EQ Never

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
I agree this design is lacking, but like Democracy it is the best we have currently for most players. If I have one hour to play and want to do something, this is a good way to offer me something. Simplified questing definitely isn't great, or as good as a world raid or a fine balanced group in a new scary dungeon, but if it gives a player one of many things to do then it's good, in my opinion. The other issue is the amount of content in MMOs.

My biggest gripe is that we keep recycling game devs with the same fucking MMO design documents with only slight variations without heavy real change. I enjoy GW2 but it's design document is the same level, quest, PVP one we've seen for the last 10 years. Likewise for SWTOR. Outside of EVE, the only game that was slightly different was SWG and for some reason the asshats changed it to be more like the other lemming games.

PS2 is a good game but there is not exactly a ton to do there. It is an especially mediocre experience for someone who is casual. It's more akin to TF2 than an MMO to me.
My perspective: if you have an hour, you should be able to do something that feels like productivity without having it pigeon-holed into the 'ten bear asses' category. The idea of contrived 'questing' has been done, over-done, and done to the (n)th degree. It's ridiculous in that it's been rehashed literally dozens - and perhaps hundreds - of times, it's truly lazy game design, and it's time for an MMO to change the status quo.

As for PS2 - if it's truly like that (which I wouldn't know, I haven't cared for the FPS genre since Counter-Strike), at least they're staying true to what they believe will deliver the most genuine game experience for the genre - and from all I've heard, it seems like they have. If you're playing an MMOFPS, I'm guessing your expectations are going to have to be built around that concept rather than tossing them in the same category as an MMORPG (a real one, that is). Logging in and shooting a couple people is always possible, sure, but the best way to maximize efforts is to join up with others and work together - just as it should be.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Well, actually, we've seen a game designed a bit like this. You see, factions duking it out in pvp for the control of a dungeon with raid and specific loot and all that... this has been done before. Twelve years ago. It was called Darkness Falls in the venerable Dark Age of Camelot (which is a game that I resubbed twice after dropping out. Almost as much as EQ). And it was considered a big success at the time, but
Really? You think DAOC with their miss mechanics to balance PvE gear inflation was designed with both in mind? Yeah, not really what I'd be going for. And as you said, their PvE gearing was designed with little thought except for a goal to kill things--it was essentially tacked on to the final game.

So, no. DAOC was not designed from the ground up with the thought that PvP and PvE would be interdependent. It was designed for PvP, where PvE could be played without affecting PvP, really at all. Which is, essentially the opposite of what I was saying.
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
pvp is fine when it's an integral part of the pve experience. duking it out for resources, forming alliances, and the politics involved give it meaning. i can see why people would have a problem with class imbalance but open pvp isn't about besting all of your opponents and getting your name on a leaderboard.
Exactly right - both would have to be interdependent upon one another, not this 'split-worlds' nonsense. 'Classes' have no need to be balanced around PvP in that sense, nor should they be. Each class provides a role, and each role a purpose. 15 rogues shouldn't have the same odds of winning a fight as 3 clerics, 2 warriors, 2 necromancers, 2 magicians, 2 enchanters, 2 bards, and you get my point.
 

Archdruid Archeron

the Site Surgeon
<Granularity Engineer>
579
2,288
Which is still bad.
I quit GW 2 the moment I was expected to collect Mushrooms that were "highlighted" for me to pick.

I ask a question... WHY?
Why do I want to pick 6 mushrooms?
Why?

Why is 80% of my time is based on very stupid reasons to play. Why should I kill X creatures and collect X apples? That's it? That's what games should be?

That kind of thing keeps players busy doing retarded errands and not interacting with other players.

I'd rather be given the freedom without any neon-signs or "objectives" but with rich lore in the world and plenty of dungeons to explore (for adventurous players) and of course the options to do other things (outside of exploring and adventuring).

I'm not going to collect 6 mushrooms ever again nor I am going to kill 10 rats just because I'm supposed to. It's over for me.
While I certainly prefer the "auto-questing" to "zomg! exclamation point!", many of the area quests in GW2 do lack a sense of purpose or cohesive story arc. As a result, I have been kicking around an idea for how I would improve upon the system:

I imagine a game world that is somewhat like "Eve-like but in fantasy", in that there are three large cities with dozens upon dozens of outlying villages. Each village has resources nearby, unique event sources (e.g. goblin cave, faerie mound, whatever), and starts with no alignment. Players can band together to gain control of a village. Villages that are adjacent to one of the city-controlled areas can align with the city and build reputation until their land is considered part of the city-state proper territories. All (GW-2 style) event quests in the area are basically a way to help out your village: escort quests are there to help establish trade routes, gathering quests build wealth, slaying quests clear areas for development, other quests may help build the local militia adding troops or equipment, and many quests build renown for your village with the target city. Players would build faction with their village by binding to a village, making it their home, setting up a shop or farm/garden, and by logging out in the area (yes, building faction just by living there); faction would give you access to village resources like the blacksmith, etc where you could get better gear, etc.

