View Full Forums : AA Score Distribution by Class
01-21-2003, 01:31 AM
For a little amusement of myself and a few friends, I recently polled my guild's active membership, for their AA scores. We thought it would be interesting to see how each class compared to one another in terms of AA scores. Who gets the AA points? Which classes don't exp? Which classes exp the most?
I know that there are one or two fellow number crunchers out there for whom this might be interesting, and perhaps just for those that are interested in seeing how various classes' AA scores compare to one another, and so I thought that posting it here might prove amusing for some.
I'll direct you to the results, first of all, then I'll quickly describe how to interpret them - not everyone likes statistics! They are pretty self-explanatory in conjunction with the graphs. After that, for the number crunchers, I'll detail the survey's details.
The HTML version lives here (http://www.keepersofthefaith.org/lotusfly/misc/KTF%20AA%20Distribution%2018%20Jan%202003.htm).
<strong>The contents of the web-page</strong>
The web-page contains a lot of numbers. The interesting illustration appears right at the end, so you may wish to skip right to the bottom.
1. Criteria (ignore unless you're an Excel user)
2. The database (ditto)
3. The results by class (interesting numbers)
4. The data used for the graphs (ignore unless you're an Excel user)
5. The graphs!
<strong>Quick Guide to Interpreting the Graphs</strong>
Skip this if you're familiar with distributions. From my guild article:
'For those not used to examining statistics, the curves which you see describe the spread of players in each class across AA points.
'"Tight", peaked curves indicate that the members of that class all have a similar number of AA points. We can look at the curve for clerics and see that they are all tightly clustered about a particular point, indicating that most clerics have similar AA scores. Some have a little higher, some have a little lower, but nothing wildly different. Statistics has been around a long time and so we have a word for everything: this "spikiness" of the curve is called a leptokurtic distribution, fact fans!
'"Flat", spread-out curves indicate that the members of that class have wildly different AA values. We can look at the bard curve and see that it is incredibly flat. This shows us that some bards have very low AA scores, some bards have very high AA scores, and a few have values in between. This is a platykurtic distribution, for the zero people out there that care!
'It's interesting to see how the classes relate to one another. We can see that druids are pretty spread out in their AA but, generally speaking, they tend to have a higher number than some other classes: this means that the druid curve is flat and spread out, but it is shifted to the right of the graph (it has a higher mean, the average).
'In summary: this is just a bit of fun. It's certainly nothing to take too seriously. I've managed to include nearly all of the active members of KTF, but even so, it's still a pretty small number number when analysed by class: we have one necromancer, one beastlord, compared to (say) ten monks in the study.'
You can see the "flatness" / "spikiness" (<em>kurtosis</em>) of the graphs reflected in the standard deviation field of the Results table. Broad, spread, flat graphs have a high standard deviation (bards have 134 AA points deviation), whilst spiky, thin graphs have a low standard deviation (clerics have 35 AA points deviation).
The survey was conducted on KTF guild-members over a period of one day. The period of survey was brief enough that one can assume that all classes' AA scores are stationary with respect to one another.
The Gaussian distribution is shown, <em>a posteriori</em>, to be a valid representation of the underlying, actual distribution from plotting the raw data points across all classes. Inspection shows that the distribution is approximately Normal.
Using Gaussian distributions to model each of the sub-classes follows a similar assumption: classes are arbitrary divisions, those distributions of higher-sample classes are close to Normal, therefore the argument for the summation of a series of Gaussians is tenable.
Sample size overall is large enough (in the 'ALL' case) for confidence in the distribution. Some classes have low sampled populations: KTF has one active necromancer, and one active beastlord. These, of course, have standard deviation of 0, variance 0. The graph for these two quantities should be a vertical spike reaching P(x) = 1.0, but I've added a standard deviation of 30 for those two classes to allow them to be plotted on the same meaningful scale that the other graphs share, whilst still retaining the notion that they are highly leptokurtic. If you're using the Results table, bear that in mind and set the standard deviation for NEC and BST to 0.
The graphed quantity for ALL is the "Active" line in the Results table, shown below the orange total. The "Total" contains both active and inactive guildmembers; inactivity being defined in the database as Special = -1, activity as Special = 0.
Draw your own conclusions! That's the fun part. ^__))
The Lucky Cabbage
01-21-2003, 01:42 AM
Funny that rogues, the ultimate "can't solo" class is so high while monks who were probalby more group friendly than rogues and could also solo in Luclin are showing lower. Then something like wizards who could outsolo anyone for most of SoL is so low. But then your guild has TEN monks in it, clearly you're a bunch of very strange people. ;)
01-21-2003, 01:57 AM
It's interesting that you mention the monks. In Luclin, they were of course able to churn through AA points in the Fungus Grove. This is something of which I actually approved, because it kept me in Lotus Parts, for pies! They all had high AA scores at the close of Luclin.
Since PoP, monk's group desirability has lowered significantly, at least in my limited experience, and in the experience of friends that play the monk class. Whereas before they were used to tank, now they cannot tank for toffee. Their hate-generation skills are nowhere near sufficient for even the most rudamentary spell-casting from other group members. Coupled with their lower hit-point totals than plate tanks, and the recent lowering in their ability to tank directly, their group role now is very much that of damage dealer, perhaps puller (though putting such a damaging class in the role of pulling is usually a hideous waste).
The solo game has been altered with the new expansion, to some significant degree, meaning that group-friendly classes such as shamen and rogues are scoring much more highly in relation to other classes than they may have done in previous years.
Wizards suffer from the misconception that they provide poor levels of damage over time. Several studies have been carried out by players which provided convincing support that wizards are a great investment in terms of exp-rate; arguably, better than some melee classes. As such, guild wizards tend to not have a red-carpet invitation into groups, and that may be reflected in the graphs referenced above.
Notice that druids have the highest mean number of AA points of all our classes. I am tempted to put this down to the success of druids in PoP groups (Tier 4 planes are well-suited to secondary healers, particularly those with damage capabilities and other utilities of a druid), and to their ability to solo should it be required. Some of our guild druids do very well from killing frogs in Storms, and from Halls of Honor and PoFire. I've not solo'd since last autumn, for the record!
The Lucky Cabbage
01-21-2003, 02:25 AM
Interestingly - but not surprisingly - the cleric with the most AA still has less than the druid with the least.
So, despite being a prime group candidate that doesnt extend to lots of AA. As a cleric I think the reasons for that are
- no solo ability
- grouping as a cleric is almost as raiding.
So, when clerics are done raiding they cannot go solo/duo for exp casually - and if they join a group it will usually be requiring a high level of attentiveness (looking at hp bars) thus be almost as raiding.
I have 128 AA personally - as a cleric - and I dont by any means be grudge that other classes may have more as I am perfectly happy with my class. I just play a necro when I need to wind down and solo/duo a bit :)
01-21-2003, 02:31 AM
Lotus...now who's the lil druid with 348 AA? :)
Thanks for the statistics, it was interesting to see.
01-21-2003, 03:04 AM
<strong>Notice that druids have the highest mean number of AA points of all our classes. I am tempted to put this down to the success of druids in PoP groups (Tier 4 planes are well-suited to secondary healers, particularly those with damage capabilities and other utilities of a druid)</strong>
If that were the case, then how do you explain clerics (who would no doubt be the "primary" healer.)
