This one has been specifically recoded to *break* the current EMU server to allow this *bug* to exist simply because it existed in live and the devs are trying to create a replica as close as they can.

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Falindorf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lets take for example the Multiquest of JBoots. Is there anyone that can honestly say that multiquesting anything was not a bug?

Did Verant or SoE ever call it a bug, fix it, ban anyone for exploiting this "bug," or even take steps to try to prevent people from MQing generally? Not to my recollection, which could be flawed...

I'd like to see any actual evidence regarding why MQing is a bug...not just "No drop items exist, therefore MQing is a bug." That's a pretty weak argument. No drop items in general can exist for countless other reasons completely separate from MQing.

Edit: Did some quick research. SoE did nerf certain MQs (in like 2003 or thereafter apparently, and none of those were classic quests apparently), but not others. The only thing preventing the devs here from allowing MQing for all quests is the fact that they would have to re-write each quest individually.

[yaeger]

Originally Posted by Messianic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did Verant or SoE ever call it a bug, fix it, ban anyone for exploiting this "bug," or even take steps to try to prevent people from MQing generally? Not to my recollection, which could be flawed...

I'd like to see any actual evidence regarding why MQing is a bug...not just "No drop items exist, therefore MQing is a bug." That's a pretty weak argument. No drop items in general can exist for countless other reasons completely separate from MQing.

Edit: Did some quick research. SoE did nerf certain MQs (in like 2003 or thereafter apparently, and none of those were classic quests apparently), but not others. The only thing preventing the devs here from allowing MQing for all quests is the fact that they would have to re-write each quest individually.

Good thing about MQs: Allows you to barter for things you couldn't normally obtain for whatever reason to complete quests.

Bad thing about MQs: Allows you to complete quests you have no right in completing (Twinking probably being the big decider).

[Falindorf]

Originally Posted by Messianic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"No drop items exist, therefore MQing is a bug." That's a pretty weak argument. No drop items in general can exist for countless other reasons completely separate from MQing.

Please enlighten me on why developers would specificly create quest components (specifically items that can not be used for anything other than a specific quest say the cleric ingots for the Sol Ro Armor) as no drop items and then code ways around the no drop portion if it is not a bug. This makes no sense. I am am sorry I can see no other use for these types of items being no drop.

That being said I am not saying that Multiquesting shouldn't be here. Nor am I saying I want all the "BUGS" listed by the OP. What I am saying is that he question is valid. Some bugs here ARE being reproduced. To what extent those bugs are being reporduced is the question.

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Falindorf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please enlighten me on why developers would specificly create quest components (specifically items that can not be used for anything other than a specific quest say the cleric ingots for the Sol Ro Armor) as no drop items and then code ways around the no drop portion if it is not a bug.

Perhaps the same reason WoW made so many items Bind on Equip - they wanted to increase the difficulty of acquiring the item (since after you equipped the item in wow, you could only vendor it). However, when people realized they could MQ (and it was done very overtly), it wasn't considered that big a deal, and MQing was never nerfed, despite obvious potential for it to be nerfed.

If you strictly define "bug" as "anything unintentional to 'the vision'", sure, it's a bug. But they never fixed it, nerfed it, nor deemed it a serious problem when they had power to do so, so they probably realized it wasn't a big deal to enforce, and allowed the "bug" to exist, making it part of normal gameplay, and no longer a "bug," since it was incorporate into the game. MQing is also harder than simply going to EC and paying someone money - there is a trust component and a much greater incident of fraud in MQ cases, so it's not like it's equal to simply buying the item from another player - an increased level of difficulty does result, and so making the item "No Drop" does, in fact, increase the difficulty of acquiring the item and encourages more players to camp for it as opposed to buying it on the open market, and in conclusion makes the resulting item more rare and more valuable. All of these are intentions of making something no drop that do not require the specific intention of "players must physically kill the mob to acquire X item."

Apparently Verant and SoE were okay with that being circumvented, nullifying its status as a "bug."

The fact that they didn't do a thing to stop players (nerf, fix, or change anything about it) that's proof positive that it wasn't a bug in the same way dupe exploits, pathing bugs that made it impossible for mobs to hit you, or any number of other issues were accurately identified as "bugs."

Some bugs here ARE being reproduced. To what extent those bugs are being reporduced is the question.

Sure, and that's a valid subject of discussion - but MQing, even if you make the stretch to call it a bug, has to be a separate category of bug.

[guineapig]

As far as the level limit on old world dragons:

That wasn't a bug and there is a set amount of time you will have where there is no level limit, just like it happened on Live. We should have about 2 months:

April 17, 2000 Kunark goes live

June 22, 2000 Naggy and Vox level 52 cap implemented.

[yaeger]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As far as the level limit on old world dragons:

That wasn't a bug and there is a set amount of time you will have where there is no level limit, just like it happened on Live. We should have about 2 months:

April 17, 2000 Kunark goes live

June 22, 2000 Naggy and Vox level 52 cap implemented.

I doubt that was intentional. With a new release like Kunark they were probably too busy to immediately address this issue. There were a lot of over-the-top bugs when Kunark was released and this probably had a lower priority. Plus it probably took a while for the problem to become recognized, decisions made, and a plan implemented/tested.

That shouldn't be the case in P1999.

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by yaeger [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I doubt that was intentional. With a new release like Kunark they were probably too busy to immediately address this issue. There were a lot of over-the-top bugs when Kunark was released and this probably had a lower priority. Plus it probably took a while for the problem to become recognized, decisions made, and a plan implemented/tested.

That shouldn't be the case in P1999.

Well on P99 2 months = roughly 8-9 spawns so it really isn't a big deal.

And honestly, I don't think anything will change even after the cap is implemented. The guilds that want the drops from Naggy/Vox have plenty of alts that they can keep level 52 if they wanted to.

As far as it not being intentional I'm not sure what you mean:

Over the past couple of weeks, we've received more and more reports of these dragons being bested by smaller and smaller groups of higher- level (high 50s) adventurers. As we've always felt that Dragons should be special encounters that require a large number of people, we were left with some choices.

One choice available to us was to increase the power of the dragons to a level where the level 60 folks would find them challenging. This would have the disadvantage of forever placing them out-of-reach for those who did not buy Kunark, and place them further out-of-reach for those who did, but are just now approaching the levels where they could go on Dragon raids. Another possible solution was to make the dragons flee (depop) when engaged by a more powerful group of people. This would have the undesired effect of allowing some people to deny others the experience of fighting a dragon.

Instead of raising the bar as mentioned above, we've instead decided that dragons, or at least these two dragons, should have the magical ability to pick their own fights. Players of level 53 or above will now encounter some difficulty when attempting to assist in combat with these dragons. This should help 40s and low 50-level characters with their chances to encounter a dragon without worry of getting forced out by much higher level players. In addition, it also has the added effect of creating a natural progression from the younger dragons of Antonica to the elder and more formidable dragons of Kunark.

They intentionally left things the way they were when Kunark was released and then eventually changed their minds. It's no different then when they decided to change CT, PoH, PoF, etcetera, or when they decided that manastones were "too powerful".

We are following the natural progression of the classic EQ timeline. The level cap on dragons should be treated no differently then things like Lustrous Russet and Rubicite drop nerfs.