Villages that didn't align with a city faction could form independent states (low-sec) where the rule set was different. When you were in city controlled lands, you wouldn't be killable unless you were KOS to that city. In independent villages, it would be open PVP. That said, you would take faction hit for killing anyone aligned with that local village and they would take a faction hit from your home for killing you; these would be larger faction hits based upon proximity to your city. Killing someone of the opposite faction would build some faction with yours. Player boosted faction would need to have a decay function to prevent people from easily maxing out with their city through PVP exploits. Out of this, teams could naturally emerge as a result of who kills who and who is aligned with who rather than "For the Horde!". Killing someone would be something that you thought about carefully because they may cause a faction hit with a place that you wanted to keep friendly. Full scale invasion of another village would allow one team to outright capture another village, leaving it in a state of anarchy for few days before it shifts alignment to have (weak) faction aligned with the conquerors, which would then need to be built from scratch.

The yin and the yang of the two would be that most of the villages would be pretty crappy if you never did PVE-style investments in building out the area while the threat of PVP conquering was always very real no matter where you were outside of the major cities themselves.

GW2 events would spawn out of the local monster factory (faerie mounds, goblin caves). Leaving them alone for a long time would build and build them (think inactive goblin cave -> goblin scouts -> goblin patrols -> goblin warband -> goblin army). This would give the "omg, centaurs attacking!" events in GW2 more life as it would seem more like centaurs were amassing in the forest until their tribes built up enough that they decided to attack the local village. The ability of the local village to repel the attack would be (a) based upon the direct involvement of online players who killed centaurs, and (b) based upon the cumulative support of online/offline players who had built up the resources of the village to build up their automated defensive capabilities.
 
You guys are fighting the last war. The only sandbox-type game they can possibly finish that fast after 3 reboots is one heavily dependent on procedural content, and systems that make players interact with that content in a fun way.

Everybody knows that using procedural content in a Diku-style game is a catastrophe waiting to happen, but minecraft has proven the genre can work well. They're going to be expanding that model to an MMO somehow.
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
Also, I feel obligated to note:

John Smedley_sl said:
"I have to be honest with you. We have completely blown up the design of EverQuest Next.For the last year and a half we have been working on something we are not ready to show.Why did we blow up the design? The design was evolutionary. It was EverQuest III. It was something that was slightly better that what had come before it. IT was slightly better. What we are building is something that we will be very proud to call EverQuest. It will be the largest sandbox style MMO ever designed. The same exciting content delivered in a new way. Something you've never seen before. The MMO world has never seen before.We didn't want more Kill 10 Rats quests.We didn't want more of the same. If you look at the MMOs out there, they're delivering the same content over and over again. So are we. We need to change that. When we released EverQuest, we changed the world. We want to do that again with a different type of game.

What I will commit to is, at the next Fan Faire, not only will you get to see it but you will get to touch it. Most of the EQNext devs are in this room. If you get them drunk enough they might tell you. They're led by Dave Georgeson. Terry Michaels. Vets from EQ and EQ2. We are remaking Norrath unlike anything you've ever seen, but you'll recognize it. I'm sorry we don't have anything to show for it, but I wanted to be honest with you and tell you a little bit about it. Keep the faith."
Source:http://eq2wire.com/2012/10/18/soe-li...h-for-updates/

In October of 2012, Smedley stated, in an interview, that SOE has been working on the new design for approximately 18 months. Now, given the idea that this is a game engine SOE has already worked with (Forgelight, with PS2), in a world they likely already created prior to the content restart (Norrath!), it's a pretty understandable, realistic timeline to say that the core game design would take two years from brainstorm to full implementation.

I also felt obligated to bold the long-overdue death of the 'kill 10 rats' bullshit.
 
302
22
Which is still bad.
I quit GW 2 the moment I was expected to collect Mushrooms that were "highlighted" for me to pick.

I ask a question... WHY?
Why do I want to pick 6 mushrooms?
Why?

Why is 80% of my time is based on very stupid reasons to play. Why should I kill X creatures and collect X apples? That's it? That's what games should be?

That kind of thing keeps players busy doing retarded errands and not interacting with other players.

I'd rather be given the freedom without any neon-signs or "objectives" but with rich lore in the world and plenty of dungeons to explore (for adventurous players) and of course the options to do other things (outside of exploring and adventuring).

