EQ Never

Laura

Lord Nagafen Raider
582
109
I don't know why, but I would rather play EQ than about any other game.

I have been 3 boxing EQemu the last few days and having a blast. The game is fun, still. Which blows my mind.

Every game I have played since EQ has been a flop for me- I play, but the drive isn't there. I just hope Eqnext isn't shitastic.

All you guys talking about PVP scare the shit out of me. Go play Guild Wars 2, or WAR, or EVE, WoW, or any FPS.

EQ was fun because of the unique PVE abilities, making everything the same would be boring, they have tried that a million times in other games.
You're not the only one who thinks so and there are logical reasons explaining "why". People tried to argue with "First kiss", "Nostalgia" and "Rose colored glasses" but I think they're deluded and as I mentioned in an earlier post that there are plenty of mechanics EQ introduced that were abandoned. The game design itself is too different and we (who enjoyed it then) asks for it now. There's nothing mysterious about this, it's simply because the market doesn't offer something similar to that experience. There are zero options.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Slyminxy

Lord Nagafen Raider
739
-739
You're not the only one who thinks so and there are logical reasons explaining "why". People tried to argue with "First kiss", "Nostalgia" and "Rose colored glasses" but I think they're deluded and as I mentioned in an earlier post that there are plenty of mechanics EQ introduced that were abandoned. The game design itself is too different and we (who enjoyed it then) asks for it now. There's nothing mysterious about this, it's simply because the market doesn't offer something similar to that experience. There are zero options.
Can I marry your brain?
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
So I just spent my downtime this past week wading through 71 pages of bullshit, so I've got a few points I'm going to touch on. And they're long as fuck.

On Recent, Somehow-Vaunted Releases:

I've gotta say, Guild Wars 2blows. It's got minor innovations, sure, but after 35 levels and twenty-five dynamic events later (which in some cases involve a couple other people, but guess how many times I actually COMMUNICATED with any of them? How is that 'progress'?), you realize this is the exact same shit you left behind in WoW. WvW is basically Wintergrasp, and the 'true' PvP format is essentially arenas/battlegrounds. The world is pretty much Azeroth with slightly more realism and innovation, and the skill-point system is cool for a little while. But seriously, 80 levels? And the endgame is pretty much exactly like collecting Badges of Heroism. Oh, and the part I REALLY enjoy; dungeon crawls are the occasional dumb-fuck haphazard encounters sandwiched in between running by as much content as physically possible. There's nothing innovative and exciting about five DPS classes kiting a boss in circles. And, shit, if you die, who the fuck cares? What difference does it make? You just get picked up, and continue down the path, skipping and hopping to the next boss as fast as your little legs can carry you. I LIKED to fucking heal/support, ANet. Why the fuck do I have to do stupid water-elemantalist bullshit to help my groupmates survive these clusterfuck fights?

If Guild Wars 2 is what's considered the keystone to a higher-arcing MMO format, count me the fuck out. It's pretty much everything that's awful about casual content, epitomized. It's free past the first $60, though, which is noteworthy.

On EQN and the Sandbox-Style Format:

I hate to burst some people's bubbles here, but if it's going to be a sandbox-style MMORPG, it's almost got to be full-scale person-versus-person combat, and this is coming from someone who totally adores the original EverQuest model, so it's not a case of what I'm wishing for, just simply a case of content design. That's not to say there are going to be griefs-without-consequences (we can go in the way-back machine to UO's blue/grey/red system to find a simple, effective way of handling player-killers and other deviants), but it'll almost assuredly involve some PvP combat. And, in turn, the likely pay-off for swallowing such a system is player-driven bounty systems, player-driven economy, player-driven housing, player-driven content - well worth the trade-off, in my opinion. Nothing is cooler than hunting down some dickwad griefing motherfucker who killed a bunch of lemmings, only to melt his face off, drag his lifeless corpse back to whoever bountied his ass, and collect your well-deserved reward. That's the kind of social interaction a sandbox-style game promises - nay, necessitates - and it's awesome because it requires actual social acumen, much like imperative socially-oriented aspects that the original EverQuest was based upon.

