EQ Never

Grim1_sl said:

Well obviously restrictions would apply. All mmo's have a number of restrictions in place to keep the 1 percent from ruining it for the rest. That's just good business. The tools AND the restrictions are what is being discussed. Nobody said it would be exactly like Minecraft. Minecraft is just the only example of world building sandboxes to reference atm.

Personally, I don't see EQN doing anything that revolutionary with their world building tools, just more of what we have already. Which isn't a bad thing. Non-instanced housing, and guild halls that are built by crafters plus some new features. The new features are probably the ability to create other structures that are necessary to build a settlement / city of some sort in the wilds. Clearing forests, digging mines, planting farms for food, etc before building the settlement is all easily doable within a mmo without creating Minecraft levels of freedom. And wouldn't require too much new tech from the programmers.

How that will be fun for adventurers who just want to hack and slash when they play is another thing.

Click to expand...

Looking at the last line, the relevant question, I think, would be: does it have to be? We all look back fondly on EQ1, but one thing that EQ did at I feel could be said to set the industry back, is set the standard of combat and adventuring being the only fully fleshed-out game elements MMO designers bother with.

To toss out an example, if an MMO decided implement a farming system, where players could grow crops for use in crafting, or selling on the market, they don't need to grab the adventurer types with it, they need to get the attention of people who play games like Farmville and Harvest Moon. Make farming engaging, and complex enough that it could be a player's sole focus if they desire. Having fully fleshed out gameplay options that aren't focused around killing mobs for loot might actually be the way to expand the MMO market, pulling in players that enjoy non-combat-oriented genres..

i want this game to succeed, but i have a lot of reservations. right now the way smed is talking, it sounds so much like mortal online it scares me, as that game is one of the worst MMO's of all time. i really believe that the people in charge are over thinking and over analyzing what made EQ successful. i don't see any real reason as to why they think they have to deviate so far from what made EQ successful. EQ was not a sandbox at all; it was a theme park game but at least you had control over where you wanted to go and what you wanted to do in terms of enjoyment for your time.

people may not want to believe this, but there actually is a player base that wants to play a game very similar to what the original EQ was (hence the reason why there are a lot of EQ fans still out there and the reason why the EQ franchise is still viable). the fact that smed is trying to come up with something completely different and revolutionary (which from how he's talking isn't very revolutionary at all and sounds just like UO) is probably going to turn off most people who actually enjoyed the original EQ. it would be like if george lucas after the success of the original star wars movie made the sequel a musical. yeah, it would be completely different than the original, but it would also fucking suck.

Randin_sl said:

Looking at the last line, the relevant question, I think, would be: does it have to be? We all look back fondly on EQ1, but one thing that EQ did at I feel could be said to set the industry back, is set the standard of combat and adventuring being the only fully fleshed-out game elements MMO designers bother with.

To toss out an example, if an MMO decided implement a farming system, where players could grow crops for use in crafting, or steeling on the market, they don't need to grab the adventurer types with it, they need to get the attention of people who play games like Farmville and Harvest Moon. Make farming engaging, and complex enough that it could be a player's sole focus if they desire. Having fully fleshed out gameplay options that aren't focused around killing mobs for loot might actually be the way to expand the MMO market, pulling in players that enjoy non-combat-oriented genres..

Click to expand...

Careful about trying to have anyone who isn't a "hardcore" mmo player from prior to 2002 in your game... the concept rustles the shit out of some jimmies with some of the mmo hipsters around here~

I -highly- doubt EQ:N will incorporate any of the mod-able terrain shit from Minecraft into the game. Pre-determined patches of land in specific areas that you can choose from a variety of unlockable/RL-money purchaseable designs with similarly unlockable/purchaseable options. Achievement/raid/crafting/playtime/money spent at Station Store... you name it, and it will most likely be part of the design doc for how you are able to modify/expand your personal placement. Then, in the wishful thinking sense, the next most likely system they will incorporate will involve tilesets similar to what Draegen mentioned that, again, can't just be set up anywhere.

The -might- allow you to influence permanent structures that everyone in the world can see. They -might- have some stuff that grows/shrinks (outhouse > village > Freeport > outhouse2.0) depending on ingame actions and GM interaction or something. But aside from purely crafting type situations, I really don't think they are going to let people do much that would even reference Minecraft. And much like Minecraft, the mystique of making shit will fade fast because spreadsheets are much more common these days, as is the internet.