I'm not going to collect 6 mushrooms ever again nor I am going to kill 10 rats just because I'm supposed to. It's over for me.
I would like to see exactly one quest npc in EQ. He should be at the very beginning of the game, and he should ask you to go kill ten rats. Then you get two options.

The first option is to accept the quest at which point the game closes and WoW's website is loaded.

The second option is to kill the quest giver as you exclaim, "I ain't your bitch mother fucker. Get your own rats!" Then the game starts for real, and there are no more quest givers in the game.
 

Laura

Lord Nagafen Raider
582
109
I agree this design is lacking, but like Democracy it is the best we have currently for most players. If I have one hour to play and want to do something, this is a good way to offer me something. Simplified questing definitely isn't great, or as good as a world raid or a fine balanced group in a new scary dungeon, but if it gives a player one of many things to do then it's good, in my opinion. The other issue is the amount of content in MMOs.

My biggest gripe is that we keep recycling game devs with the same fucking MMO design documents with only slight variations without heavy real change. I enjoy GW2 but it's design document is the same level, quest, PVP one we've seen for the last 10 years. Likewise for SWTOR. Outside of EVE, the only game that was slightly different was SWG and for some reason the asshats changed it to be more like the other lemming games.

PS2 is a good game but there is not exactly a ton to do there. It is an especially mediocre experience for someone who is casual. It's more akin to TF2 than an MMO to me.
You're right about the "design document" even the ratio of how many hits a level 1 player can kill a level 1 NPC is almost copied exactly. It's like it became a sacred tabled from heaven that you dare not to change!

I think simplified quests are "alright" (EQ had them, collect CB belts for Kaladim or these Bat Wings which gives you faction + some coin). What is not acceptable is quests being defined so rigidly that you cannot progress without them (campaign to follow which is important for your class branches eventually for instance). Quests shouldn't give you XP rewards (maybe very few for very little XP) and quests DEFINITELY shouldn't have this "Switch On, collect, then back to vending machine" mechanic.

Quests should be there and require no activation. You kill a boss, loot his head. You know it's for a quest, you save the head. One day you'll figure out who wants his head and turn in for a reward.

The world definitely needs to have things you can do in an hour that feels you've accomplished something (farming, crafting, harvesting, doing minimal tasks for faction or money, job/career in a city, ...etc) but it shouldn't be the very foundation of the game.

Freedom and more Options is what we need I guess.
Save the time/money it takes to create cut-scenes and quests and instead make more dungeons with their own lore for us to explore. Tiny ones (which can be finished in an hour), Medium ones, Large and Huge.
 

Laura

Lord Nagafen Raider
582
109
I would like to see exactly one quest npc in EQ. He should be at the very beginning of the game, and he should ask you to go kill ten rats. Then you get two options.

The first option is to accept the quest at which point the game closes and WoW's website is loaded.

The second option is to kill the quest giver as you exclaim, "I ain't your bitch mother fucker. Get your own rats!" Then the game starts for real, and there are no more quest givers in the game.
LOL, hilarious!

I want to see that implemented in a game, I would buy a game just for this. :p
 

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
Yes, because clearly the only way to have npcs give out quests (aside from, you know, all the quest givers in EQ) is to do the retarded over the top way that WoW turned into.

Clearly. And again, there's that argument about not having quests in a game because Freedom and Options, when removing the option to quest is pretty much taking away freedom from a portion of the paying playerbase. You not doing the quest is your freedom, someone else doing the quest is theirs. This is why -you guys- can't have nice things. You don't make sense a lot of the time.

And then there's the often debunked idea that one cannot progress in modern games without questing, when it is a -fact- that grinding mobs is faster xp. And group grinding is faster than solo grinding. Like... in every single game out there.

I mean really, being completely wrong is one thing if it's just an opinion, but some of you guys are straight up ignoring reality with some of these claims. C'mon.

Come up with non-retarded ideas that don't ignore 10 years of MMO history like it never occurred, because it did and anyAAA or even AA game is going to take that history into account. That or they simply won't get made in most cases.
 

Laura

Lord Nagafen Raider
582
109
Yes, because clearly the only way to have npcs give out quests (aside from, you know, all the quest givers in EQ) is to do the retarded over the top way that WoW turned into.

Clearly. And again, there's that argument about not having quests in a game because Freedom and Options, when removing the option to quest is pretty much taking away freedom from a portion of the paying playerbase. You not doing the quest is your freedom, someone else doing the quest is theirs. This is why -you guys- can't have nice things. You don't make sense a lot of the time.
Quests are fine.
Quest-Driven philosophy is not because it forces Soloing and even the "Group" quests forces the group to dissolve once the objective is reached. Everyone wants to go back to the city to "turn in" the quest so they can proceed with the next step (that is one stupid game design if you ask me). It keeps players too busy with many of small tasks all the time. Players stopped talking to other players, you're always in the run to finish 30+ quests that will never stop pouring in until you reach maximum level.

