EQ Never

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,369
5,919
I have been a casual MMORPG player since about 2006... And I can honestly say... Fuck casuals.
Yep agree with you there.

But when SoE hires a market research company to go find out what those casuals want they come back with ideas like no exp or levels and then that idea gets warped through the looking glass of mmog design into no exp but you need to do 10k backstabs to increase a skill.
 

Mellent_sl

shitlord
180
0
They seem to be leaning towards some kind of achievement based progression aren't they? Something was...but I glance at so many MMOs I lose track of which is which.

I doubt it would be 10k backstabs. More likely it would be: do this quest for the assassin's guild or kill this master assassin and unlock the ability.
So far, yes, the only example they've given us regarding class progression is objective based. It seems to be that way for crafting too (the "no crafting 10000 daggers" quote or something along the lines of).

They've given no indication that there will be anything to do with 10k backstabs and they've stated that they don't want it to be like that. The predictions here regarding that seem a bit unwarranted.
 

Dandai

<WoW Guild Officer>
<Gold Donor>
5,909
4,484
Yep agree with you there.

But when SoE hires a market research company to go find out what those casuals want they come back with ideas like no exp or levels and then that idea gets warped through the looking glass of mmog design into no exp but you need to do 10k backstabs to increase a skill.
They actually specifically said that skill gain wouldn't be using a skill X number of times. Then again, they've said a lot and shown a little.
 

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,369
5,919
They actually specifically said that skill gain wouldn't be using a skill X number of times. Then again, they've said a lot and shown a little.
Limiting your options for advancement just seems like a bad idea.

I wonder what the concept behind doing so is other then saying what market research said players wanted to hear and then implementing it in a way that completely does the opposite of what players meant when they said no levels and no exp.
 

Mellent_sl

shitlord
180
0
Limiting your options for advancement just seems like a bad idea.
But they way they're going about itisn'tthough, and they aren't limiting options for advancement. Let's take the example that they've given so far: Gaining a specific full gear set to tier up a class. The gear is made of a rare resource. You could possibly:

Do the obvious and buy the gear (although if it's rare enough that would cost quite the pretty penny).

Search for the resource by yourself or with others.

Search out creatures which wear armor made of said resource (or have it stored away near them in chests or something, you get the idea).

Buy the resource.

Then after you have the resource (if you didn't buy the gear), you'd have to get it crafted into gear. If the gear is rare enough, you'd need to find someone who primarily crafts to get the gear crafted, or be tiered up enough in crafting to craft it yourself.

See? There are your options. Effectively, it is the same as an exp system without some little progress bar telling you that you're halfway to leveling up. You are given a goal affixed to the tier and you will have ways to go about fulfilling that goal. Some options might not be available to you if you're not grouping, some might not be available to you if you're not a good enough player.

Edit: And in a sense, it provides just about as much limitation as the usual system does. A goal performs the same function as level-gated content. The goal guides the player towards what he/she needs to do to achieve said goal, level-gated content tells the player what he/she can fight/where to quest in order to level up. If you're level 3, fight level 3-5 monsters. If you need that aforementioned set of gear, fight the monsters that give said gear or resources for the gear.
 

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
One issue with objectives will be balancing them so people can feel they've made meaningful progress even when they're binary succeed/fail objectives. And making these difficult objectives less relevant to class balance than more easily obtained ones.

If I log in for 60min a day, and can attempt something 2x in that amount of time, and fail 7 times, then how did I progress in those 3 days before my success? XP bars and AAs allowed people to gain progression in small pieces so you always took a step forward. This is an important concept that should be preserved.
 

Randin

Trakanon Raider
1,927
882
On the subject of the lore, the impression I get is that they're basically trying to rework the story to create a mortal-centric history, as opposed to the more god-centric history of the past games. Compare the info from the lore panel to the history blurb in the front of the old EQ1 manual; the EQN stuff was all about the rise, conflict between, and fall of various civilizations, while EQ1's was largely a litany of "...and such-and-such a god appeared, and did x". Perhaps they're trying to suggest a greater degree of player agency by making the lore focused on the mortal races. Or not; who the fuck knows.
 

etchazz

Trakanon Raider
2,707
1,056
I don't understand some of the arguments. I've heard that this isn't new but has parts of other games in it. Some of the things are extremely new. No other MMO has voxel technology or the AI of Storybricks. That's two new hooks whereas most new games only really have one. Throw in the upgraded PQs called RCs and the effort to never have reusable 'bosses' and this game is extremely far beyond the average MMO in theory. How many other MOBA MMOs are there out there? This is NEW especially as being set up.