Classes will also probably still exist, although I imagine they'll be much broader, and will involve a hybrid of the EQ/UO model where you choose a class at the start and work within very loose parameters of that class, allowing you to level up chosen skills within said class to a hard-cap point - the catch is that you only have a certain number of skill points to allocate, so you'll have definite strengths and weaknesses relative to others playing your class. Like, say, you choose a rogue-style; some rogues choose to specialize in stealth and traps, while going light on the armor, while other rogues wear heavier armor and dish out more hand-to-hand damage. You could also have one that's a puller that goes heavy on the armor and stealth but has weak damage output, and so on. And I imagine, keeping in line with sandbox ideals, that all of these specialized traits can be changed whenever the player desires, but it'll take time to level them back up. Like, say, you're tired of pulling and want to be a sneaky bastard that deals a ton of backstab damage; that's cool, but there's no secondary switch-off you can do immediately - you've got to level the skill back up from wherever you let it drop to (only, perhaps it's faster to level the second time around since you've already learned it).

On Motherfucking Station Cash:

There are a few other sticking points, though, particularly given this is SOE that's creating the game, and that means cash shops and the like. My greatest worry involves this, because if cash shops are used by players to reduce the immersiveness of the world (like stupid fucking dragon-rooster pets, or uber-awesome looking plate gear for a level 15 shitty shitfuck cloth-stricken enchanter), that will cause an immediate disinterest in the game. Because - and this is vitally important - if Smedley isn't bullshitting us, and is TRULY out to make a world and not a game (or a movie backdrop, as he calls it), the immersion is paramount to the continued success of the world. If SOE skimps on particular elements of the world and makes it less immersive in an effort to get 1% of the population to buy flying green pigs that follow their avatar around, they are cutting off their balls to spite their dick.

I'm okay with experience modifiers TO A CERTAIN EXTENT (the world should still take fuck-forever to get through to the big-bad-bossies, although perhaps not as long as the original EQ - I'm thinking a baseline between vanilla WoW (which took about 10 days /played for a casual) and classic EQ (which took ~40 days /played). Maybe make it so players who buy XP/skill-gain boosts still take about 20 days /played to max out on everything, therefore making those who don't buy 'em take about 30 days? There's a happy medium to be found that doesn't ruin the immersion but involves the gameplay (for example, station cash 'potions' that allow healing/resource maxing are fine if a player wants to cut down on downtime; allowing their use during combat, however, ruins the immersion and is not okay), but so help me if SOE shits out Short Swords of the Ykesha for 1500 station cash, I will fucking piss myself blue. Even free resurrection stones are too far for me; force players to enlist the aid of other players if their skills don't accommodate their particular need. Personally, I'm giddy about the idea of people buying tons of shit for in-game houses with Station Cash, because that reaches both my requisites; it's an isolated part of the world that doesn't affect others if they don't want it to, and it doesn't take away from the immersion for anyone who doesn't want it to. It's a perfect example of a cash shop use that works for both ends of the spectrum, and that fucking excites me greatly.

On Fully Interactive Environments vs. Instances:

As for the last major point; for me, instancing blows. I much prefer the open world (because I much prefer the game content of EQ and UO to any other MMO, really), but I realize there are people out there who love instances. So, there's got to be a happy medium. My idea: have a healthy combination of open-world dungeons that involve camping and actual socializing and the like, and allow introvert douchenozzles their single-player zone-hops (yeah, my disdain really isn't shining through, is it?). Only thing is, there has to be a risk/reward tuning; perhaps make the instances drop worse gear that binds on pickup and gives way less skill experience, or make the instances hard as FUCK compared to the open world - it'll likely have to be the former, because frankly, a lot of the WoW babies need to suck on the instance-nipple for sustenance, so give them their ez-mode rinse-and-repeat-25-times content, if they wish. This way, you can choose which way you want to play, and the poopsockers/nostalgic EQ'ers can be found in the uninstanced areas, collecting tradeable versions of better gear in exchange for more risk. That seems pretty fair, no?

