Couldn't agree more. I've always felt that UO had much deeper gameplay then any modern MMO. I'm constantly asking myself how much have MMO's really progressed? Other then graphics not much, if at all.
EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
Dandai
<WoW Guild Officer>
- 5,909
- 4,484
Please help me understand what you're saying:
1) The magic of EQ is in its social and competitive content,not its graphics.
2) You don't needgraphicsto be successful.
3) Re-release EQ with updatedgraphics.
4) ???.
5) Profit?
He is saying relative to today. UO still did ok despite other games having superior graphics at the time. EQ the same and WoW the same etc etc etc.
He is saying copy the EQ template but update the graphics to reflect a more modern game again relative to its time. It doesn't have to be Crysis 12, but we aren't in 1999 anymore...
He is saying copy the EQ template but update the graphics to reflect a more modern game again relative to its time. It doesn't have to be Crysis 12, but we aren't in 1999 anymore...
Ravishing
Uninspiring Title
- 8,452
- 3,577
Exactly... The game is old and bloated, definitely tons of things were learned and improved upon but many outdated systems & graphics remain. The engine is very poor and outdated. "Modernize" EQ, make it run more efficiently, copy the zone layouts & content & most of the mechanics and it would thrive. There are definitely some things that would need to change to conform with today's gamers, but for the most part it is fine. The biggest hurdle is how to handle raid content. I despise the instanced raid content of today, it took away one of the major hooks. The drama and competitive nature of raiding has been eliminated due to instancing. I also know it would be unreasonable to keep raiding content as exclusive as it was in Original EQ... There should be a compromise of some sort. Other than the raiding scene, the majority of EQ content is outstanding and would appeal to a lot of people.
Nirgon
YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE
- 12,891
- 19,817
EQ had infinitely more social servers and communities with actual character reputation and interaction.
So yes, releasing an MMO with more social and competitive content will work here. It only has to be as good as original EQ in that regard to out preform everything else out there in that respect. Slap a face lift on it to make the world a little nicer and, of course, immersive.
We're hoping for more than that but I'd certainly be happy if the raid progression, required social interaction, lack of over homogenization of classes, lack of annoying ability rotations etc was present.
Muligan
Trakanon Raider
- 3,216
- 896
I thought about this a bit more and I think the key is to not introduce conveniences too early in the game. I think that even certain utilities could be offered as guild perks. Such as LFG/LFD/LFR could be something tied to your guild or personal prestige. I had a thought today that what if guilds had to reach a certain level or status to place Market Boards which would allow Auction House access or Announcement Boards (whatever you would call them) for enable LFG/LFD/LFR. This would force people together in the earlier part of the game and also to push people into guilds (Even smaller ones made up of friends and alts). I thought of this when looking around different buildings in EQ and seeing these boards (completely inactive and strictly decorative) and wondered if they ever had a purpose. I even noticed a bounty or wanted boards in some taverns. EQII kind of did this with guild halls and levels/status and also allowed you to place Market Boards in your house to access markets more conveniently.
I think there is a way to bring both worlds together. I also think that community has been so weak is because so many conveniences are available from day 1 of gaming and in EQ they were eventually introduced but, community had been formed.
I think there is a way to bring both worlds together. I also think that community has been so weak is because so many conveniences are available from day 1 of gaming and in EQ they were eventually introduced but, community had been formed.
In my opinion you don't want to force people to put in time to build social networks etc to just play the game. A better solution for me is to have loot/zones tiered. So I'm Joe Casual and I use LFG/LFR and the loot I can get is a lower tier than Harry Hardcore who has the time and desire to put in the effort to get the best loot and see bleeding edge content.
but one of the most fun things in EQ was twinking chars, and getting a level 1 char in a high level zone to loot some uber item
and blocking off access to 'tiers' is just dumb, it limits pick-up raids or people who want to tag along or watch
sharing content in zones was fantastic, i remember watching these uber people rockin' out in SolB raiding fire giants / nagafen while my noob ass was exping on kobolds or bats&bugs
gave you something to aspire to, and go woooooooow look at all this cool loot and how badass these guys are
instead of only seeing them standing around in towns or 'guild halls' or whatever, loses its charm...
I really liked EQ mixing content and levels within same zones/areas, it was an awesome idea.
in east commonlands seeing high level guys kill a griffon, or hill giants while you're trying to sell your stein of moggok
heck, even sometimes there would be too many hill giants/sand giants and you'd have to ask the high level guys to come to the rescue so noobies could exp
such interactions of mixed-level content is what really added to the character of the game
and blocking off access to 'tiers' is just dumb, it limits pick-up raids or people who want to tag along or watch
sharing content in zones was fantastic, i remember watching these uber people rockin' out in SolB raiding fire giants / nagafen while my noob ass was exping on kobolds or bats&bugs
gave you something to aspire to, and go woooooooow look at all this cool loot and how badass these guys are
instead of only seeing them standing around in towns or 'guild halls' or whatever, loses its charm...