<strong>and to their ability to solo should it be required.</strong>
Something shared by all casters. Take this further, enchanters easily outsolo druids and their slows and group friendly buffs make them FAR more attractive to groups. I don't see group-friendlyness+solo ability as an explanation. Any enchanter that wanted AA would easily outstrip druids in the getting of it.
<strong>Some of our guild druids do very well from killing frogs in Storms, and from Halls of Honor and PoFire. I've not solo'd since last autumn, for the record!</strong>
HoH is more wizard friendly than druid friendly... again, wizards are far below. Frogs are often sport of anyone with a manapool being limited more by spawn rate than ability to kill them.
Ask your guild their /played. ;D
Sadly despite the fact that 4 druids do not a sample size make, no doubt you've fueled the cleric fires of hatred even if you loaded their guns with blanks. =(
01-21-2003, 03:21 AM
I doubt that the intention was to fuel anyone's hatred here. I don't think there is anything anyone can say that doesn't fuel the hatred of some class towards us, though, which is a pity.
01-21-2003, 03:31 AM
I have a cup of steaming Kenyan Peaberry, a box of raisins, and Billie Holliday singing <em>Love for Sale</em>. Do afternoons get any better?
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>if that were the case, then how do you explain clerics (who would no doubt be the "primary" healer.)[/quote]
Tier 4 is a relatively recent addition to the number of zones in which the guild exps, taken in comparison with the number of weeks that the expansion has been out. Notice that I mention <em>I am tempted to put this down to the success of druids in PoP groups</em>.
Prior to Tier 4, the guild exp'd in the Bastion of Thunder, the Crypt of Decay, and the Halls of Honour. In these zones, druids have been the primary healers of choice, for my guild. Given that every group has a slower of some kind, the tank generally needs a heal every other pull. Between that one cast, it's down to damage. DoTs, thorns and good DDs make druids a nice fit for the role of primary healer in these easier zones, at least in my experience. Clerics are not turned out of groups, but I've noticed that our druids tended to get the places, on average.
In Tier 4, clerics are necessary. You can get by without one, but it's hard work: there's always a death now and again. Logging on a cleric for a res gets pretty tedious. I don't mind being primary healer, but it's more efficient for a cleric to take the role in Tier 4 given that you're CHing 1-2 times every pull. That tends to add up if you're using a druid, even with maximum FT, maximum AA, Emperor shawls and Shei range-slots to get around the FT cap. For Tier 4, I like to get a cleric - even then, I have to heal a <em>lot</em>, but I can concentrate on doing damage, pulling, messing around with a dire charm, and so forth.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Take this further, enchanters easily outsolo druids and their slows and group friendly buffs make them FAR more attractive to groups.[/quote]
I agree; I think that most rational people would find it hard to dispute this given the current state of the game. I don't refute either claim, for to do so would be folly.
The Enchanter graph in my analysis is quite unrepresentative of "normal" enchanter line-ups. We have one serious enchanter (the 250 AAer), who plays solo on occassion, and is always in demand for groups. The others are more casual, and have correspondingly lower AA scores for a class which should generally be around the point of the 250 scorer.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>HoH is more wizard friendly than druid friendly... again, wizards are far below.[/quote]
Again, I wouldn't claim otherwise. Our guild doesn't have a great quantity of solo players; they tend to group heavily and solo if forced to do so by lack of group opportunity. We're lucky in that we don't have a bunch of quad-kiting wizards, I think! They group a lot (when they can), and are highly skilled at balancing high, constant damage with staying just under the hate level of the main tank.
As I mention, group spots for wizards suffer from the misconception that they are "bad exp", which is diametrically opposed to the truth of the situation, I would hazard. If they can't get group spots, they sometimes go solo, but it's not usual. They tradeskill, quest, or find something else to do. Perhaps that's unusual - that's not for me to judge.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Ask your guild their /played. ;D[/quote]
Our guild consists of a collection of first-generation ancient and withered old souls, and we've recruited similar people. Most of the guild have inordinate (and probably quite unhealthy!) /played times. Some have restarted as secondaries, and there is the odd "fresh" recruit but, generally speaking, we're as old as the hills. ^__))
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sadly despite the fact that 4 druids do not a sample size make, no doubt you've fueled the cleric fires of hatred even if you loaded their guns with blanks. [/quote]
I think that statistics often reflect the preconceptions of the reader: if the clerics of your imagining are out baying for druidic blood (though heaven knows why anyone would get so heated!), I think it's safe to say that they'd find something of equivalent nature had I not posted, wouldn't you say?
The Lucky Cabbage
Still, seeing their /played would be relevant. I am positive you would see /played being a much higher factor in amount of AAs than what class they happen to play.
A few tradeskill freaks might stand out, but in general the above holds true in my experience.
Low AA people are those that typically only log on to raid, and log immediately after, whereas those that hang out and exp afterwards (obviously) get higher AA scores.
01-21-2003, 03:46 AM
<strong>I think it's safe to say that they'd find something of equivalent nature had I not posted, wouldn't you say?</strong>
Nothing so beautifully rendered. ;)
01-21-2003, 03:53 AM
I believe a chanter currently has the highest AA in my guild with around 120ish or so. However, he's been working AA's since Luclin's release. On the other hand, I've only been working AAs for 2 months (literally 60 days tomarrow) and I already have 72 AAs. At my current rate, I'll surpass him easliy in several more months. I have PoP to thank for this which is probably one of the reasons I have a hard time finding fault in the expansion. It has been a boon to me personally.
Reguardless, the highest AA counts have been between Chanters and Druids in my experiances between myself, guildmates, and friends.
Reguardless, that sure is an interesting bit of information Lotus. Thank you for posting it.
Oh yeah /played 82 days 9 hours 40 minutes on Fairweather as of this post if that's any help to the discussion.
01-21-2003, 04:53 AM
Im assuming the amount of AA a person has would be directly related to how often they play, where they exp, and what type of player they are. Some players are exp-hungry day in and day out. Some end up spending alot of time doing tradeskills or quests and may exp occasionally. I would think the ones boxing characters with the most time played would have the highest AA totals. I know somebody who 3 boxes that got his 3 characters higher AA totals than 3/4's of my guild, and some of those characters werent made too long ago, as opposed to some guild mains that were made the 1st day of release.
I think it really comes down to playtime. Soloing experience is good, but somebody who spends aton of time in PoV can out-pace him imo, or pretty much any POP zone. Especially people who box characters, since thats an automatic exp group from the start. I think the only ones that may have more exp time played but not high on AA's/lvls are the ones not exp'ing in POP, but old world stuff. The experience in old world is absolutely awful. I did Sewers in CT the other night, and couldnt even see my bar move after kills going 100% aa. Mobs were blue to 63, although old world stuff is so much easier compared to POP mobs, feels like your killing greenies. Heh, duo'd with a Bst yesterday doing Xin Thall house in ME, we were pulling multiple 4 arms and ghosts, with toiler adds, most mobs were blue, but the exp was terrible. The mobs were a joke though, the ht's hurt sometimes, but other than that it felt like killing greenies.
I do agree about monks though. Monks arent as good as they once were. Imo, it has alot to do with POP being outdoors. Monks are key to indoor pulling, other classes can get away with alot more outdoors. Its just like the need for crowd control has gone down to some degree with POP, since single pulls are easier and root control is more practical these days.
Just my opinion.