Also, Vending Machine Quest Hubs are boring.

You should never be restricted doing quests by going to NPC Z and "switching on" an item X that NPC Y is going to drop so you would go back to NPC Z to turn in for XP, Loot and Coin. Like I said NPCs should have their item table available for everyone without the need for any kind of previous triggers.


I'm also all for meaningful quests, like EQ's Epic Quest, which should take weeks (if not months) to finish but only have very few of these in the world and do not make them mandatory for the player's progress.
 

Quineloe

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,978
4,463
It's not about how the quest system works, it's about what gets to be a quest. Kill 10 wolves should not be a quest. Quests should have multiple steps that require effort to complete and have actual rewards. Yet another pair of green boots is not a reward.
 

Vonador_sl

shitlord
44
0
It's not about how the quest system works, it's about what gets to be a quest. Kill 10 wolves should not be a quest. Quests should have multiple steps that require effort to complete and have actual rewards. Yet another pair of green boots is not a reward.
You're telling me when you're doing a quest, you actually want it to be...a quest?!

Rezz_sl said:
Come up with non-retarded ideas that don't ignore 10 years of MMO history like it never occurred, because it did and anyAAA or even AA game is going to take that history into account. That or they simply won't get made in most cases.
While I agree that most AAA titles will not only take the design into account but copy it exactly, Smedley has been adamant about how much of a departure EQN is. At least on the surface.

Now, do I believe Smedley or recent history? Personally, I believe recent history, but simultaneously have an understanding that SOE is one of the very few companies out there with the financial backing to actually rail against the theme-park machine and buck the trend.

As the best-case scenario, I still expect a few quest hubs and the six bear asses nonsense, but again - not as a necessity, simply as a way to attract (and keep around, for at least a moderate amount of time) the WoW babies. Lots of people out there don't even know how to play an MMO without it holding their hand; thus, at the very least, I expect some initial guidance for those who want it.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,927
9,578
YSmedley has been adamant about how much of a departure EQN is.
Yes. He says it's not EQ3 (i.e., much to the despair of some here, modern EQ1 nor modern EQ2). He says it's enormous and sandboxy.

(of course, the "biggest" qualifier may represent his hopes in terms of players, rather than the actual game size)

At this point, I start to envision a Norrath, but instead of 10,000 players with about 1500 connected on peak time, with 250,000 players, and 50,000 simultaneously on the same Antonican soil we know.

And you can't make yellow-marked 10-bear quests in a world where 50,000 players are simultaneously playing, in the same world (I'm not talking about ESO's phased pseudo-servers where you'd get copies upon copies of each zone as people are around, I'm talking about a single unique instance, where, if 50,000 players decide to go in Freeport, your client will render in seconds per frame).
 

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
You're not going to get 50k simultaneous users online unless the world is big everyone is spread out where you can guarantee that no more than 300 or so users won't be in the same play at the same time.

EVE can do it because everything is sharded and it's essentially a spreadsheet with almost no assets to render.
 

Roxette_sl

shitlord
30
0
I have not read the entire thread, but does anyone here really think that Smedley / SOE will actually deliver something different rather than the typical garbage we have seen for the last several years?

I don't know, I can not see how EQ Next will be anything different than what we have already. The history for corporations in the MMO space (and their departure from being MMORPG) and add to that SOE's behaviour in the past, I just can not see this game being anything different. I see EQ Next currently in the early stages of a hype machine, like so many other games we have seen before.

Am I jaded? Sadly, yes.
 

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
I think it will be something different and I think they did a good job with PS2. So yes, you won't see a modern DIKU game like WOW/RIFT etc. Will the game be fun and not very buggy? Who knows.
 

Cthon_sl

shitlord
25
0
I would like to see exactly one quest npc in EQ. He should be at the very beginning of the game, and he should ask you to go kill ten rats. Then you get two options.

The first option is to accept the quest at which point the game closes and WoW's website is loaded.

The second option is to kill the quest giver as you exclaim, "I ain't your bitch mother fucker. Get your own rats!" Then the game starts for real, and there are no more quest givers in the game.
Dude, epic.
 
375
8
I would like to see exactly one quest npc in EQ. He should be at the very beginning of the game, and he should ask you to go kill ten rats. Then you get two options.

The first option is to accept the quest at which point the game closes and WoW's website is loaded.

The second option is to kill the quest giver as you exclaim, "I ain't your bitch mother fucker. Get your own rats!" Then the game starts for real, and there are no more quest givers in the game.
Reminds of the horrors of not changing auto attack from A to 'whatever.' I must've accidentally died to 50-100 NPCs before I realized I could change auto attack to like Q.