I really liked EQ mixing content and levels within same zones/areas, it was an awesome idea.
in east commonlands seeing high level guys kill a griffon, or hill giants while you're trying to sell your stein of moggok
heck, even sometimes there would be too many hill giants/sand giants and you'd have to ask the high level guys to come to the rescue so noobies could exp
such interactions of mixed-level content is what really added to the character of the game
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
As has been mentioned a million times before by Zehn and other apologists, most of this stuff exists in modified forms in every game.
The primary reason that it all took on a different significance in EQ were the time sinks.
The grindy nature of gaining XP, of traveling, of getting items, of tradeskills...the grindy interminable nature ofeverything....that grossly inflated the value of successes and the costs of failures.
The concept of risk versus reward is gone now. There's no risks. When the game is 90% fun and 10% work your time feels well spent, even if you risk losing some of your progress at times. EQ was 90% work for 10% reward so there were unacceptable risks that weren't worth the loss of time investment, both the sunk cost and the future cost of fixing your mistakes.
When XP is a fun and engaging process, even XP loss on death wouldn't sting as much as it did knowing that you just lost the reward for three hours of unbearable boredom when that bubble disappeared and you had another hour or more of tedium ahead of you just to make your character playable again. (Yes, I know, 90% res and corpse summoning, but most of us didn't really have those things to count on as a given while leveling up, only once we were full time uber raiders. Something many players never made it to, believe it or not.)
The primary reason that it all took on a different significance in EQ were the time sinks.
The grindy nature of gaining XP, of traveling, of getting items, of tradeskills...the grindy interminable nature ofeverything....that grossly inflated the value of successes and the costs of failures.
The concept of risk versus reward is gone now. There's no risks. When the game is 90% fun and 10% work your time feels well spent, even if you risk losing some of your progress at times. EQ was 90% work for 10% reward so there were unacceptable risks that weren't worth the loss of time investment, both the sunk cost and the future cost of fixing your mistakes.
When XP is a fun and engaging process, even XP loss on death wouldn't sting as much as it did knowing that you just lost the reward for three hours of unbearable boredom when that bubble disappeared and you had another hour or more of tedium ahead of you just to make your character playable again. (Yes, I know, 90% res and corpse summoning, but most of us didn't really have those things to count on as a given while leveling up, only once we were full time uber raiders. Something many players never made it to, believe it or not.)
i agree with you famm, except that i think the one thing that is truly missing from modern MMO's is the fear of losing what you gained. in EQ, there was an actual fear of loss, whether it be exp that you worked for, an item, or your entire corpse. because that fear existed, it made playing the game much more interesting and fun than the games of today where you lose nothing. i can still remember my first time going to the plane of hate and the plane of fear, or doing the shrooms in seb, or the very first time in velk's (before anyone ever went in there). that fear that existed, knowing you could die in the bottom of some dungeon or some far away area and may have a bitch of a time doing a CR, made the game engaging and fun.
Yeah, because dying as any class that couldn't bind when in Seb was just totally engaging and fun. Hell, even as a bind-capable class, CR's to Seb were so fun.
Your blinders must be set to maximum to think that was remotely fun.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
But it made the NOT dying fun in comparison! I am no longer a agoraphobic 17 year old basement dweller in need of a social platform. That's all EQ ever was. It was a social platform that incorporated a rudimentary game. Nothing wrong with that, either. It was a thing and as things go it was pretty neat.
I'm sure there's people out there that lament their geocities and curse facebook and myspace for allowing just ANY old idiot to have a webpage. You had to WORK for that shit back in the day! It was HIGH QUALITY. If only someone would reboot geocities but DONE RIGHT. And maybe improve the graphics -- because, well, I mean, that will draw the sheeple I guess... and it's obviously no good being superior if no one is around to notice and complain how inferior they are.
I'm sure there's people out there that lament their geocities and curse facebook and myspace for allowing just ANY old idiot to have a webpage. You had to WORK for that shit back in the day! It was HIGH QUALITY. If only someone would reboot geocities but DONE RIGHT. And maybe improve the graphics -- because, well, I mean, that will draw the sheeple I guess... and it's obviously no good being superior if no one is around to notice and complain how inferior they are.
Mr Creed
Too old for this shit
- 2,381
- 276
When you say Success value is inflated, it obviously implies you prefer the "everyone gets a medal" kindergarten attitude games have today. Nothing wrong with that really, I play alot of GW2 currently and that is the definition of everyone having the same shit you get automatically and nobody standing out. But I want to point out that just because the recent years mostly produced games with this attitude doesnt mean actually having difficulty and risk vs reward in a game is always wrong. It really depends on the game design and how everything comes together (some classes binding everywhere and some only in towns created a chasm in risk I wouldnt support, for example).