At the same time, you want to keep the old from 15 years ago because that's what will make a true EQ game. You can't want something brand new while keeping everything from the old EQ. That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.This game will still have the same races, the same cities, some of the same spells, and the same landmasses. It isn't supposed to be a carbon copy. What differences are you guys wanting? Let's be honest for once. You want all the old stuff with none of the bugs and the graphics updated some. Isn't that really the truth? Tell me what you really want that's new by chance?

I also don't understand the disdain for SOE and the "they'll fuck it up and make it too easy for timmy' "argument. Where exactly is this paragon of MMO excellence that you guys keep talking about? What company hasn't had their share of fuckups? Which hardcore game are you guys comparing this to by chance? The disdain should be for the entire system not just SOE. SOE has made the only game some of you guys have ever seemed to like. Sure, they changed some things. It's called moving forward when the player base leaves. If the game was so damn good, WoW wouldn't have stomped the shit out of it and it's successor. That's just the cold stone truth.
RC's have been done before in GW2 and rift, they suck.
multiclassing has been done before in GW2, it sucks.
horizontal leveling has been done before, it sucks (sorry, but vertical leveling is the only real way to differentiate between players and show a player's progress).
kiddie graphics have been done before, doesn't feel real (feels like i'm watching a disney movie with my 8 year old nephew).
one or two starting cities for everyone to begin the game with sucks (especially when the original game in 1999 had like 13).
uncontested dungeons/areas sucks.
and please for the love of god stop bringing up the fact that WoW crushed EQ when it was released, it has no validity. EQ had already been out for over 5 years and its best years were behind it when WoW released, and warcraft as an IP was obviously much more widely known on a global scale. the fact is, at the time, EQ was the WoW of the MMO universe. EQ had roughly 500,000 players at its peak, which was probably around 85% or more of the total MMO market at that time (some people played AC or GW, or DAOC but not nearly as many that played EQ).

regardless of whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there is a market for a hardcore MMO much like EQ was back in the day (look at a game like EVE, or even dark souls, even though it isn't a MMO it is still very popular despite the fact that it is extremely punishing). when verant made the original EQ, they made a game that they themselves would enjoy playing. now, it's all market research and corporate rhetoric and nothing else matters except milking the endless herds for as much money as they can, as quickly as they can before they all move on to the next pasture in a month or so. i guess it comes down to how you measure success. is success getting a few million to try your game out for a week or two, only to have 90% or more leave after that initial rush, or get 700,000 or so dedicated players who are willing to play your game for several years (and even be willing to pay a monthly sub)?
 

etchazz

Trakanon Raider
2,707
1,056
One issue with objectives will be balancing them so people can feel they've made meaningful progress even when they're binary succeed/fail objectives. And making these difficult objectives less relevant to class balance than more easily obtained ones.

If I log in for 60min a day, and can attempt something 2x in that amount of time, and fail 7 times, then how did I progress in those 3 days before my success? XP bars and AAs allowed people to gain progression in small pieces so you always took a step forward. This is an important concept that should be preserved.
i agree wholeheartedly.
 

Mellent_sl

shitlord
180
0
sorry, but vertical leveling is the only real way to differentiate between players and show a player's progress
So I guess I missed that part in all of the MMORPGs that came before where being max level meant guaranteed competence in raiding, PvP, etc. I agree that players should have to work for certain aspects of the game (in an MMORPG, at least), but a sheer power differential between level 1 and max level is not necessary. It facilitates abandonment of content among other issues.

On all of your other points, quite literally the only way to know if the game sucks or not is to actually play it (which coincidentally none of us have). We don't know what they've done to differentiate from other titles and similar concepts. There's really no point in arguing whether the game will be good or not at this point. I just take my creative license in the opposite direction you take yours.

And for fuck's sake, the art argument is just a gelatinous pile of horse remains at this point.
 