Fuck, that took a while. Give us some news, dammit.
 

Apostolos

Golden Knight of the Realm
430
219
Please take yourself and your pvp mindset and stay the hell away from my game. There are plenty out there for you. EQ was PVE and should stay PvE, so kiss my *** You want your own pvp ruleset server? OK fine, but the primary design needs to stay the way it worked to begin with. (aka designed around pve only with pvp not taken into consideration at all as far as class balance or content goes).
 

Tide27_sl

shitlord
124
0
While I can agree that instancing has gotten a tad out of hand, its here to stay. As easy as it is to find and download a bot program these days, every camp worth actually being at would be perma camped 24/7 by bot programs. We can ask devs to ban people, but Im sure we all know the same obvious bots that have been in one of any paticular games that have botted 24/7 and been reported by half the player base, all the while continuing to not get banned.

Full on PvP? Lulz. Enjoy the game with only you and another handful of neckbeards that have no life able to rush to cap and perma gank newbs. Dont act like your that "one" guy that truly doesnt gank people 90 levels lower and feel a sense of gratification.

At this point in MMOs, unless something drastically changes, there is no room for PVP in any other form than some sort of diversion because it messes everything else up due to class balance and pretty making every toon a carbon copy of each other.
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
Please take yourself and your pvp mindset and stay the hell away from my game. There are plenty out there for you. EQ was PVE and should stay PvE, so kiss my *** You want your own pvp ruleset server? OK fine, but the primary design needs to stay the way it worked to begin with. (aka designed around pve only with pvp not taken into consideration at all as far as class balance or content goes).
I clearly stated that I was a fan of the EverQuest gaming experience over any other. There's a pretty marked difference between wanting something and understanding the basic definition of said something. Would I like PvE-centric balance in a PvE-centric environment? Of course I would. Is that part of what defines of a sandbox-style game? It is not.

To your communication point, did you actually try talking to some of those people? Or was no one talking to you?
No one - during dynamic quests, in instances, et al. - had a desire to communicate. Were there isolated incidents where someone would say *something* in response to a comment I made? Absolutely, but the other 98% weren't interested. Anything that slows the hamster down - even if only for a second - is something entirely unpalatable to the majority of the player base. After all, that hamster's gotta keep spinning that wheel. Eighty fucking times.

It's getting to the point where I wonder if people even know that these games are supposed to be interactive worlds, and not just Skyrim-style single player games with people occasionally running past them.
 

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
They are interactive worlds, you and a few people around you are working towards completing in game objectives. You are interacting by being around each other in the game world. The fact that they are not talking to you is meaningless. If you want to talk to people then join a guild or something. Do you want to have a conversation about the NFL playoffs or something as you run around collecting bear asses?

Most people are chatting in vent or skype or with their guild in gchat. Are you that guy who tries to strike up conversations with random people while waiting in line for a cup of coffee?
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
While I can agree that instancing has gotten a tad out of hand, its here to stay. As easy as it is to find and download a bot program these days, every camp worth actually being at would be perma camped 24/7 by bot programs. We can ask devs to ban people, but Im sure we all know the same obvious bots that have been in one of any paticular games that have botted 24/7 and been reported by half the player base, all the while continuing to not get banned.

Full on PvP? Lulz. Enjoy the game with only you and another handful of neckbeards that have no life able to rush to cap and perma gank newbs. Dont act like your that "one" guy that truly doesnt gank people 90 levels lower and feel a sense of gratification.

At this point in MMOs, unless something drastically changes, there is no room for PVP in any other form than some sort of diversion because it messes everything else up due to class balance and pretty making every toon a carbon copy of each other.
Again, how the fuck does someone go about defining sandbox-style without PvP, except to convince themselves of what they want to believe? If you give me the option of a PvE experience versus a PvP experience, all things being equal, I'd choose PvE.