That specific type of sandbox is one I don't see them trying to really tap into.

etchazz_sl said:

i want this game to succeed, but i have a lot of reservations. right now the way smed is talking, it sounds so much like mortal online it scares me, as that game is one of the worst MMO's of all time. i really believe that the people in charge are over thinking and over analyzing what made EQ successful. i don't see any real reason as to why they think they have to deviate so far from what made EQ successful. EQ was not a sandbox at all; it was a theme park game but at least you had control over where you wanted to go and what you wanted to do in terms of enjoyment for your time.

people may not want to believe this, but there actually is a player base that wants to play a game very similar to what the original EQ was (hence the reason why there are a lot of EQ fans still out there and the reason why the EQ franchise is still viable). the fact that smed is trying to come up with something completely different and revolutionary (which from how he's talking isn't very revolutionary at all and sounds just like UO) is probably going to turn off most people who actually enjoyed the original EQ. it would be like if george lucas after the success of the original star wars movie made the sequel a musical. yeah, it would be completely different than the original, but it would also fucking suck.

Click to expand...

You go from Mortal Online to Ultima. Rotten, atrocious oranges and perfectly sour, deliciously juicy apples need not be compared here.

I think you're letting your own personal desires for what you wanted this game to be get in the way of the potential it has by going the way it is. Different isn't necessarily bad; while there are tons of people who would love to play an old EverQuest (I include myself among them pretty strongly), in that scenario, EQN would fail to have an identity all its own. This way, if they make a game that's playable and enjoyable, I would then have EQ to return to when I feel like rolling through the old-school nostalgia again (or when they but up another fucking progression server, what the flying fuck is taking them so long), and I would also have EQN to appreciate the evolution of the franchise.

At the very worst, they could fuck up EQN terribly and we'll always have EQ.

etchazz_sl said:

i want this game to succeed, but i have a lot of reservations. right now the way smed is talking, it sounds so much like mortal online it scares me, as that game is one of the worst MMO's of all time. i really believe that the people in charge are over thinking and over analyzing what made EQ successful. i don't see any real reason as to why they think they have to deviate so far from what made EQ successful. EQ was not a sandbox at all; it was a theme park game but at least you had control over where you wanted to go and what you wanted to do in terms of enjoyment for your time.

people may not want to believe this, but there actually is a player base that wants to play a game very similar to what the original EQ was (hence the reason why there are a lot of EQ fans still out there and the reason why the EQ franchise is still viable). the fact that smed is trying to come up with something completely different and revolutionary (which from how he's talking isn't very revolutionary at all and sounds just like UO) is probably going to turn off most people who actually enjoyed the original EQ. it would be like if george lucas after the success of the original star wars movie made the sequel a musical. yeah, it would be completely different than the original, but it would also fucking suck.

Click to expand...

How was EQ not sandbox? You basically spawned and went wherever the hell you wanted to go with zero regard for quest "hubs" and "quest flow" progression. Maybe I'm not understanding the "Sandbox" term but I never felt like I was on Rails in Everquest. I basically went wherever and did whatever I wanted to do. I also experienced no such thing as "quest hubs", never was led to a leveling area by a quest, and never felt like I had to be in a specific zone at any level. One of the cool things I liked about Everquest was that there were a lot of zones with mixed elements of danger and places where people of all levels could do something. Take for instance, the Oasis...when you were level 10ish it had its great leveling spots but it also had things like Sand Giants and Spectres that would attract higher level players to the area too and added an element of danger to the lower levels to watch for. I miss that in MMO's these days. They're too cut and dry these days with little to no variation.

Deisun_sl said:

How was EQ not sandbox? You basically spawned and went wherever the hell you wanted to go with zero regard for quest "hubs" and "quest flow" progression. Maybe I'm not understanding the "Sandbox" term but I never felt like I was on Rails in Everquest. I basically went wherever and did whatever I wanted to do. I also experienced no such thing as "quest hubs", never was led to a leveling area by a quest, and never felt like I had to be in a specific zone at any level. One of the cool things I liked about Everquest was that there were a lot of zones with mixed elements of danger and places where people of all levels could do something. Take for instance, the Oasis...when you were level 10ish it had its great leveling spots but it also had things like Sand Giants and Spectres that would attract higher level players to the area too and added an element of danger to the lower levels to watch for. I miss that in MMO's these days. They're too cut and dry these days with little to no variation.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, you had ultimate (PvE) freedom in EQ. I think the people who would not agree with you are those that strongly emphasize player-to-player interaction with features like territorial control, control of resources and the resulting PvP gameplay.

Having said this, I felt that the PvE sandbox of EQ also resulted in a lot of player-to-player interaction. So it is indeed all about defining what a sandbox is.

To me EQ had less freedom in that you did not have the variety of options one has in todays MMOs, including modern Everquest.

Deisun_sl said:

How was EQ not sandbox? You basically spawned and went wherever the hell you wanted to go with zero regard for quest "hubs" and "quest flow" progression.

Click to expand...

Quest hubs and sandbox are not mutually exclusive. People did not quest in EQ because the quests were worthless and the risk/reward was shoddy. They still had them.