Daestrom_sl

shitlord
21
0
Long time lurker since 2001, but I kind of get the feel that the devs for EQN just lurked the old FoH boards, these, and a few others, and tried to incorporate some of the more outlandish game design ideas floating around. Ideas undoubtedly cooked up in some drug induced haze, because I'm just not buying this all.

I think they are trying to fill a niche, and are just rolling with new "innovative" ideas that their old eq4ever fans came up. *I'm one of those guys. Best days of my live was as a 13 year old kid playing EQ for the first time." After being an avid DnD and MUD kid. And I have a family, high stakes poker player, taken down some big buy in tournaments, and 50k+ USD pots, but when I'm reminiscing, it's not on those, it's on EVERQUEST, DnD, etc.

I have a huge problem with horizontal progression, and I think it's viability is zero for a serious mmo, for serious gamers. I'm not just talking about the amount of time you have to spend, I'm talking about the game world having repercussions, intrigue, danger, wonder. No handouts and little guardian spirit popping up telling you where to go, how to get there, and what to do when you get there. F that i'm not playing little pony island adventures. Let me be immersed.

There's a quote, forget who, but he said, when answering a question about why American's were interested in Japanese culture. "It's different enough to be mysterious, and similar enough to be familiar." And I think it's a great quote to carry over to the MMO world.

You see DND had it right. Fantasy world, but real people we can relate to, real risk and reward in the parameters of the game, socialization *this is a big one, because we're tribal/social creatures*, advancement and tribe like progression in an uncertain and dangerous world. It has a lot of similarities with the real world, but it let you be someone you can't, and explore what a life like that might be like. It was fun

So to me Everquest was successful because it copied those parameters successfully. Yes it was a carrot on a stick, but life is a beeping carrot on a stick too. The only difference is your perception.

So to me they're going in all the wrong directions for all the wrong reasons, and the industry has as a whole. The move from grouping to solo. Instancing... I mean... god forbid you and your group run into another crew and GASP, clear a hard area together before going deeper. Linear progression of dungeons. Enter A, exit B. No risk. No corpse recovery. No sense of danger. No sense of exploration. No society or community with cross realming, name changing, easy leveling.

Too much gear, and being able to color it bright purple and stick a pink pony with four horns on it, and the gear being steam lined to set + or - stats with little derivative. Long gone is the sense of wonder looking at Timmy the Ranger in all planes gear and two of those ranger swords, being level 20 at the time. It's a WOW moment, look what awaits me. Now Timmy has a Cinderella bra strapped BP he dyed hot pink and purple leather trousers with gold trimming. YAAAWWWWNNNN. Getting a magic item every quest and every other monster kind of defeats the purpose of it being... magic. EQ and DND had it right with uniqueness. Long gone is getting the rare item an accomplishment and badger of honor. Long gone are the shining metallic robes and glowing black stones, the efreeti boots and ruby BP's.

I'm not saying to create a game that is just updated graphics EQ2.0. What I'm saying is that the next successful MMO will have a lot of these aspects in some form or another. Think back to all the failures recently. They failed because they forgot what made DND, MUDs, MMO's great. They instead, focused on the conceptual aspects of unique idea x, y, z, but didn't bother to build their basic gaming foundation. They built their world around, random idea x that gamer's say is the new wave/concept of the future, but they forgot to build a game that supports a community and a sense of realism and risk/reward.

I might say it would be awesome to just teleport anywhere in the world, and conceptually it sounds great, but in the process of doing so I'd lose a sense of the unknown, the travel, the immersion. I relate this a lot to the wave and direction the "future" mmo's have taken. It sounds great. This instant teleportation gratification, and you may even think it's what you want, but then can't escape that feeling that something's "missing."

I'm disappointed in the direction they've taken EQ2. True MMO's are gone, and so to most of the people that remember what made it all great. It's history and beginnings in DnD, Muds, etc. The sense of a tribal team in a fantasy world of danger and excitement, exploring, and maybe even finding a badass sword and coming together to take down the nefarious dragon in the catacombs of solusek guarded by a tribe of fire giants.

It's not even a carrot and stick game anymore. It's a cake game, and you can eat as much as you want, depending on how much time you have to sit there and stuff your gluttonous face.

Here comes EQN, with all these great cake designs all of you wanted. No grind, no levels, destructible world, etc. Lets see if you like eating your cake too...
 