And who says you have to balance for PvP? Some skills should be better for PvE, and some skills should be better for PvP. That's life - people are better at particular things than other people. Who gives a fuck if you can't kill anyone with a cleric? You're better at finding groups than a PvP-centric rogue is. And, again - if you put in risks like, if you're flagged red (you've ganked a newbie recently - say, in the past five minutes) and you die while flagged red, the person who killed you can take one item off your corpse of his choosing. Even though that's not 'true-sandbox', that fits the mold of something similarly definable.

You're too focused on rigid concepts in previous games. Throw all the terrible shit about WoW and class-balancing PvP out the window. Sandbox-style is inherently imbalanced, because people are given a nigh-unlimited selection of choices to customize their character. Balance is by no means a focus in true sandbox-style worlds. The fucking carpenter isn't going to run up to you and one-shot you with a table leg if he's skill level 100 in carpentry and you're brand new to the game.
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
They are interactive worlds, you and a few people around you are working towards completing in game objectives. You are interacting by being around each other in the game world. The fact that they are not talking to you is meaningless. If you want to talk to people then join a guild or something. Do you want to have a conversation about the NFL playoffs or something as you run around collecting bear asses?

Most people are chatting in vent or skype or with their guild in gchat. Are you that guy who tries to strike up conversations with random people while waiting in line for a cup of coffee?
It's bad massively multiplayer game design to require people to complete a task with other people without actually having to develop a strategy for said task. It equates to a bunch of mice blindly running from one orange circle on a mini-map to the next. I would know; that's exactly the kind of game design I found when I was in the throes of some centaur-bullshit zone. It wasn't fun, it didn't feel like an adventure. It felt like I was a sheep, and I was being herded from one part to the next, and I knew if I broke away from the herd, I would pay for it by having to grind meaningless regional quests for triple the time to make up for the experience I would have gained had I just stayed with the herd.

It's not a matter of finding the most fun thing to do in current games; it's a matter of finding the least-tedious way to maximum level, because absolutely nothing you do, and very little you collect in the uninstanced world (with the possible exception of the random valuable dye) matters from levels 1 to 79. And even if you want the 500 Shards of Ascalon or whatever-the-fuck, you're stuck doing the same instance 15 times. And yes, I know you can go three different ways. That's still fucking terrible.
 

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,864
6,821
Don't overthink the sandbox label. "Sandbox" style games cover a wide variety. The main point is that they are open world, open ended and have some sort of world modifying ability. You're not forced down a linear path.

Although it wasn't a sandbox in the strictest sense of the word, EQ1 did have many sandbox elements compared to modern mmos. In fact most mmos have sandbox elements in comparison to single player games that tend to be very linear. Some single player rpgs are sandbox in nature.

And PvP is not required just so a mmo can be sandbox game. PvP is just "easier" to implement and then call a game a sandbox.

I suspect that EQN will not be a sandbox game of the type most of us think of when we hear the term. Mostly it is just Smed doing the marketing thing.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
They are interactive worlds, you and a few people around you are working towards completing in game objectives. You are interacting by being around each other in the game world. The fact that they are not talking to you is meaningless. If you want to talk to people then join a guild or something. Do you want to have a conversation about the NFL playoffs or something as you run around collecting bear asses?

Most people are chatting in vent or skype or with their guild in gchat. Are you that guy who tries to strike up conversations with random people while waiting in line for a cup of coffee?
No one is interacting with you because the game gives them no rational reason to. You inadvertently say it in your post. When you make the task in your game as simple as getting a cup of coffee, there is no reason to exchange information and form a bond. (Though you'd be surprised how many bonds you form at say, the bus stop or coffee line. If you get coffee every day, you might not know your vendor's name BUT if he was missing you'd ask "where is the X guy/girl?" where X would be a defining feature. Why would you ask this? Because your brain does jumps at broken patterns and attempts to rationalize them. That rationalization is an important aspect of growing bonds.)

Anyway. This is why there has to be a large breadth in the dynamic possibilities of your game. There also has to be large gulfs effectiveness--but not so much that it turns new players off. What does that mean? It means you have certain areas of your game that are there specifically for higher skilled or more knowledgeable players. These areas of your game should beattractive to everyone, but only really accessible to a fewAT FIRST. You accomplish this by setting it OUTSIDE the normal defined set of skills you've expected up until then.