01-21-2003, 05:08 AM
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Billie Holliday singing Love for Sale.[/quote]
Dinah Washington does it better!
01-21-2003, 05:15 AM
I surveyed guild magic just prior to the launch of pop. It is a self selected group, and there is no display of aa points, but it generaly conforms to your numbers.
If I get spunky I will refresh the data for comparison
01-21-2003, 05:19 AM
I wouldn't presume to tell anyone how to spend their spare time. On the other hand, I'd hope someone with as much influence and background in the game as Lotusfly has would be lobbying for improvements rather than crunching numbers.
How disappointing it is to see a charismatic and persuasive individual's talents wasted on a calculator exercise, but if you find this AA comparison endeavour an enjoyable distraction, by all means crunch away..
01-21-2003, 05:35 AM
01-21-2003, 06:04 AM
There are some people who simply go along in life playing with the cards they are dealt. Then there are others who truly try to distinguish/better themselves by thinking outside the box.
One who consistently turns their cheek to the masses, you could say, leads a very self-absorbed life.
At any rate, back on topic....Enchanters in PoP by far have the best chance of gaining AA points/xp than any other class. Their charm has hardly any limits while our charms are limited to level 60 and below, ie, nothing but green con'd mobs are charmable for us in the elemental planes.
01-21-2003, 06:24 AM
A Pally in my guild, I think the guy with the most AA on my server, has over 250 AAs, could be 270 even.
I, who have been aiming for AAs for about a week before PoP came out, have a measly 18 AAs. I would like to know how people get so many in such short time. I don't spend all my time xp, and I've been doing many quests and tradeskills lately, but still, over 70 AAs in 2 months is well, incredible for me at least.
01-21-2003, 06:28 AM
Before people lose their heads about numbers, step back and look at the data population.
86 total people
and so on...
As Rebecca says, they provide some amusement. They may indicate something about her guild. But they have little to no application to any group of players in the game other than her guild. Keep in mind that she belongs to an uberguild that, as she has described before, has some active druids in it (including herself).
Simply put, the numbers are too limited to mean anything beyond a description of her guild. And they are far from anything resembling a random sample, of course.
Anybody who tries to generalize anything about the classes or AA distribution among the player database from this data will be laughed at....:)
01-21-2003, 06:42 AM
It all depends, you know.
I can solo for more AA experience than I can get while grouping, yet the majority of the AA I do get (I only have like 45) are gotten in groups. Why? Because I just can't bear soloing anymore. Its not very much fun for me right now. I was enjoying it somewhat again right before PoP. But now....
Most of the time when I play during the week, I want to feel like I have gotten somewhere for the time I've spent. Therefore, its no good to try to exp outside of PoP at level 61. There are places I can go that give me as good experiences, but they are either riskier or have fewer spawns, or mobs with larger amounts of hps that take longer to kill. So, I don't generally bother with them. When I go to PoP, the zones are so crowded, that inevitably someone is sending me tells about either:
1. When am I going to be done with this camp so they can take it (tells like every about 5 minutes and then get angry when I don't respond right away and think I'm afk or something and purposely keeping them form the camp)
2. How dare I pull some wandering mob, don't I know that it was in the (invisible) area that they are camping. (One time I was sitting on a chunk of the zone wall just root rotting stuff while folding laundry and paying the bills, when a GUILDY had the nerve to say in tells that if I wasn't going to "do anything" (because I had my afk tag up and was medding as I don't pay for KEI) then couldn't I please move because I was in this person's favorite spot.
The overcrowding in PoP makes soloing no fun. I deal with rude people all day at work, and when I play I want to play and have fun, not be rudely spoken to.
01-21-2003, 06:49 AM
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I have a cup of steaming Kenyan Peaberry, a box of raisins, and Billie Holliday singing Love for Sale. Do afternoons get any better?[/quote]
/envy the Cabbage =)
01-21-2003, 06:59 AM
I re-wrote this reply several times, as your implications concern me, and I addressed them in a heated manner in the first draft, which isn't suitable for a public board to people that I don't know.
The following quotes concern me:
<em>"On the other hand, I'd hope someone [such] as Lotusfly has would be lobbying for improvements rather than crunching numbers."</em>
<em>"How disappointing it is to see [an] individual's talents wasted on a calculator exercise, but if you find this an enjoyable distraction, by all means crunch away.."</em>
<em>"When you see no problems, its hard to find a reason to lobby for change.</em>"
<em>"One who consistently turns their cheek to the masses, you could say, leads a very self-absorbed life."</em>
Perhaps it is my up-bringing, but addressing a stranger (and you and I are strangers, please do not presume to believe that you know me) in such a manner is considered particularly rude in my background.
It is presumptious, it is disrespectful, and it is inflammatory.
First of all, it should seem obvious to most adults that behaving in such a way is not suitable, even to someone whom you know, let alone a stranger. That I should need to mention this to you seems absurd. I advise that, in the future, if you care to make disrespectful, passive shots at someone, you simply close your browser and keep your thoughts to yourself.
Normally, I would not bother to even address such posts. However, despite the passive-aggressive manner in which that rudeness is phrased, I should very much like to set the proverbial record straight, and go "on record" as saying that your assumptions that I <em>"see no problems"</em>, and that I would rather <em>"crunch numbers"</em> than be <em>"lobbying for change"</em> are incorrect, as if they are two mutually exclusive activities.
I don't post public concerns on this board; for me to do so gains little. I prefer more active, productive avenues when I wish to make an opinion known, as is common sense.
That you do not see me posting outraged, red-in-the-face, rants on this board is hardly good evidence for the assumptions which you make in your posts. It is saddening to see.
To address the accusation that I would rather indulge in a <em>"calculator exercise"</em> than something that may need fixing baffles me.
As I state in the opening line of my original post, this is a simple amusement. I feel that I should make clear the precise quantity of "work" involved in producing this trivial study.
It is not a major endeavour. It took twenty minutes to collect data, ten minutes to tap it into Excel, and ten minutes to produce a graph and upload them to some web-space.
I performed this minor task, as I state, as a little bit of fun for myself and a few friends. I include it here as I (evidently incorrectly) assumed that it would be taken in that light for a few readers on the Druids Grove.
Comparing the progress of various classes, and even drawing the conclusion from a very limited sample set that my guild's druids are prospering in the new expansion with regard to some other classes, seems of passing interest to a few.
I guess it's just saddening. I hope that you feel voicing your (unfounded and incorrect) accusations has gained you something. It's certainly left me in no mood to enjoy the rest of what promised to be a jolly good Billie Holliday album.
The coffee, on the other hand, I did enjoy. Not even a rude series of Grovers can mar Kenya's finest export. Testimony indeed to the enduring rich, smooth, understated and enjoyable character of a coffee with which I wish the posters of this board identified a little more strongly.
I guess that I shall have to think twice about posting little fun-and-games threads in the future. Either that, or I can hold out hope that some of these works of art learn how to conduct themselves in public.
I think that the readers of this thread might hazard a guess as to which is more likely to occur.
Thanks for your time in reading this post, and toodlepip,
The Lucky Cabbage
01-21-2003, 07:10 AM
Upon rereading my post, I can see how it could be construed in that fashion. I do apologize for that and have edited the offensive posting.
Actually, I always enjoy your comments, Lotusfly.