Generally in EQ you didn't go where ever you wanted, you camped for hours and hours. Sure, one could wander around aimlessly, but then most people made zero progression and often got curbstomped. While this danger was good, it also promoted a mindset of being overcautious and camping.

As long as there are levels in any sort of MMO, there will need to be segregation and zones for progression. I think the bigger issue is having those zones evolve and perhaps moving away from traditional levels for both players and items. That's the freedom I'm looking for.

EQ was the contrast to UO's sandbox. EQ was not remotely sandbox. You leveled up to combat some select elite content, and xpacs just extended the cap. Rinse, repeat. EVE is the successor to UO's sandbox, and WoW is the successor to EQ's storybook. That most didn't participate in the story until they hit 50 or 60 or whatever isn't relevant. It was there, and there was a definite beginning and end whether you noticed it while you were in the middle.

Ukerric_sl said:

That is because your application involves decapitating the patient to remove the ugly mole on its cheek. I haven't kept on poking holes into your contention that you'd do that only for the biggest battles because I wanted to keep my reply short, and anyway, I've already highlighted the main and core problem: "avoid other phase ships".

The very idea that you manage "the most intense battles" by... removing people from the main battle to shelve them on the sidelines should simply give you pause.

But I can potshot your shoehorning of a system instancing all day long. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Unless you are willing to redesign the EVE dynamics from the ground up, and pretty much abandon territorial control managed by PvP fighting. In that case, you can make it work, but the end result isn't really EVE anymore.

Click to expand...

So they don't have cloaking devices in EvE? Come on, it's the same thing used in a different way. Give it up. Your arguments make no sense.

I proved that EvE or any sandbox can make use of mega-server tech. You claimed it was impossible. Just the act of claiming something is impossible makes you an easy target. If you want to chase irrelevant details like a ferret on meth, then have at it. Spin yourself into oblivion.

Yea, and they're annoying as shit. One of the crappier design elements of nullsec is dealing with AFK cloakers. There are fucking zillions of cubic kilometers in a system and a cloaked ship can be AFK in less than half of one. And you can't uncloak them unless you can come within 1.5km of them. It's retarded. Don't need more of that.

I assume nothing has changed since I quit about how gay they are anyway.

Ukerric_sl said:

Just have some periodic Picklaw infestation in your mines that they have to clear (up and including the named at the bottom) to restart operations.

Or a progressive slider: the more Picklaw infest your mines, the lower its production. And you get multiple (and conflicting) motivations. A larger mine means more production even when Picklaws are around, but the infestation takes longer to clear. A smaller mine means easier access to the Picklaw boss (shorter raid) but less money coming out of the ground.

Click to expand...

That would work. We have been discussing world building tools, but have neglected what EQN might have for adventurers with these new tools. They are largest part of the playing public.

Agraza_sl said:

Yea, and they're annoying as shit. One of the crappier design elements of nullsec is dealing with AFK cloakers. There are fucking zillions of cubic kilometers in a system and a cloaked ship can be AFK in less than half of one. And you can't uncloak them unless you can come within 1.5km of them. It's retarded. Don't need more of that.

I assume nothing has changed since I quit about how gay they are anyway.

Click to expand...

Lol, I don't care what EvE does with mega-server tech, or if they ever use it. It was just an example to refute a silly arguement.

What does that have to do with cloaked ships? They don't need their awesome technology to allow cloaking.

Also gotta look at when your definition of 'Sandbox' was created. Casting your now evolved definition of 'Sandbox' on a game that came out in '99 may not be fair. Looking at EQ now, you can easily say 'this is not Sandbox'. But 14 years ago, I think a lot of people felt EQ was sandbox as fuck. Definitely not as user defined as a MUD around the same time, maybe, but with the given technology you may argue it either way.

Agraza_sl said:

What does that have to do with cloaked ships? They don't need their awesome technology to allow cloaking.

Click to expand...

You haven't been following the discussion.

Tauntworth_sl said:

Also gotta look at when your definition of 'Sandbox' was created. Casting your now evolved definition of 'Sandbox' on a game that came out in '99 may not be fair. Looking at EQ now, you can easily say 'this is not Sandbox'. But 14 years ago, I think a lot of people felt EQ was sandbox as fuck. Definitely not as user defined as a MUD around the same time, maybe, but with the given technology you may argue it either way.

Click to expand...

True. Sandbox is a very vague term and most people have differing definitions. Smed's definition is almost guaranteed to include things most of us will not agree with.

14 years ago they'd be retarded to think EQ was a sandbox because they had UO, the game it unseated, as a fantastic example of what a sandbox was. And EQ was very very different from UO. EQ had bosses to kill, gear and content that became ridiculously trivialized by levels, and you were forced to group to do anything past level 20 if you weren't a necromancer.

Grim1_sl said:

You haven't been following the discussion.

Click to expand...

No, I have not.