In other words, you break the pattern--this forces people to attempt to evaluate new variables which they can use to create a new product out condition (A new lever). Some players will figure it out on their own, some will be forced to supplement their own problem solving with social learning. Which is why you have the reward be evident to others, whether that be the person slaying the unique monster in town (To be seen) or that he gets a bad ass weapon. You create a ritual, with the stronger player at the center and the others enjoined to him over the need to learn from him to repeat the process. (And just an FYI this is NOT the only type of ritual.)

To give an example. In your work, if everyone hates your printer...But you go up and magically make it work every time. Guess who becomes popular when everyone needs the printer working? You do. This dynamic information sharing based off of specialized knowledge is a key element in social interaction. And no, you're not going to inspire sharing through the collection of bare ass--you inspire sharing through breaking the normal dynamic by making your reward LESS accessible without social interaction (At least to the masses). The most extreme end of this is forced grouping, but there are far subtler ways it can be done that don't require throwing out all the time saving mechanisms in modern games. (The problem is the advent of those mechanisms has seen the completely obliteration of social formation--there IS a middle ground that was completely passed up.)

Writing it off as your game has to be collecting bear asses, is part of the problem of not designing with the expectation that social interaction will ever occur. And once more, all that leads to is highlighting the fact that you're playing a shitty version of a single player game, where instead of slaying the ultimate bad guy of doom--you're collecting bear asses and then bigger bear asses. And that's the problem. Games are NOT being designed with elements that make it rational to communicate.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
Don't overthink the sandbox label. "Sandbox" style games cover a wide variety. The main point is that they are open world and open ended. You're not forced down a linear path. Requiring a game to be an extreme example of sandbox gameplay before it can be called a sandbox doesn't serve anyone.

Although it wasn't a sandbox in the strictest sense of the word, EQ1 did have many sandbox elements compared to modern mmos. In fact most mmos have sandbox elements in comparison to single player games that tend to be very linear. Some single player rpgs are sandbox in nature.

And PvP is not required just so a mmo can be sandbox game. PvP is just "easier" to implement and then call a game a sandbox.

I suspect that EQN will not be a sandbox game of the type most of us think of when we hear the term. Mostly it is just Smed doing the marketing thing.
I would argue it doesn't even really matter, because Smedley is our source as to the 'sandbox-style' path EQN is treading down, and he's pulled us through the verbal ringer time and time again. However, when someone says 'sandbox-style', it does have the insinuation that players can choose to do whatever they please within the world, within the limits (or 'rules') set by the world.

I have long believed that EQ is a good example of a PvM environmental sandbox with linear character progression, where you are dumped in the world and you could do whatever you wanted to from there (like, for example, a dwarf could become adored by dark elves while becoming repulsive to his own kin - how has EQ's faction system not been replicated? I mean, seriously?). However, there were limitations based on your class and your level; because those elements are chosen and not altered through the journey, it's not a true, full-on do-whatever-the-fuck-I-want fest.

If you're looking for an example of a true 'sandbox-style' game, look no further than the first of the MMORPG genre; Ultima Online is the forefather of the sandbox, and if Smedley stays true to his word (which is, again, one hell of an assumption to make at this point) and pushes a 'sandbox-style' game, expect a lot of the more core gameplay elements of Ultima, with a healthy mixture of concepts from both EQ1 and EQ2, to be applied to EQN. After all, people need to be able to have houses in order for borderline-absurd amounts of Station Cash to be spent decorating them.
 

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,864
6,821
Heheh, aye the cash shop will be full of fluff to buy with station cash. No doubt about that.

But thats cool. The people who buy that stuff help pay for cheapskates like me. I gladly pay for extra content, but the super cool hat and jacket are a waste.
 

Merlin_sl

shitlord
2,329
1
They are interactive worlds, you and a few people around you are working towards completing in game objectives. You are interacting by being around each other in the game world. The fact that they are not talking to you is meaningless. If you want to talk to people then join a guild or something. Do you want to have a conversation about the NFL playoffs or something as you run around collecting bear asses?