EQ is a game, not a problem of global proportions. My enjoyment of the game is less since PoP. This is not a universal experience. It doesn't require anyone to be obligated to lobby or get upset on my behalf or anyone's behalf. I would not presume that for anyone. That is not in my upbringing. I am finding that some of my enjoyment is returning as I play the game in smaller doses and for more immediate rewards than when I only see the long dark struggle to get somewhere in PoP. Sometimes I wish that my outlook on this and many other things was different. My post was more intended as a "so what" response to what had been written before, although I can see where it could read as an innappropriate judgement.
Again, my apologies
01-21-2003, 07:15 AM
Well said Lotusfly. To paraphrase Monty Python...
It's people like them what cause unrest.
01-21-2003, 07:29 AM
Are any of those clerics alts or bots? Clerics tend to be shelved a lot for other characters because they can be a bit dull to play.
My cleric has about 2/3rds the AA's of my main, a rogue. Simply because I try to play my main more than my alt.
01-21-2003, 08:06 AM
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I guess it's just saddening. I hope that you feel voicing your (unfounded and incorrect) accusations has gained you something. It's certainly left me in no mood to enjoy the rest of what promised to be a jolly good Billie Holliday album.[/quote]
I have to defend Lotusfly here. I for one really enjoyed her graph and info, taking into consideration her disclaimers and statistical sample. For me, it was what message boards are supposed to be about -- <em>interesting information with some supporting commentary</em> (nicely done, btw).
For those of you who would bother to check, it's obvious I'm no VAK and I have been very vocal in pointing out Druid shortcomings in the past in this forum. But some of us are just going WAY too far now. Criticizing Lotus because she is not apparently "lobbying for improvements" (not that we would know based solely on this board) is ridiculous. It is akin to blaming Tiger Woods for Augusta National's gender policy. Since when is he obligated to start a crusade simply because he's the #1 golfer in the world?
Lotus is almost always reasoned, polite and well-spoken, which is more than I can say for some of the rest of us.
Magelo Profile (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=202599)
01-21-2003, 08:19 AM
It shouldn't take Lotus to point out how rude many of our regulars are. It's pretty easy to figure out for yourself, especially the long time posters who've seen DG go through many mood swings over the years. We'll get through this bump in the road soon enough. Time has proven that.
However, lately I've seen a trend of people holding particular members of our community somehow personally responsible for any and everything that happens to our class. That needs to end IMO.
01-21-2003, 08:37 AM
Heh, i get attacked too. I can remember taking alot of heat for complaining pre-TR from some Druids calling me a whiner, how i'm unproductive, how i need to learn how to play a Druid because we have no problems, how we'll never get any changes from complaining, how i'm bad for the class, how somebody's guild druids dont complain and have no problems because they know how to play one, etc, etc, etc.
Honestly, just need a thick skin sometimes, and it doesnt hurt to consider some of them naive. I will say you cant blame people for reaching their own conclusions as to why this was posted when it portrayed Druids in such a flattering light during a time when we were just nerfed pretty badly(TR, Charm, Harmony). Not defending the guilt trips, but i can see why people might interpret your post as more than just "fun and games".
I hope you can understand that interpretation of your post from a few people that are already frustrated as it is with the nerfs.
btw Augusta National should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Its THEIR own private club :P
01-21-2003, 08:39 AM
Lotus, that is really nice information you gathered. I wonder if someone at Sony is reading this, and can possibly do this for the entire population of EQ. Or maybe they already did?
01-21-2003, 08:48 AM
I found the research interesting. Lotusfly did an excellent job explaining how to read the statistics and graphs, about different kinds of curves and suggesting possible explanations/connections.
Some of the questions have also been quite interesting. I, too, wonder about the cleric situation. If your raid clerics aren't having such fun doing AA type experience, and are either primarily raiding or playing alts for non-raid fun, then we may learn something. If your 4 druids are prefered healers in some zones, and so get group invites more often than your 9 clerics, then that may also teach us something.
In the first case, since I want my friends in the game to be having fun, I want my cleric friends to have fun, too. If they aren't, then I'm concerned. (I expect my friends feel the same about me. I've never heard a friend seriously want druids "nerfed" nor do I want cleric abilities made less.)
In the second case, if your guild recognizes that inviting clerics to groups may be worthwhile in terms of shared experience even if it's not quite as ideal in terms of killing speed, then that could also be useful.
It's hard to tell from her data, and not knowing KtF's interests/history very well myself, if the numbers of druids/clerics should tell us something important here as well. For example, if historically the guild recruited clerics with fewer requirements, and recruited druids with higher requirements, then the cleric recruits may have spent less time experiencing than druid recruits before Luclin or PoP or whatever. If that's the case, and their playstyles haven't changed, then the greater druid average may result from differential recruiting in the past.
(To rephrase that. If KtF required that clerics have X level during Velious, and that druids have X+3 level, then the average druid recruit might reasonably be expected to be a person who spends more time experiencing above and beyond usual raiding. If so, and if that habit continued, then the difference between the two groups should remain or even grow.)
Thanks for the interesting read, Lotusfly.
01-21-2003, 08:49 AM
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Honestly, just need a thick skin sometimes, and it doesnt hurt to consider some of them naive.[/quote]
Couldn't agree more. Overall, I really enjoy your posts, Broom.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I hope you can understand that interpretation of your post from a few people that are already frustrated as it is with the nerfs.[/quote]
I know that's a big part of it. I'm frustrated too. So much so that I'm trying a server transfer as a last-ditch effort to put some fun back into EQ. My point (which I think you understood) is that nothing is accomplished by attacking an upstanding member for posting some very interesting (albeit inconclusive) data and commentary and it's crossing the line when we hold folks like Sobe and Lotus responsible for not doing enough to help our "cause".
Magelo Profile (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=202599)
01-21-2003, 08:55 AM
One of the main things I would point out about the distribution by class is that it will be affected by a large amount by the recruitment policy of the guild. Our guild (like most guilds) will want to see different numbers of AA on recruits dependent on their class.
Clerics are a particular example in that they will be recruited when they have many less AA then we would want to see from say a ranger/monk etc. Therefore they come into the guild with less AA, and have a large effect on the average.
As for the other stuff, I think Lotus missed what I saw as the funniest quote:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I wouldn't presume to tell anyone how to spend their spare time.[/quote]
And then in the very next sentence he proceeds to do exactly that :)
And of course Lotus' quote:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We're lucky in that we don't have a bunch of quad-kiting wizards, I think! They group a lot (when they can), and are highly skilled at balancing high, constant damage with staying just under the hate level of the main tank.[/quote]
Not absolutely accurate of certain wizards I could mention! You know, the ones we clerics keep casting Divine Intervention on for giggles :)
01-21-2003, 08:55 AM
I'm not blaming anyone but SOE for what happens to our class, and certainly not laying any blame on a longtime grover whom I happen to respect and have ardently defended on at least one occasion.
Lotusfly, if you truly do not perceive the current issues with our class as worthy of going out on a proverbial limb to make your opinion known or to lend any commentary to the situation, then so be it. I am not judging how you spend your time, simply expressing my own thoughts; in my opinion, in light of recent negative changes made by SOE to certain druid spells, a comparitive analysis of your guild's AA points seems a bit misdirected here. I won't apologize for expressing that opinion, but I'm sorry it was interpreted far more personally than it was, or even could have been, intended.
