EQ Never

Sneeto

Sneeto

Golden Squire
54
2
There is some pretty heated opinions here about EQ Next.

One thing I hope they do right is keep their lore from EQ1 early days. EQ1 had some pretty cool angles, it was open ended to a lot of interpertation and imagination. Races hating each other etc. I guess it seemed really basic back then but looking back it had a nice and thought out back story. For example, being despised everywhere as a troll, but barely tolerated in some areas of Neriak was cool. You never knew if you walked into the wrong building if the NPC's for would attack you or not, it kind of let you have an open imagination about their motives. Maybe it was just me though.
 
T

Treesong

Bronze Knight of the Realm
362
29
Sneeto_sl said:
There is some pretty heated opinions here about EQ Next.

One thing I hope they do right is keep their lore from EQ1 early days. EQ1 had some pretty cool angles, it was open ended to a lot of interpertation and imagination. Races hating each other etc. I guess it seemed really basic back then but looking back it had a nice and thought out back story. For example, being despised everywhere as a troll, but barely tolerated in some areas of Neriak was cool. You never knew if you walked into the wrong building if the NPC's for would attack you or not, it kind of let you have an open imagination about their motives. Maybe it was just me though.
Click to expand...
Faction and the racial landscape in EQ was pretty much my favorite feature of EQ. Combined with the huge amount of (racial) starting cities spread over the globe, it made for the best MMO world, never to be replicated ever since imo. You mentioned the Trolls in Neriak: there are many such examples to be given, where /con would be your best friend. From a safe distance off course, since the whole "Scowling to Ally" aggro-scale added to the exitement of the faction system.

Details like the fact that "Glares at you threateningly" would actuallly let you get closer to an NPC before it attacked you then when it was "scowling" were just wonderful. I remember being scared of Giant Beetles in West Karana because they glowered dubiously at me, untill I found out that I could approach those safely. But you never knew how far you were from "threateningly" if you killed an NPC with faction that was "dubious". In todays MMOs, mobs and NPC's are either aggro or they are not. In EQ mobs had a different aggro-radius, you had sit aggro, low health aggro and even a system for visibility aggro for the Sneak skill.

Minmaxing faction, carefully so that you did not ruin too much with other groups was a typical example of emergent gameplay. Not only that, but to me the possibility to adjust your faction in Everquest is as close as it gets to actually having an impact on your MMO world. Changing your position in the political landscape of EQ not only opened up cities, but was plain fun. Being able to order a drink at the Goblin bartender, deep in the dungeon of Runnyeye because you became friendly with the goblins, not having to run anymore from Kizdean Gix, or being able to visit Halas and not be chased out of the city by hordes of Barbarians. Goblins, Halflings, Dwarves, Trolls, Ogres, Humans, they were all connected through a maze of factions.

I will take a dynamic like that over any Guild Wars 2 DE that resets in 5 minutes. Or phasing which is nothing more then being in either of two phases of a linear storypath.

When I see the simplicity of "Reputation"or faction systems in games like WoW or Rift, I can only wonder why they ever bothered to put that shit in. Just another iteration of grindy "collect them all" stuff.

Next week: merchant-diving!

Ok, rant over.
 
Vlett

Vlett

Lord Nagafen Raider
817
69
Saladus_sl said:
Agree with that in terms of player spread. It was VERY common in EQ to see some guilds one, even two expansions behind with still farming old content. This was definitely the case with Vex Thal, Plane of Time, etc. Gates of Discord reached such a level of ass fuckery that some guilds couldn't even break into the entry raids. Not that I'm saying that latter part is great for MMOs. But I do agree with how WoW has become a bit top heavy with LFR. In one sense it is great that players can all easily see ALL content developed, instead of what you had in Black Temple. At the same time, it does diminish that feeling of "Wow, I'm feeling pretty ?ber just being here" sense that I got when I was in places such as Temple of Veeshan, or really any raid zone in Planes of Power as our guild was progressing.
Click to expand...
The difference now is the same raid, but a harder setting of it. There is a night and day difference between raid finder and hardmode. 15-20 average ilvl increase is very noticeable. I do agree this is less flashy (seeing a different skin of the same armor) but I like the option of casually seeing the content or being able to have a dedicated raid group. Hell, both even. This change will probably keep me playing a lot longer than I did in cata for the alt appeal alone.
 