Fingz_sl

shitlord
238
0
I think EQ1 was a DIKU MUD with a 3D graphical UI. Other than the graphics, it retained a lot of the MUD mechanics, corpse crawls, leveling up skills, etc.

That said, MMO's have been moving away from MUDs more and more over the last ten years. When WoW started, you had to level up your weapon skills. They eventually removed that.

EQNext won't be very MUD like at all. It will have more to do with League of Legends than DIKU MUD.
 

Mellent_sl

shitlord
180
0
I have a huge problem with horizontal progression, and I think it's viability is zero for a serious mmo, for serious gamers. I'm not just talking about the amount of time you have to spend, I'm talking about the game world having repercussions, intrigue, danger, wonder. No handouts and little guardian spirit popping up telling you where to go, how to get there, and what to do when you get there. F that i'm not playing little pony island adventures. Let me be immersed.
I don't know how you got "little pony island adventures" from horizontal progression, or how it will remove "repercussions, intrigue, danger, and wonder." That's quite the far, far leap actually. Care to back up that claim?
 

Underjoyed_sl

shitlord
66
2
that's fine. companies can continue to pander to the ADD generation and they will continue to play these types of games for a month or so and move on again like nomads. meanwhile, an entire market of gamers who would be willing to play a harder MMO for several years (and be willing to pay a monthly sub to do so) will be overlooked and EQN will just be another game in the MMO graveyard less than a year after release.
w3rd
 

misery_sl

shitlord
495
0
I'll go out on a limb and say that they will almost certainly have your character model hidden while building. The reason it looks so ridiculous in the time lapse videos is because they're using a separate world camera, not the player's perspective. Nobody wants to have to click through their character to do fine movements with terrain and placement. That shit will be in first person and a different UI than when you're frolicking about the countryside.
That would be preferred. I don't see any point in having your character floating around the screen for no reason.
 
The issue with that round table shit is the same issue with trying to get constructive feedback from the official forums. Most people do not read them so you have the same small group of vocal minority humps and housewives who generally have bad ideas 99% of the time. These are the same people that think EQ2 graphics are awesome. If Fae go in before or instead of halflings thats some sad shit.

I can live with no frogs because they can easily make a kickass xpac and add them later. You cant add everything in the base game and I dont see a rise of the halflings xpac tickling to many people's fancy.
 

zzeris

King Turd of Shit Hill
<Gold Donor>
19,076
75,607
One issue with objectives will be balancing them so people can feel they've made meaningful progress even when they're binary succeed/fail objectives. And making these difficult objectives less relevant to class balance than more easily obtained ones.

If I log in for 60min a day, and can attempt something 2x in that amount of time, and fail 7 times, then how did I progress in those 3 days before my success? XP bars and AAs allowed people to gain progression in small pieces so you always took a step forward. This is an important concept that should be preserved.
If you want to be lazy as a designer, then sure this works. Progress can actually be something beyond a little shiny blue bar moving in small increments. Why should we continue to think so small?

People talk about hard gameplay and skill. Vertical games have very, very little to do with this. It's about upgrading stats to the point a retard could succeed. That's the kind of gameplay you guys are endorsing. I would much rather see if they could make it skill based or just a bit more than the same old crap. They can still balance gameplay so that progression is obtained every time you log in. You don't even have to waste your time searching for that little colored bar.

Etchazz, WoW stomping EQ is very valid. When gamers get tired of another in a long line of disappointing MMOs, where do they go? WoW. Like clockwork. Why don't they head back to EQ? Why did they never head back to EQ? When did WoW ever go down to EQs best years? It didn't, it wont. Want to know why no one will ever make a hardcore MMO for that huge player-base you keep describing? Because they never went back to EQ. They voted over and over and over with their wallets on what kind of game they wanted. It was never EQ. If that player-base was so desperate for EQ, then what happened? WoW was just more fun right? Other games offered more right? WoW vanilla was the superior experience. They go back to EQ for nostalgia just like I do.
 

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,569
7,883
I really hate to break this to you... but EverQuest stopped being 'hardcore' long before WoW ever existed. There was never an EverQuest there to go back to.

As much as I sometimes disagree with etchazz's hardline stances, that whole post made you sound ridiculous.