And SilleyEskimo, please don't lecture anyone about negativity; you have a long history of openly criticizing and flaming people who happen to disagree with SOE/Verant's actions and decisions. The only difference between anyone else's negativity and yours, is that most of the time yours is directly aimed at other members of this community.
01-21-2003, 09:24 AM
If I was in charge of SOE I would get a graph like that on my desk every week, broken down by server.
What I find interseting in data like this is the changes over time. What classes move up the ladder, which move down relative to each other. Also I would love to see the acceleration of some characters after they reach certain milestones. I have tried to level an enchanter, but the entry levels I find brutal, as did the enchanters I asked, but once they "bloomed", they moved super fast.
I thought the original post was creative, and data described in the light it was collected. Number crunching is not for everyone but some take real delight in the process.
01-21-2003, 09:45 AM
I am in the same guild as Lotusfly, so to answere some of your questions on /play. I have 202 days played and I was born Oct 20th 1999 (I am a Twink). I am the druid with 191 AA. My RL wife is also in KTF she also has 202 days played (yes we looked at it lastnight and thought it was funny) I dont know what day she was born but it is near July 20th 1999. She is the druid with 140ish AA.
We also have several twinks between 55 and 60. I am a GM Smith, JC and Brewer, all other trade skills are 200. Matafleur is a GM tailor and soon Fletcher.
We both solo, group and duo depending on how things work out. Like Lotusfly said we have been around along time and have been in KTF for over 2 years. Hope this helps the people that needed more information.
01-21-2003, 09:51 AM
I liked the statistics, actually. One thing I think would be very interesting would be comparisons of pre-PoP AA to current AA. As noted, chanters currently have a strong solo'ing ability. One of my chanter friends solos a few hours a day (probably 4-5 on average) and had only about 50-55 AA's the day PoP came out. He now has about 330. In that time, as a cleric, I've gone from 17 AA to 142 AA.
In my experience, AA times post PoP are around 2.5 hours on average, whereas they were closer to about 4.5 hours on average in the luclin era.
Also, as another cleric mentioned above, playing a cleric can get kinda boring, so the clerics tend to log on only for raids, whereas the druids play more in off-raid hours. Being a cleric is pretty easy - there are only a few AA that are really important - the rest are just fluff. However, for a class like Druid, where solo'ing is the commonplace, there are quite a few more AA that are worth getting.
Just giving you some cleric perspective... YMMV.
01-21-2003, 10:03 AM
Let me go ahead and prelude my post with an apology that my comment was taken so painfully to the heart.
"It is presumptious, it is disrespectful, and it is inflammatory."
Unfortunately I don't live in a utopian society where I am not criticized for anything at least on a weekly basis. I consider criticism, whether constructive or not, something to live and learn by. Criticism is unfortunately an everyday occurence. (Isn't American Idol premiering tonight? Now THAT'S criticism and the worst criticizer on that panel just happens to be British so I at least can gather criticism isn't alien there) Now I'll agree that just because you are a well-respected figure in the druid community as well as the SOE community, doesn't give you the obligation to argue to better the class or what-nots. On the flip side, I wouldn't complain either if your efforts were proven to me in a post(s) but since we are strangers (as you so pointed out) I just can't take your word that I'm wrong and you do actually do all these things that you say that you do. I don't believe anyone has ever said that you needed to be red in the face with your veins about to burst. Common sense dictates to me that if a) I don't have trust for someone who b) simply says they do something and that I should c) just take their word...well, you know how that goes?
""First of all, it should seem obvious to most adults that behaving in such a way is not suitable, even to someone whom you know, let alone a stranger. That I should need to mention this to you seems absurd. I advise that, in the future, if you care to make disrespectful, passive shots at someone, you simply close your browser and keep your thoughts to yourself."
Wow...if we could all just keep our thoughts to ourselves where would we be? Would the world really be happy-go-lucky and rose-colored? I love going into a job interview and not knowing why I wasn't hired at all. If only I could know what I did wrong, maybe I could actually improve my faults. I don't necessarily see what you wrote in the above statement as acting as an adult as you so preach. Responsible adult life generally doesn't consist of being able to sit around listening to albums, snacking on raisins, and drinking tea. I have to maintain being gainfully employed for some strange reason. At any rate, this sort of behavior may not be suitable for you but maybe you can explain to your professors why they should give you A's on all your papers because obviously any kind of observations they may make will be rude and disrespectful.
"Either that, or I can hold out hope that some of these works of art learn how to conduct themselves in public."
I make mistakes as any human does. I also recognize that I live in the "real world."
"It is akin to blaming Tiger Woods for Augusta National's gender policy. Since when is he obligated to start a crusade simply because he's the #1 golfer in the world?"
Tiger isn't obligated but I sure wouldn't complain if he did. The very fact alone that he is a well-respected figurehead would garner more attention than a thousand "nobodys" lobbying for the same thing. It's always nice to see our celebreties, especially those respected ones, fight for something that they truly believe in.
01-21-2003, 10:40 AM
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Tiger isn't obligated but I sure wouldn't complain if he did. The very fact alone that he is a well-respected figurehead would garner more attention than a thousand "nobodys" lobbying for the same thing. It's always nice to see our celebreties, especially those respected ones, fight for something that they truly believe in.[/quote]
I was kinda hoping someone would jump on this one ;)
The key lies in your last statement "something that they truly believe in". The implicatoin being, if they <strong>don't</strong> "truly believe" in the cause, then they should <strong>not</strong> be obligated to champion it simply because they could, no?
So then, why do we have that expectation of some of our members here who may or may not have access to folks at Sony?
I certainly respect your right to represent your viewpoints (which you do well, I might add) but placing burdens on people who happen to be in a more influential position is not justified.
Magelo Profile (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=202599)
01-21-2003, 10:42 AM
This is interesting to look at and speculate, but saying "look clerics arent wanted in groups look at their AA points" is not any sort of conclusion one can draw from such a small sample size. AA points depend ALOT on the player himself. Most clerics in my guild dont AA xp, its not a matter of not being able to find groups, the player themselves tend to log after raids. However, one of the clerics in my guild has one of the highest AA point total if not the highest in my guild. In fact, two out of 4 druids in my guild have a pretty low AA point totals (less than 40). Another factor to look at is desirable AA skills - magicians for instance dont have that many AA skills that are really must gets. Finally, some players are newcomers or did not play much during Luclin - sure I have gotten more AA's in PoP than I ever had in Luclin, but I did manage to get over 70 pts xp'ing in Luclin.
01-21-2003, 10:51 AM
In essence, people are not obligated to do anything. They can choose to let themselves rot away in a subpar existance or they can actually exceed in their innate talents. What makes a person truly outstanding is when they choose to go above and beyond the so-called call of duty instead of consistently meeting the minimum requirements. Same goes on the job. You receive merits because of your ability to not just skate by on the bottom line.
You are correct though that people are most certainly not obligated to do anything, but I am also in my own right to state my opinions. ;)
Its nice to look at, but dont make anything from it. The sample size is entirely too small for teh total game player base.
To get real numbers SOE would have to do the study... they could more easeily break it down by length of account age, total time played, guilded/unguilded status, etc.