Most people are chatting in vent or skype or with their guild in gchat. Are you that guy who tries to strike up conversations with random people while waiting in line for a cup of coffee?
This post is so misguided I don't even know where to start. You.............played EQ right?
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
Heheh, aye the cash shop will be full of fluff to buy with station cash. No doubt about that.

But thats cool. The people who buy that stuff help pay for cheapskates like me. I gladly pay for extra content, but the super cool hat and jacket are a waste.
Totally agreed, but again; as long as it doesn't take away from the immersion that building around a world as opposed to a game is 'promised' to give. Allowing people to wear really awesome-looking gear for real life dough can work, but it has to be styilized a certain way; or, better yet, the truly newbie gear should look like absolute dogshit. That way, you can role-play a noble-type with prettier starting gear, but it still doesn't look nearly as awesome as that Enameled Black Platemail set from Lower Guk that took Poopsock_player x hours to farm after he reached near his skill caps. [EDIT: it should be noted I'm using simple comparisons that are easy to make, not because I believe that kind of camping will exist in EQN]

As I said before, there's a fine line here. I'm just worried SOE is going to shit all over that line and sell people GODMODE looks from the very start of the game so that they can run around with a flaming sword while they're still getting their dicks handed to them by pixies in Greater Faydark.
 

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,864
6,821
Totally agreed, but again; as long as it doesn't take away from the immersion that building around a world as opposed to a game is 'promised' to give. Allowing people to wear really awesome-looking gear for real life dough can work, but it has to be styilized a certain way; or, better yet, the truly newbie gear should look like absolute dogshit. That way, you can role-play a noble-type with prettier starting gear, but it still doesn't look nearly as awesome as that Enameled Black Platemail set from Lower Guk that took Poopsock_player x hours to farm after he reached near his skill caps. [EDIT: it should be noted I'm using simple comparisons that are easy to make, not because I believe that kind of camping will exist in EQN]

As I said before, there's a fine line here. I'm just worried SOE is going to shit all over that line and sell people GODMODE looks from the very start of the game so that they can run around with a flaming sword while they're still getting their dicks handed to them by pixies in Greater Faydark.
Fashion Show EverQuest... coming to a cash shop near you....

I have mixed feelings about it. When EQ introduced dyes, I loved it. But after that it was impossible to tell who had the uber gear. Even though they looked hideous, you knew that that ogre tank sporting rainbow colors did so because he had the best gear on the server.

The answer is to have a decent art director who has an iron fist over the design process and holds back some of the best looks from the cash shop.. It's a good thing to sell cool outfits. But to not have happen what you are talking about, some of the best looks have to be reserved for the most hard won gear. And I don't mean the super ubah looking legendaries in GW2 that mean nothing because anyone with a fat bank account can buy them too. Some of the best gear looks have to be reserved for in game accomplishments, otherwise it is all meaningless pablum for the masses. Which is what everyone hates.
 

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,124
3,818
I had a certain game dev once contact me who said something to the effect of, "Your ideas would be great if the playerbase wasn't retarded." We talked for a bit and it really shaped the way I think about things like this. I used to have an idea for itemization which was basically gemming/enchanting on acid. He pointed out to me that you have to take into consideration that if you give the average player more then 2 choices and he'll shit himself. Picking a race and class he said is already one of the most daunting tasks for a new player it turns out.

It's really helped me shape how I think about stuff.
I partially agree with you and your developer friend. But only so far as this: You should never ask the player to make a decision, that can not be undone, that they have not received ample information about.

So when you ask a 15 second old character to decide what Race, Class, Faction combo they are going to be for the rest of their lives... that's bad design right there. The tiny amount of information provided in a brief description of the class, and a maybe a few example skills are not enough. It's even worse with the faction selection. This forces two things to happen. The developer either has to stick to stereotypical class designs in order to give people what they expect or has to provide ample information up front in order to make this decision not regret worthy.