Risk vs reward is a big thing missing from newer games for me. I'm in no way saying it should simply be the same penalties and burdens like EQ had. But I'd want a company to actually look into this and find a way to add risk and rewards to an MMO. EVE does it well, obviously, although it has its share of bullshit mechanics too.
the dying wasn't the fun part, you ignorant douche nozzle; it was the exhilaration that you felt because you COULD die that made it fun. it's called risk vs. reward. it's like playing any video game. playing any game where the chance exists that you can lose (risk) makes the reward that much more enjoyable. it's like playing a video game with a cheat code on that makes you invincible. how much fun is it to just run around, killing everything and completing a game in under an hour, knowing nothing can kill you, versus playing the same game and knowing you need to take your time and use some skill because dying will actually set you back and actually matters?
So quick to jump to an insult. How typical when one bashes the holy grail that is 'EQ'.
You and the other EQ neckbeards seem to have this notion of Risk vs. Reward that borders on lunacy. Taking a risk, that has the possibility of costing you everything (in this case, internet pixel gear), better reward you appropriately. Let me tell you how much your time must be worth if you feel that's acceptable for a JBB. One internet pixel item, that people spent 20+ hours camping, faced against the notion of losing hundreds of hours of equipment if luck goes against you. Yes, that's totally exhilarating. Do you also enjoy juggling loaded guns by their triggers? WHICH ONE IS GONNA FIRE? THE RISK IS TOTALLY WORTH HOW BAD ASS I FEEL WHEN I DON'T DIE.
I'm with you. I never have agreed with 'lose all' risks in gaming. My time matters entirely too much to me for it to be squandered by a bad choice in a video game. Call me selfish, but I'd rather have a penalty that doesn't take hours of my life to fix than what it was during pre-Luclin EQ.Mr Creed_sl said:
Muligan
Trakanon Raider
- 3,216
- 896
I don't know... I think EQ had it right honestly. I think your corpse lying there loaded with gear and receiving exp loss pretty well forced me into making sure I played well and I surrounded myself with good players. I don't see what the problem is either when you had rez's worth 98% of your exp and necros/rogues/monks that could pull your corpse. I don't like running like a bull in a china shop when I play because I have no fear in dying. Actually, I have played several games that if I was low on hp and mana (especially in lower levels) I would just die and go again.
The only thing I disagree with EQ's original formula is losing levels. I think you should lose exp within that level and it stops. I have been in death loops on a couple raids and nearly have a stroke. Though in raiding, you typically get rezzed but you understand.
(Not referred to EQ in this next statement. This is what I would like to see in EQNext) I just think recovering from death should require skill depending on your manner of death. If I took the time to break a dungeon and make it to the very depths and die, then it should take a skilled player(s) to get back to what I was doing. That's the risk. The reward is that my or my groups' skillful play should me in the position of great experience and loot that uncooperative or poorly skilled players can not obtain. I'm not so fixed on any one aspect of EQ's risk and reward but I thought they were close (maybe on the other side of the line but close). Being a cleric, necro, rogue in my career, death made my primary classes important. You may not like EQ's system or feel its risk or reward was balance but as a raid cleric of nearly a decade, it was important that I was good, attentive, and cooperative because otherwise, I was worthless and unneeded.
There's a middle to all of this but currently we are on the brink of being pointless. I think working with what EQ had and tweaking that system would be key.
I'm not trying to detract from you or your experience in the game, but when the class is made up of mostly boxes and you're pressing one key on a timer...
You could argue that post-PoP, raid healing took on a different approach (hello HoTs), but at that point, CR's (the point of contention here) were a thing of the past with the introduction of graveyards.
Counter-point to the 'die and go again' - Dark Souls. You kept your gear, your retained levels, but lost your held 'experience/currency' unless you got back and picked it back up. Much more appropriate, even if I wasn't a fan of that method either. (Mainly because Humanity gave so many good fucking benefits that not having it capped was a handicap prior to playing through the game a few times.)
I do agree that there is a middle point we aren't seeing yet; however, I disagree that it should be remotely like EQ was originally. Death should not be a barrier of entry for being able to do content, because if you're playing 'well', chance could still favor the fucked outcome and you'll get 3-4 mobs on a pull and be simply unable to handle it no matter how good you are or not.
Risk is just fine in a game as long as it's fun and engaging to get back what you lost. If the physical act of playing EQ was fun, then no one would have an issue. But camping a single spot or grinding a dungeon is so mind numbing that it's stupid.
I was just going to comment on this. I've even mentioned that Dark Souls resembles EQ's risk in some cases.
The correct balance is the key to everything. Original EQ was very hard and had little reward. WoW fixed lot of the problems, but it went too far, now you can sleep through raids.
Maybe we need a dark souls MMORPG!
Anyway, I feel that a challenging MMORPG where every noob doesn't have the same epic gear you get would great. Toss in some of the newer features that GW2 did with changing zone wide events, and we'd be in business.
Grim1
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 4,866
- 6,822
Sign me up.
Doubt the investors would buy into it though. Even the devs who made Dark Souls were surprised by it's success. I think a mmo version would be successful but I'm not a big dollar investor.