The fact is, solo players will probly gain more AA simply becuase they will not waste time, nor lose exp as often as dedicated raid guilds. So classes like the druid class would naturally fall to the top of the distribution (as would monks, and paladins). You will always have your deviations though... I know druids that have never soloed, and I know clerics who have only soloed. I've seen verying results on AA totals as well. Currently in my own guild, its a cleric that enjoys the title of owning the most AA. Hes not a long term guild mate, but still its there. (mot of the rest of the guild has very low AA)
01-21-2003, 11:34 AM
Truth be told, the minute you post something on the Internet, you open yourself up to all kinds of commentary. If you can't handle rotten tomatoes being tossed at you, then you better have high a dodging skill or skin that doesn't bruise.
Anyone who grew up around racist people knows what it's like, for example, and despite all the efforts to change people's behavior with some proper code of conduct, it doesn't always work.
01-21-2003, 12:05 PM
"Anyone who grew up around racist people knows what it's like, for example, and despite all the efforts to change people's behavior with some proper code of conduct, it doesn't always work."
But usually people will move away from that environment. To one with less conflict if they are able to do so.
And in this case, that would be a great loss.
01-21-2003, 12:27 PM
<strong>The fact is, solo players will probly gain more AA simply becuase they will not waste time, nor lose exp as often as dedicated raid guilds.</strong>
I've lost track of the number of deaths of I've eaten soloing in PoP, 2 a week anyway with countless rezzed deaths for each of those (I don't solo much anymore.) My favourite is when you can't drag your corpse to a cleric because of the graveyard. I'm just SOOO glad they made the forbidden rites staff 2MPP. *sigh*
Dedicated raid guilds aren't hurting for AA either, in fact teir 1 guilds probably out AA other guilds because EQ rewards time played above a lot of other things and teir 1 guilds are often dominated by hard core players who dedicate a lot of time, not to mention have the equipment to generate AA much faster.
01-21-2003, 02:55 PM
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The very fact alone that he is a well-respected figurehead would garner more attention than a thousand "nobodys" lobbying for the same thing. It's always nice to see our celebreties, especially those respected ones, fight for something that they truly believe in. [/quote]
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm uncertain from where your apparent accusations come. Presumably it's because you do not see me posting rants on this board. That doesn't like substantive evidence to me.
I hope I've gone some way to reassuring you (though Lord knows why I should have to do so, except one always feels compelled to address incorrect public slants voiced by presumptious individuals) that my interest in the druid class is pronounced, and that my activities in relation to the fun class which we've all played in our off-time for so long is far from "not fighting for something that they truly believe in" (sic).
As for criticism from a professor, the difference is this (which I believe I made in a previous post but which seems to require some iteration):
Our figurative professor knows me. We are tightly coupled in a student-teacher relationship, and his comments and grades are appropriate to our level of familiarity. That professor is qualified to judge the nature of my work because they know, very well, what it is that I do.
You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero knowledge of my activity. Thus, "constructive criticism" is presumptious, and just plain wrong. Would you walk up to a doctoral student in the street and tell them that their thesis (which you haven't read, but which you see tucked under their arm) is flawed? It makes you look foolish, and it makes the stranger feel uncomfortable to have to deal with your behaviour.
I appreciate the generally constructive tone of your subsequent posts, but your argument that you should arbitrarily be able to hand out judgements to strangers based on maddeningly incorrect assumptions, rather than close your browser and maintain a little proprietry, is unusual, at least to my reckoning.
All the best, and toodlepip,
The Lucky Cabbage
01-21-2003, 03:45 PM
Let's cut the crap.
Anyone who has been around long enough, even a week, knows that you cannot truly tame a wild beast. You can try, but just when you least expect it, it may strike at you out of some weird instinct.
That's just the Internet. Why do you bother to justify yourself to strangers if that's all anyone is here? Crikey, we are all 'community members,' and yet, we know very, very little about one another other than some significant or non-significant tidbits here and there. I know Scirocco is a lawyer, and he's a damn well-educated guy, but I still do not know him or what he's about. I've seen a photo of him, but if I passed him on the street, I might not even realize it. What's my frickin' point? :p Well, you can't win here. No matter how well you know someone via a board or how little, you can't win 'em all. Scirocco and Sobe (figurehead or not) have their share of detractors, too.
Anyone who wants real dirt will just have to email me. :p
01-21-2003, 03:56 PM
Your usual "They're going to be rude, get a thicker skin and get over it" routine isn't appropriate all the time, Fox. It's poor form to justify such behaviour, even with that kind of "Ah, live with it." argument. Perhaps that's just me.
I guess the board's rules (which I won't enforce on this thread) are esoteric notions, as well as common manner.
Perhaps you're not reading my replies, but I am concerned about setting to rights the unfounded assumption by a few curious individuals that I am not helping the class which they play.
That's just wrong, as I hope I've (exhaustively) indicated, and it's poor form on their behalf to presume that they know otherwise based upon the little that they know me from a public message board.
If someone posts something about you that's clearly wrong, with no supporting evidence, I'm certain that most would take a moment or two to address the imbalance. I'm no different in that regard. Faced with criticism from a strange bunch, in a place in which it's clearly not appropriate anyway, I will correct their misapprehensions.
These things seem obvious, and yet I'm amazed that they're not sinking in. It's a shame indeed that my little thread, thrown in for fun and to add a little texture to an otherwise homogenous day, has turned into the usual burlesque.
That's "just the Internet", though, correct Fox? So we can all behave as we wish.
I do not share your opinion that one is allowed to make unfounded, incorrect and discrediting references to a person's public image under the guise of "Hey, it's just the Internet, so it's fine! Dive in!".
C'est la vie.
The Lucky Cabbage
01-21-2003, 04:02 PM
My personal view on the post was that it was very interesting to see, in one place, an AAXP profile of a strong guild that is in Tier 4, and think about it in light of where my own guilds is AA wise.
I don't know that I would be comfortable extrapolating about certain classes from the data. First, individual players have different approaches to the game and this does not necessarily relate to the class they choose to play. Some players simply won't bother logging in much for experience time but will be there for raids (and actively seek them out when everyone else is tuckered out). Others will crave their experience time.
Another big issue is that not all class AA skill sets were created equal. In loose terms, all "help." But I have some classes in my guild adamantly swearing that there is not much worth getting beyond the first 70 aa's. I don't think I will feel that way until I have over 150.
At any rate, thank you for sharing this Lotus. It is always appreciated when people take the time to share the sorts of information which is clearly non competitive, but which helps give a lot of insight into the differences between the types and profiles of guilds.
Even a much larger sample would not be representative, at least not necessarily of course. There are simply too many ways to play the game. If you take samples only from large, successful, raid oriented guilds, you will probably find very high AA totals since the players in those guilds typically play more than average hours per week. They also tend to sink more of their investment into their primary toon (though we all know those people with high level twinks). A cross section that picked up the unguilded might also find some high AA totals, though the points might be spent very differently.
This is an interesting picture of what KTF looks like (at least that sample of them) and I did enjoy looking at the charts and numbers and thinking about them.
01-21-2003, 04:14 PM
I probably should not reply here, and will probably face additional criticism for doing so.
Yet I have this point to make : all of the people who's posts you objected to, did offer an apology in varying degrees.
Since you feel so inclined to sternly lecture on correct behavior, I might point out that in my upbringing, it is merely polite to accept the apology and attempt to move forward with affairs, especially when dealing with "strangers" or "curious" people.
01-21-2003, 04:15 PM
I am clearly not addressing you.
01-21-2003, 04:17 PM
You are correct, I am clear on that point.
01-21-2003, 04:28 PM
I too was very interested in looking at the data.
