EQ Never

The list better start and end with corpse humping.

They need to release info fast, this thread is close to being full retard. Should never go full retard.

WoW took most of EQ and changed them to solve what a lot of players didn't like about EQ.

Things like downtime, forced grouping, camps, finite spawns etc.

Same core mechanics and design almost, but wrapped and presented differently(like every single game there is).

It's weird too, you hear complaints about doing "10 bear asses" over and over, yet those same people don't seem to mind sitting in one spot and killing the same mobs for 10+ hours. Kinda of hypocritical. Questing is just a new wrapper on grinding, just like the whole "events/PQs/Rifts " are a new wrapping on questing, its all derivative to "kill x, deliver y etc, guard z" etc.

As previously stated ad nauseam over and over is that EQ was a scurry world with death nearly around any wrong corner you turned on to. WoW-Vanilla was like that for me as well because it was a new world to explore, much like Norrath was. While The WoW-Vanilla never had so much of a PVE looming death, doesnt mean it could appear in another form. I played on a PVP server (kel'thuzad) which kept that healthy sense of unknown death (and it was my first ever experience in playing open world PVP, which was really fun because we had great PVP'ers (props to Pacifist, Goon Squad, High Caliber) on our server to battle against all the time).

I have no problem with either instance/instanced dungeons. If there is a healthy mix of them put in this game I am not going to be mad about it. As a matter of fact I do feel that I am leaning towards zone channels as a mesh between the two ideas. IDK I'll still play this game once it comes out.

There will not be instances (except perhaps for some highly specific content) in EQ next. Mark my words.

mkopec_sl said:

^^Work blocked, neener, neener....

Click to expand...

You will like it once you get home. It involves Old Detroit.

So basically in this thread and the EQ2 thread I've "learned" that EQ1=WoW=EQ2. Pretty amazing.

Quaid_sl said:

There will not be instances (except perhaps for some highly specific content) in EQ next. Mark my words.

Click to expand...

Just in case are you wrong, I have your quote to say you were wrong

I don't really have a problem with the idea of instancing, I just disagree with the way it's been used in most games to segregate the playerbase. That's where most of the 'ermagerd my community' complaints come from. I never played EQ2, but my understanding of the way they split off copies of zones that you could jump between sounds like a pretty good middle ground.

I definitely want a big open-world dungeon though. Or ten.

cinge_sl said:

Just in case are you wrong, I have your quote to say you were wrong

Click to expand...

I won't be

To be clear. Do you consider the use of copies of the same zones (not sure the technical name) where if one is full you can switch to another, instancing?

Bellringer_sl said:

To be clear. Do you consider the use of copies of the same zones (not sure the technical name) where if one is full you can switch to another, instancing?

Click to expand...

yes. this concept in general doesn't sound like a good approach. you know the adage "addition by subtraction" needs to be reviewed here - one small problem would be players using less of the developed content since they can pick and choose at their leisure what's available.

i'm sure i'm just trying to type what most of us are thinking here, but there's merit to the idea of deliberately not catering to 100% of the players on a server. less time in a group means more time dicking around checking out lore, being part of the community, crafting etc...

Bellringer_sl said:

To be clear. Do you consider the use of copies of the same zones (not sure the technical name) where if one is full you can switch to another, instancing?

Click to expand...

Yes, technically it is. It has numerous advantages that are better than the instanced dungeon lobby game usually associated with the term. But there are a lot of problems too.

It is a great way to even out the populations in lower level zones when a game is first released. Aion did this but kept the higher level zones a single instance. Which is important in a PvP game.

To make it work for open world dungeons and higher level zones, you have to tie mobs and resources to the same timer lock out. Otherwise you have people hopping from node to node hyper farming both. It is workable if done right but I would prefer the devs come up with multiple open world dungeons and zones that people can chose from that have similar incentives to play in.

Sorry I should have quoted Quaid. I completely agree that it is equivalent to instancing, I just did not want him to escape from his claim by a technicality.

The fact of the matter is this. Instancing was a useful means to an end, but it is old tech, and if what I'm hearing is right, this may be the first game that moves past it in an effective way.

Past it? I hope they perfect it.

Do you really ever want to dig back end to some of the bullshit that went on when you raided & competed against other guilds?

Perfecting instancing, to me, would mean cutting it completely from the non-raid game. Then cautiously using it to clear up the inevitable raiding clusterfuck. I'm not talking about never having a good old fashioned race to a spawn. I'm talking about preventinginsert your local #1 guild herefrom monopolizing too heavily.

example - the #1 guild has Trakanon on lockdown & between dragons, VS and Trak they still farm Inno, Cazic, Phinny... that's really shitty for non-extreme hardcore players WHICH MIND YOU comprises most everyone that isnt IN THAT ONE GUILD.