Lots of people interested in a game will sit there and plan out what class they wish to play months in advance, well your developer friend is not worried about those people. He is worried about the people that can't figure out how to equip new items, or don't understand what to do when the scary red numbers appear on the screen. So for those people I would strongly suggest abandoning the class selection at character creation method we have had forever.

Instead I would look at the third option that I am a major fan of. Incremental complexity. Pretty much the only decision the player makes right off the bat is how they want their character to look and maybe some back-story elements. All other character customization happens in game with flexible stats, trainable skills and faction based ranks.

You make your character, you chose how you look and then pick a starting area. This starting area will have a decent amount of influence on the early life of your character but it wont be set in stone. I am thinking most starting areas are some sort of city or town or settlement with various controlling factions (a certain kingdom, a group of bandits, some wood elves). Starting area availability will change based on race.

Really a player is just picking what they think looks interesting, and is having their options parred down for them and setting them off in a direction without having to think about it.

They begin playing and right away come in contact with one of the groups that control the area. This group will offer to get them set up and started in return for the players efforts. This will open up specific skills and starting equipment that fit that group. The kingdom might offer the player a position in the city guard, the bandits turn the player into a caravan raider, the wood elves enlist him to become a forest warden ect. However, a player could just decide to leave the starting area if it didn't suit them and go find their own way.

The title the player receives reflects the group and standing within that group of the player and becomes their "class". It also provides some passive bonuses to further accentuate that classes strong points. There would be a lot of factions and each one would have varying numbers of ranks within them. Each rank would offer the player the chance to acquire new skills and some rare skills would be faction/rank specific. The only way to learn a certain firebreath spell is to be a fire mage of the 6th circle or something like that.

A player is by no means expected to stay with their beginning group forever. But where they go from there will be very dependent on the skills they cultivated early. The City guard will be in a good position to join the army and eventually become a general. The bandit may join a group of assassins down the line and eventually become a master in the deadly arts. The forest Warden may leave the village and become a beast tamer of great renown.

The path a player chooses would depend heavily on the groups they align themselves with, but would allow for a player to jump ship as it were, and totally change direction if they really wanted to. The most important thing is that there should not be a direct and forced link between early classes/titles and later classes/titles. The paths should branch out from the beginning and cross one another.

So a player's life begins simply, and based on their experiences and which groups they decide to run with and what skills the chose to foster, their character grows naturally. The trick is to provide relative levels of power at similar ranks. So all of the class/titles need to be on a sort of tier system. That way people can roughly gauge the power of the skills a character has available to them. A master assassin would be like a tier 9 title while a bandit is tier 1 or 2. Balance power among the titles this way so certain paths don't fall woefully behind others.

There would still be specialization and many types of skills would be counters to other skills. So a certain class might be really good at melee combat, but completely left out to dry in a situation where you have to fight ghosts that are immune to physical damage, unless they bring special gear or a class that can handle them. Stuff like that. Likewise a range class would be really good at dealing with flying targets but start to suffer in small enclosed spaces, without special close quarters ranged combat training or someone to keep the enemies off them.

If you slowly lead people into the decisions they make and allow their actual playing to make many of those decisions for them, you can actually get people into pretty complex systems without them screaming or tearing their hair out.
 

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,864
6,821
If you slowly lead people into the decisions they make and allow their actual playing to make many of those decisions for them, you can actually get people into pretty complex systems without them screaming or tearing their hair out.
Good points. But another added thing that helps is a reset button. Early EQ1 penalized players for making poor choices in starting stats. Stat inflation eventually made those decisions unimportant, but in the early game it mattered. If there had been a redo button somewhere, then many people would not have had to abandon their toons or just suffer through it.

The redo button doesn't have to be easy and cheap. I prefer something that takes effort in the form of faction, or hard to obtain items, to allow access to a redo/reset. But it needs to be there for all the reasons you stated. And not just for stats. Ability paths and most other choices that can have dire consequences to a character, needs a way out. This gives players a chance to play the game and know that they can fix their mistakes (with enough effort) if they make the wrong choices.

Given that knowledge, most players will not freeze at every decision fork, afraid to do anything at all.