My musings pretty much were focused on the 200+ players.
As well as the -50. Which would put such a player noticably below the KTF minimum requirements of recruitment.
RE: Knowing about other posters?
I wanna know how the hell Tudamorf convinced someone to pharm 90AAs for him while he was 'retired'. I would like to know that; I know enough about you rest to suit me fine.
RE: Criticism and perceived 'Duty' of particular Druids.
This is the second time, I have seen this. And I will respectfully say, as I did the first time; sthu.
01-21-2003, 04:55 PM
<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">I do not share your opinion that one is allowed to make unfounded, incorrect and discrediting references to a person's public image under the guise of "Hey, it's just the Internet, so it's fine! Dive in!".</blockquote>
That's a whole other metadiscussion. And simply put, yes, we are going to agree to disagree. The rules here don't indicate that assumptions are verboten unless they've changed. I'm too lazy to look. People are entitled to post their misinformed and unfounded opinions here as long as they don't sink to the level of ranting or name-calling -- isn't that right? Or are you all going to sift through every post and delete any that contain misguided assumptions?
<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">RE: Criticism and perceived 'Duty' of particular Druids.
This is the second time, I have seen this. And I will respectfully say, as I did the first time; sthu.</blockquote>
Oh the irony! :p :p :p
01-21-2003, 04:55 PM
"First of all, it should seem obvious to most adults that behaving in such a way is <strong>not suitable, even to someone whom you know</strong>, let alone a stranger."
"Our figurative professor knows me."
Make up your mind here. First you say it's not ok to critcize even if the person knows you and THEN you say it is ok if they do. I operate in very simple logical thoughts so maybe my comprehension is all wrong. When I was in University, I had to take a wide variety of classes *grumble* something about being well-rounded. At any rate, my specialty was in Engineering and my weakness was in English/Art of any shape or form. Needless to say, I didn't get the best of grades in English and I got some great criticism that actually helped me improve in that particular subject. My professors sure didn't cut me some slack because they knew that Engineering is "very well, what it is that I do."
Your example of walking up to a grad student and saying his/her thesis is flawed was like comparing apples and oranges. Now if I saw that very same student walking towards me with a large smile on their face holding their thesis like it's their prized possession, I might be presumptuous in assuming that they got a good score on it. You see the difference is that there were two clues there that allowed me to make my judgement be it right or wrong...the thesis and the big smile. Now how this compares to you is that I've seen your posts and the content of your posts and I believe that your posts prove quite the contrary to mundane rants, ie, you take a position of not seeing anything wrong with where we are at character-wise or druidloot-wise. These observations came directly from posts you made and I would even venture to say from reading your posts that I believe you to be self-absorbed, pompous, and egotistical. These are purely my opinions of course. :) I'm a wild untamed beast though! tehee
This poor thread has been de-railed enough however and although I can probably look forward to more lecturing on what is right and wrong behavior in this world (whoops there I go being presumptuous again!), I will enjoy the rest of my evening and birthday tomorrow without contributing to "maddening" behaviour. :D Twenty-nine years...I think I'm just going to stop counting!
01-21-2003, 05:12 PM
I paid my professors to criticise and grade, it's their raison d'etre. They criticise because they are qualified to do so, and because our relationship explicitly requires them to do so. ^_))
I'm quite capable of existing without claims from a peanut gallery that I'm not doing enough to promote our class, which are as unwelcome as they are inaccurate. That's not required. You're not qualified to judge (based on... information that you read on a messageboard?). I am very definitely not asking for your criticism, nor am I paying you. ^__))
I'm not certain what I've done to make you feel as if you have to be this way to me, Hayley. I try to imagine what on earth you might see in me to feel as if you have to spend time being nasty to me. We've certainly never even shared more than a handful of words on this, or any other, forum as far as I can recall.
That you could exhibit such disrespect for a complete stranger tells me more about you than I, or other readers, probably care to know.
I wish very much that you would leave me and my little thread alone, Hayley. Surely there are other places more deserving of scorn than a friendly discussion used to add a little texture to an otherwise monotonic week.
If you're bored and looking to cause hurt in others by being rude, pick someone else that isn't going to be offended, please.
01-21-2003, 05:14 PM
We have been patted on the head and dismissed :)
01-21-2003, 05:27 PM
Hayley can pick on me. :p Wuwu!
01-21-2003, 05:40 PM
"Oh the irony!"
No irony. I was being non descript on purpose, but was referring to only one previous incident, one I am sure you remember.
It is pure and simple selfishness, honestly. I view certain posters as assets to the Druid Community here. Some more than others of course. Some like to crow about it, some have others crow for them, some do not crow altogether.
If you remember the last time the Hobbit from across the pond was 'hounded', posts were deleted and there were intimations of a permanent vacation away from the Druids Grove. Selfishness, pure and simple. That would be a loss to us.
Just as *your* temporary vacation was a loss.
Call me a sycophant if you wish, would not be the first time I have been called that here. But that was a long time ago, and I will let bye-gones be, if you do. My offer of Gordon Birsch and garlic fries still stands, btw(after you roll your little monk twink first, of course;).
01-21-2003, 06:05 PM
My Word -
Do I have to shut down the boards to give you all a break from this negativity?
You’re barking up the wrong tree here - and it’s very upsetting to see this.
Read 3 times over what Fyyr LuStorm said before you even think about posting again. The thread was never prompted for negativity, but sadly that is what "YOU" (you know who you are) did.
I expect some people to disagree with others on this board, but not to shame yourselves in doing so.
I expect some formal apologies and I am not kidding either!
And if you believe that to be below you - at this point.. It’s pretty far above where you went already.
And forewarning - don't make this any worst then where it is now.
01-21-2003, 06:12 PM
<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">I view certain posters as assets to the Druid Community here.</blockquote>
It's too bad SOE doesn't feel that way. Well, sometimes they do, but then they turn around and do something that negates the effort 'certain posters' put in over time. Honestly, they were probably happy to be rid of whineplay boards and to let players such as yourself take on the task of interfacing with a whole community of players. Note the long absences and gaps.
<blockquote style="padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:solid 2">If you remember the last time the Hobbit from across the pond was 'hounded', posts were deleted</blockquote>
I remember that, but you know what? Just being a regular poster here gets you flack. You could be as harmless as a fly, and someone somewhere will pick on you because you posted. And if I got scared about legal coming down on my head with a phone call or email, I'd be deleting my posts too.
01-21-2003, 06:31 PM
Just to set some records straight.
While I've given Lotus crap in my own way over the years...and she and I don't agree on a great many things about the state of the druid class at any given time, let noone ever mistake that Lotus is one of the most proactive members of the community for affecting changes to our benefit.
You may not see it, because she doesn't engage in the spreading of vitriol, like some of us (namely myself), however, I assure you she does far more which has an impact on our class than probably any single member of the community...excepting Sobe.
You may not agree with Ms. Cabbageleaf, here, but she deserves your respect. As much as anyone can "earn" respect in this kind of community, she has.
01-21-2003, 06:51 PM
Aidon, you disappoint me. I thought you were bitter. :p
To the sense-of-humor-impaired, it's a joke.
01-21-2003, 07:16 PM
I'll never forget the day the bitter druids banned together and hunted down Lotusfly, who is surely one of the most informed, experianced, and just plain nicest posters I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Of all the people to chase off...