Rezz

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
As graphics got better (and they did. EQ to WoW was a massive improvement in all respects except the specific flavor of each gameworld when it came to graphics) you could actually differentiate different pieces of equipment much better than before. Instead of all plate armor minus the velious stuff looking identical aside from color, you had different tiers of plate armor with specific graphics. That is one thing that needs to be kept and added upon instead of dropped off in the search for EQ: N(o changes but better graphics). While it was fun for myself, as an SK, to go from Darkforge to Umbral and being one of the 3l33t guys rocking that greyish armor with a super slight green tint. It was -much- cooler to go from standard plate look to Might. Or to go from -anything- to Dreadnought. I imagine bards were hella stoked when they went from orangeish to teal!(tee hee~)

Color being the primary way to differentiate yourself in the armor department is one thing I am definitely happy we moved past.

About death penalties in EQ/WoW:
In a void EQ's was harsh. You have 3 hours to get back to your body or you can't get any xp back. If you die at the bottom of Lguk and nobody is around, you might be in for a rude awakening if you aren't a rogue/monk/SK/necro/bardmaybe? You have 24 hours online or 7 days offline (which if I remember right spending any hour online took 7 hours off your offline time. Could be wrong though!) to get your body back or it is gone forever along with everything you had on it. That right there? Sounds scary.

Now, put in the context of what actually happened in EQ, you have this scenario. You have 3 hours to get back to your corpse in a world that is populated by and large by two thousandish people and unless you picked the most obscure place on the map, someone nearby can rez you and most likely someone can find your body faster than you can. You have 24 hours online and 7 hours offline to get back to your body or it is gone forever, except minus VP or literally being the very first people on your server to the bottom of Lguk with nobody else within 10 levels to fetch your shit, there were people in every zone people generally went to and any camps that were hard enough to kill most groups of players were usually rare camps and people were usually there.

Put in the context of reality, EQ's death penalty was a paper lion for 99% of the population. And the XP thing? Unless you and your group were patently bad, it was very difficult to be on a serious negative xp binge where hours online actually killing things resulted in a loss. And this is just from extremely early Vanilla and -maybe- Kunark. During Velious and beyond, even second tier and third tier clerics were getting their epics, while more than half of the active population were 39+ and had access to rez' that gave back XP. Plus you had necros and SKs that could summon corpse, and would happily do so for a price. The penalty of death became, unless you simply didn't play the game, at worst an annoyance and not an actual risk. The only people who experienced "risk" were the first VP raiders or people who simply did not communicate with -anyone- within the game. Even the shittiest of modern MMOs has an average population who is at least vocal enough to ask for help. That right there would negate all but the .1% that experienced VP with needing to leave keys on corpses outside instead of just leaving corpses to rez out.

Compare to WoW, which unlike EQ didn't have those first 30 levels or first 3-4 months where "actual" danger existed (though with the rarity of equipment and the relatively minor power boost during those levels in EQ, losing a corpse wasn't really that devastating comparatively) where the annoyance timesink is based upon previous play instead of post play (money earned before death counterracts the repair cost while needing to regain XP happens after you die) and is fairly continuous til endgame. The annoyance comes with a "if I wipe x times, I am out y gold" mentality so that once you die a few times in a group, the annoyance factor overcomes your desire to finish the current content and you or they leave and you repair and either try again with a different group or go back to soloing. EQ, on the otherhand, had the "If I wipe X times, I delevel" mentality which gave you a slightly harder edged point of the annoyance actually affecting gameplay to a serious degree. The player, in most cases, would -not- be able to replace a given group so easily and since at least half the classes couldn't solo -anything- XP giving effectively, people were much more likely to put up with being deleveled or simply log for the night.

What does all that have to do with the death penalty in EQ:N? It's called compromise.
Create a linear death penalty (Either a decrease in xp or skill points down to a tiered "minimum" upon death, you recieve a fairly substantial negative stat buff for increasing amounts of time or you leave some/all your gear with no negative stat buff) that doesn't become completely unnoticeable after halfway through the game's leveling process (Rez never returns xp or skill points would be a good start) but then give people the ability to solo sub-optimal content so that in the absence of groups they can still make progress with enough effort. Create a repair industry that isn't affected by death so that you give more reasoning behind tradeskills. Have consumables that "absorb" part of the penalty if you die while under their affect to further promote tradeskills and the overall sandbox feel.

Give certain classes a skill to mitigate loss if they are constantly in a higher risk situation than other players (Tank classes would get a Spiritual Resiliency skill that reduces the effect by a percentage every so many skill points to a maximum of 10-25% or whatever) and give healer/support types a short duration insta cast buff that lets them "save" some XP/skill point loss from a targeted person. I like the gear graveyard summon idea that involves the corpse vanishing but the equipment remaining. Have the quality/quantity of the gear directly proportional to the rez cost at the graveyard. Give certain classes, such as necromancers, the ability to summon the gear as well at a drastically reduced cost or a consumable with a fixed cost so that higher levels would always prefer to seek out a necro instead of using the graveyard.

