EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
Mr Creed
Too old for this shit
- 2,395
- 289
Damn I was gonna comment on the whole WoW and EQ are the same argument, but Laura trolled the ball out of the park. So let me just add that it greatly depends on the MMO you're playing. I played EQ/PS1, then WoW, then EVE until CCP tried to cash shop that up (turned to the MMO nomad lifestyle then).. Guess which two were mostly similar? EQ's DIKU just like WoW and any of their clones.
I think one big factor that isnt touched upon alot is that EQ made all classes play by the same rules more or less. Binding is the same for everyone, the danger (or lack thereof) in CR is the same, factions are the same, ability to solo for xp, coin or faction, etc. In EQ on the other hand there was a huge difference between the warrior that was bound in OT and died near Chardok, and my enchanter dying there while bound nearby. This doesnt even adress that the warrior cannot bind himself there.
In WoW's case making things equal did make things easier but please dont focus on that again, you could just as simply make it hard for everyone. Do you think treating classes differently with regards to such basic game features is good for the game? If you favor such inequality, where do you draw the line?
Personally, I think many of those difference should not be as extreme as in EQ. I want players to be able to go and reasonably fight stuff on their own. Grouping can be miles better or open up entirely different game parts, but your only hope being a group or logging off bored isnt something I'd want people to face. I think everyone should have equal opportunities to set their respawn point, be it town only or anywhere (faction limits can differ). On the other hand I'm a big fan of different interconnected factions through which your in-game action dictate where you can bind, trade, craft and so on. I'm ok with some classes having signature abilities that others want, like teleports or enchants. So mostly for situational stuff. On the other hand I would not apply that to general buffing, imo you should group/raid with a class to benefit from their buffs (i.e. all being auras or similar restriction, or simply too short a duration to get them in town and then go adventure).
I think one big factor that isnt touched upon alot is that EQ made all classes play by the same rules more or less. Binding is the same for everyone, the danger (or lack thereof) in CR is the same, factions are the same, ability to solo for xp, coin or faction, etc. In EQ on the other hand there was a huge difference between the warrior that was bound in OT and died near Chardok, and my enchanter dying there while bound nearby. This doesnt even adress that the warrior cannot bind himself there.
In WoW's case making things equal did make things easier but please dont focus on that again, you could just as simply make it hard for everyone. Do you think treating classes differently with regards to such basic game features is good for the game? If you favor such inequality, where do you draw the line?
Personally, I think many of those difference should not be as extreme as in EQ. I want players to be able to go and reasonably fight stuff on their own. Grouping can be miles better or open up entirely different game parts, but your only hope being a group or logging off bored isnt something I'd want people to face. I think everyone should have equal opportunities to set their respawn point, be it town only or anywhere (faction limits can differ). On the other hand I'm a big fan of different interconnected factions through which your in-game action dictate where you can bind, trade, craft and so on. I'm ok with some classes having signature abilities that others want, like teleports or enchants. So mostly for situational stuff. On the other hand I would not apply that to general buffing, imo you should group/raid with a class to benefit from their buffs (i.e. all being auras or similar restriction, or simply too short a duration to get them in town and then go adventure).
- 11,318
- 2,424
I don't think xp penalty is bad if that class has an inherent bonus to killing shit faster/on its own to compensate. Like if your world is mostly forced grouping, having classes that can solo but have an xp penalty seems like ok design to me. As long as it's a balanced tradeoff I think it'd be fine. Don't think it was in EQ though.
why? because they forced you to branch out to the community for 1 minute to an hour? god forbid.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
I think not being able to group with my friends and gain xp at the same Rae as them, thus remaining the same level as them, is TERRIBLE design in what is supposed to be a social game.
- 11,318
- 2,424
What about xp penalty if you're solo that is reduced with the number of people in your group.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
Fair. However, please explain what the reasoning is behind int/wis casters being able to bind anywhere, and melee classes on at cities? What did it add to the game? What did it take away? Why the fuck was it in game? I'm a huge advocate for a lot of EQ's systems that promoted player interaction, but I just don't thik that this particular one did at all. It was a silly and arbitrary inconvenience.
But please convince me otherwise because I'm totally open to it.
Cinge
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 7,382
- 2,449
Hopefully he's talking about how they could only be bound in cities. Otherwise yes he would be a hypocrite.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
Absolutely fine, (in fact, i find that preferable - quadding as a druid always felt a bit like cheating to me) but it wasn't like this in EQ.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
Cinge
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 7,382
- 2,449
There was constant whining from melee characters that they had to ask and find someone to bind them, instead of being able to do it themselves. Again one of the complaints of EQ that newer games fixed and even EQ itself later fixed.
This never made sense to me, and it was absolutely horrible being a warrior. Especially in my noob years when I was trying to run across the Karanas all the time. I had no SoW, no invisibility, no benefits to traveling, AND I couldn't bind myself unless it was in a city. If anything, casters should have had the restriction and melees should have been able to bind anywhere if they could find a caster to do it for them. Not that that would have made sense, or would have been smart game design, but it would have been better.
you know why man, because they could. you dealt with it and created your own fun in a world created by someone else.
also magic users have a stronger affinity with the netherworld and upon death their souls can be returned to a place of their choosing provided that they had cast the appropriate spell in the area. cities and towns which include a guilds devoted to magic bind their affinity to the netherworld through these guilds and allow non magic users to return to the city upon their death.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
Player interaction is paramount. They just didn't know how wrong they were at the time to want this. If they could see not the future, and saw what games are now, they never would have said this.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
Lore? What lore? What is it about wielding a sword that makes your respawn point only available in a city? What about wielding a staff means this same mystical respawn point can be anywhere?
Explain yourself.