I suggest you delete this thread and we never speak of it again. This is embarrassing.
I am terribly disappointed by this thread. Someone posts some fun and interesting information, that is by no means detrimental to anyone, and the poster gets attacked?
I can't say personally what or what not Lotus has done via SoE for the class, but I can say that I read her posts carefully for I learn from most of them when she chooses to share information. Thus, if in no other way, Lotus has been an asset to this community. Whether or not she does more is nobody's business but her own.
There was no justifiable excuse for the attacks made in this thread, and even then, Lotus met them with civility. For all the recent complaints and negative posts on the Grove, this one makes me feel most embarassed for the community.
01-22-2003, 01:35 AM
I liked lotus's topic today, we talked about it a bit in /gu. Thinking of doing something similar ourselves to see where we stand aap wise, but I've been really disappointed reading DG lately. Think my time here is going to be cut soon. The board seems to be filled with uninformed whiners, people just bitching to bitch and flames.
I have no problems with flames in general. Hell, I live for them. I've earned my flamethrower and 3rd degree burns on vault, but this isn't vault, nor foh, etc.
This is the site I used to learn more about my class way back when. Spells, hunting grounds, gear; DG made me the druid that I am now.
Now I get to read 40 posts about how people will not take druids anymore due to healing aggro (ya, right. What group would NOT ever chose a clr over a druid in PoP for healing?). How the new healing aggro is so rough from druids that are not even close to doing anything that would be affected by the new aggro.
I miss the old board. Since even before the split it has always been more orientated towards the high end game. Back when I was a n00b I liked coming here, was a great resource to read and ask questions. As I got bigger and more "uber", I tried to help answer questions and lobby to better our class when possible. These days, it's more a high end topic gets posted, then the thread gets derailed by idiots.
The other night I actually appologized to a guild cleric and good friend of mine for some of the crap thats been posted here lately. The rest of the communities make fun of us cause we let our idiots make posts asking for rez's, slows, DA and any other class crossing skills they might dream about.
I feel that it's good to understand the other classes in this game, so I try and read the other class boards. Its hard to sometimes. Their views of us are that we're spoiled greedy idiots and after reading alot of our posters here, I'm finding it hard to argue.
I love the channel, we never seem to get these idiots there. I've gotten to know alot of the regular posters there. We have interesting discussions, make fun of each other, ask & answer questions, have biggest dick contests with linking l00ts, etc. Its fun, this board on the other hand is turning into crap. :(
01-22-2003, 02:33 AM
I'm glad that the post prompted a little interest! The one errant factor that stood out to my reckoning is that of the necromancer. I would say the plural, but our guild has but one these days, and he's just returned from being in a somewhat casual mode.
Our other, dare I say more typical, necromancer retired a few months ago, a little after the beginning of PoP (he moved house and has no connection available). When he retired, he had a somewhat stonking 242 AA points! 95% of these had been gained from solo play, as you might expect in the traditional vein of the class! I should not do him an injustice, for he was a wonderful addition to groups; he simply preferred to play on his own, I think.
Regarding the tangential notes of this thread, I had a rather enjoyable evening, last night! After chatting to a few friends and sharing a few chuckles, it certainly throws bemusing trivialities such as we're reading here into a more tolerable light. Leopards cannot change their spots, as one put it. Never a truer platitude spoken!
The rest of that Billie Holliday album was superb! It's "The Very Best of Billie Holliday", on the Verve label. I'd heartily recommend it to everybody that likes that sort of thing. Someone appears to have gone to the trouble of finding, quite literally, the very best recording of each song included in the album, unlike most compilations which one might rightfully treat with caution, no matter what the genre.
Enjoy your after-the-noons, and toodlepip,
The Lucky Cabbage
P.s. Tilien is spot-on with his praise of the serverwide.druidsgrove channel. Antisocials are simply not tolerated (in the unlikely event that they try to make themselves known in it), leaving a very friendly, "real-time", almost cafe atmosphere. I enjoy it, and one of my New Year's Resolutions is to spare you all, in that channel, from my tedious mistells and cross-channel blunders. ^_))
01-22-2003, 06:49 AM
"I'll never forget the day the bitter druids banned together and hunted down Lotusfly, who is surely one of the most informed, experianced, and just plain nicest posters I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Of all the people to chase off..."
Gimme a break :P
As far as i'm concerned, the ones blowing this out of proportion are the ones acting the 'victim', and the ones magnifying it protecting the 'victim'. It was maybe 2 people at most that criticized Lotusfly's post, one would think it was all of the Druids Grove, or the whole BDC. Obviously it wasnt, so STFU and quit making it seem like everyone is out to get Lotusfly when shes treated better than anyone in this community, and always has been =P
And i will re-state, amidst all the nerfing that JUST occured, anybody posting a 'fun and games' post showing how Druids lvl faster than any class or gain faster AA's, might take the ire of the ones upset and being affected by all the nerfing. Nerfing does put people in bad moods, and when people are in bad moods they dont want to read graphs and posts showiing how great we have it. Now whether you believe a 'positive' post like this has its place in the midst of being majorly nerfed is on the individual. Obviously some people didnt like the blatantly obvious conclusions drawn from the 'fun and games' post, and questioned the intentions of Lotusfly.
Personally, i will say what the 'fun and games' graphs and charts imply, seems to argue against fighting for any positive Druid changes since it implies we already have it great. Call it 'fun and games', doesnt matter to me, what matters is the message it sends, and that message isnt going to sit well during a time of nerfing and fighting for changes.
01-22-2003, 08:07 AM
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Gimme a break[/quote]
01-22-2003, 09:06 AM
"this board on the other hand is turning into crap."
I remember reading that here back in 1999.
01-22-2003, 10:28 AM
True. People have been complaining about the DG turning to crap, or pining for the "old board," since my first post. And you can see how far back THAT was...:)
01-22-2003, 10:48 AM
Just to relieve some fears.
OK so maybe druids do solo and gain more AA points than clerics can. In fact I think they do. That does nothing to help you get groups. The point is you are talking about things to make you better in groups (ie healing). Pointing out your better solo abilities should in no way hurt you when trying to improve your grouping abilities. I have said it before "this is a multiplayer game and if all you wanted to do was solo you could just play Baldur's gate or something.)
dont worry about the post being used against you in your fight to get healing improved. Any reasonable person would understand that wanting to be involved in groups is a reasonable request. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
Heck I know that I as a cleric would like my soloing improved. To claim that I should not be able to solo because I can group is rediculous because how about the times I only have an hour to play and a group is not possible. Same with you guys. You should not have to suffer a loss of grouping enjoyment just because you can solo. Soloing is not what the game is about. I did not see Lotus's post as negative in any way or as ammunition to be used against you in your fight to get heal aggro fixed. I saw it as totally unrelated.
All priests (read the three healer classes) should be able to group, raid and solo. And the ability to do one should not mean you have to sacrifice another. Very nice post Lotus. I like this one and the dumbest things done one.
01-22-2003, 11:06 AM
Lets set the record straight again...since Mr. Fairweather had to rear his head here with his usuall slightly skewed view.
It wasn't the "BDC".
It was me. I was upset with Lotusfly. I came down on her, for reasons that may appear similiar to those sentiments on this thread...but to a comprehensive reader are quite different. If you want to know the difference, e-mail me and ask me, because I'm locking this thread. Nothing good will come of it at this point.
vBulletin v3.0.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.