All of this maintains the risk of loss while still keeping the player in the game. Broke and lose some expensive shit since you had to babysit in the congo for a week? Go fight some easier shit to get gear to make some money to buy back your shit, or make a friend and have them help you out. OMG COMMUNICATION! The tradeskill shit which honestly I have become a tradeskilll whore since my EQ days of only having Smithing/Brewing/Tailoring maxed thanks to the epic. I like incorporating teamwork in my design, not exclusionary mechanics such as early EQ era uninstanced shit or Sleeper Retardery.
 
Flipmode

Flipmode

EQOA Refugee
2,091
312
So since I barely played EQ, what happened if you were max level and raided. The nature of raiding implies death, and lots of it. Did players have to spend time grinding back to cap after every raid?
 
Scoresby

Scoresby

Trakanon Raider
783
1,436
Flipmode_sl said:
So since I barely played EQ, what happened if you were max level and raided. The nature of raiding implies death, and lots of it. Did players have to spend time grinding back to cap after every raid?
Click to expand...
Yes and No. There were (generally) resurrections available that gave back 96% of your experience lost. The 4% you did lose would add up though and it wasn't exactly a trivial grind to make it back up after dying a bit. Aside from bleeding edge content, which was notoriously broken/over-tuned, there was considerably less dying than in modern WoW heroic (or even normal) encounters.
 
Q

qwertyqweqwertwqert

<Banned>
1,678
149
Death was not as big of a deal as some people make out. When you reached the level cap you would also fill that level with XP, so it was like a buffer. So you could die 10 times and not care because you would still be max level. And spending time in groups earned you XP which topped it up in no time. Also some raids nailed it first time. Sometimes you would die a few times but usually a Cleric would rez everyone with a 96% rez so you were barely losing any XP anyway.

Death was really not as bad as some people make out.
 
Quineloe

Quineloe

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,978
4,463
qwerty_sl said:
Death was not as big of a deal as some people make out. When you reached the level cap you would also fill that level with XP, so it was like a buffer. So you could die 10 times and not care because you would still be max level. And spending time in groups earned you XP which topped it up in no time. Also some raids nailed it first time. Sometimes you would die a few times but usually a Cleric would rez everyone with a 96% rez so you were barely losing any XP anyway.

Death was really not as bad as some people make out.
Click to expand...
remove experience ress then and increase penalty at cap to 33%
 
Flipmode

Flipmode

EQOA Refugee
2,091
312
EQOA used an xl dept system that was meaningless at max level but since you had to grind CMs (AA in EQ), you wanted it gone.

EQ2 used a shard system in the beginning. You could lose up to 5 shards before you would be really gimped. But each shard made you 20% less powerful. On top of that you had XP debt, but not loss iirc.
 
Mr Creed

Mr Creed

Too old for this shit
2,380
276
As long as you have important reasons to keep gaining xp, a death penalty of xp loss or xp debt to be worked off sounds similar enough to me to go with the debt because it carries less baggage (level loss code, related minimum level issues with gear and skills, etc). And imo any game should have some form of use for xp past the level cap to keep people in the game world with the newcomers that are still leveling (or not have levels at all, ideally). EQ AA were great for that because while people did make guild groups, you didnt always have that option so you played with strangers at least sometimes. Important social aspect there, imo.
 
Tearofsoul

Tearofsoul

Ancient MMO noob
1,791
1,256
Death in EQ actually means a lot more in the early level to a new player (rage quit lol)...

When you are at max lvl, you should be in a guild and have buddies to play with, which means it is much easier to recover your lost either from summoning or all kinds of helps. Unless, unless you are in PoF...
 
Muligan

Muligan

Trakanon Raider
3,213
894
Death in EQ meant a lot at key levels. I remember not being "allowed" to go on Vox raids until 49 because I was a cleric. The moment I hit 49, I was dragged everywhere but, my first Vox raid the raid leader decided to try something new with the healers. Never the less, we were put into a death loop. I can't even remember how many times we died. After so many attempts to recover our corpses everyone gave up. I actually gave my account info to a friend and just said do what you can, I may never play this game again if I lose all that exp.

Needless to say, the evening of the next day we got everyone's bodies, rezzed, and got ready for the next day.

You have to understand, this was one of the first Vox attempts of the server and EQ had not been live very long.
 
Blackyce

Blackyce

Silver Knight of the Realm
836
12
Draegan_sl said:
Yeah, you can have those games. My life is not set up to carve out hours of time to play games these days where if I fuck up I can easily sit around for another 2-5 hours to do a CR. I'm not a 22 year old that really don't have to go to class tomorrow anymore.
Click to expand...
Yeah you aren't 22 anymore but there are a bunch of 22yr olds now who do have the time.
 
E

errr_sl

shitlord
11
0
Vlett_sl said:
The difference now is the same raid, but a harder setting of it. There is a night and day difference between raid finder and hardmode. 15-20 average ilvl increase is very noticeable. I do agree this is less flashy (seeing a different skin of the same armor) but I like the option of casually seeing the content or being able to have a dedicated raid group. Hell, both even. This change will probably keep me playing a lot longer than I did in cata for the alt appeal alone.
Click to expand...
however that 15-20 ilevel difference means little in terms of creating a situation in which people want to strive to get that. unless you are in that top 5% or whatever the number is the same item with another 30 intellect isn't going to push or motivate you that much. LFR has also helped create this. i can see the content without having to deal with 90% of the dumb shit so why would i put deal with the negatives of a raid guild.

if i couldn't see the content without being in a raid guild (or the like, etc) then that would push me to possibly get involved. if i wasn't able to just click 'res' once i die and go about my day then there might be a reason to worry about checking out a new zone, dying in general or anything of the sort.

the model wow is has plenty of positive attributes going for it. it also has negatives. they are solely based on your position of how much time you want to spend in a game. i have much less time to spend now then i did during eq. however i would still want and prefer a game in which penalized you for bad play (dying, etc) and awarded you for good play (exploring, etc).

it just gets pretty fuckin stale going from 1-90 soloing as any class to click a lfr or lfd button only to go through the motions, but not enjoy the mmo part of it mostly because in the model wow has created you don't have to.
 
D

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
Blackyce_sl said:
Yeah you aren't 22 anymore but there are a bunch of 22yr olds now who do have the time.
Click to expand...
How many of those 22 year olds are pining for a modern recreation of EQ1? If Sony is making a game, they will try to reach the largest target audience, and that won't be with the NeckbeardEQ. They will attempt to reach the 22 year olds with a shit load of time that is used to play games like WOW, Rift, TSW, GW2 etc.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Draegan_sl said:
How many of those 22 year olds are pining for a modern recreation of EQ1? If Sony is making a game,they will try to reach the largest target audience, and that won't be with the NeckbeardEQ. They will attempt to reach the 22 year olds with a shit load of time that is used to play games like WOW, Rift, TSW, GW2 etc.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why modern games are terrible. They're designing to attract the most amount of people possible, instead of a great design attracting a lot of people. There's a difference between those two statements, and in that difference is why social games and WoW fucking suck.
 
S

supertouch_sl

shitlord
1,858
3
there's no such thing as making games for a target audience. the gaming market isn't some unchanging, static entity. look at the position capcom is taking concerning games like resident evil: there's no market for survival horror games so we're going to make watered-down third person shooters because call of duty happens to be popular. that is a ridiculous way to assess the market. people will play whatever is fun and it's really as simple as that.
 
Q

qwertyqweqwertwqert

<Banned>
1,678
149
Draegan_sl said:
How many of those 22 year olds are pining for a modern recreation of EQ1?
Click to expand...
How the fuck would anyone know that unless someone bothers to make it? We've gone 10 years of nothing but WoW clones, nobody ever tried an EQ clone.

You may say it's a risk to try a game that hasn't been popular for 10 years. But it could also be seen as a no brainer if half a million 20 year olds enjoyed it back when the genre was new and now there are far more gamers than ever before. And unlike the early 00's, they all have the net..

Draegan_sl said:
If Sony is making a game, they will try to reach the largest target audience, and that won't be with the NeckbeardEQ.
Click to expand...
You talk about this neckbeard thing so much it makes me think you have some kind of complex about it. You are also are incredibly dense to keep saying the same thing over and over and either ignoring or just not understanding what other people are saying. And here is that point again, for the million time, this time in a new font.If SOE only wants to reach the largest audience and be down with the kool kids, then WoW is the ultimate template for that. And we've had 10 years of games trying to do exactly that, and most of them didn't do very well.

We also now have Rift, GW2 and soon ES:O. The fact is, people don't need another WoW clone, because we already have a bunch, and we still have WoW itself. But the original EQ no longer exists except on shady emu's.

So what should SOE do? Try like all the others to be hugely popular and maybe blow 100 million in the process if it doesn't catch on with the fickle kool kids? Or scale it back a bit and aim squarely at the original fans who paid SOE's bills the past 10 years and yet never had a sequel?
 
D

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
supertouch_sl said:
there's no such thing as making games for a target audience. the gaming market isn't some unchanging, static entity. look at the position capcom is taking concerning games like resident evil: there's no market for survival horror games so we're going to make watered-down third person shooters because call of duty happens to be popular. that is a ridiculous way to assess the market. people will play whatever is fun and it's really as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Your dum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.