EQ Never

notafunhater

notafunhater

N00b
226
0
Grobb was originally the starting city for the Troll race. On 2/6/2003 SOE launched the Legacy of Ykesha patch, which involved Froglocks invading Grobb and kicking the Trolls out, who were then relocated to the Ogre starting city. It's still this way.

Obviously, this move was unacceptable to Trolls.
 
I

Itzena_sl

shitlord
4,609
6
notafunhater_sl said:
Grobb was originally the starting city for the Troll race. On 2/6/2003 SOE launched the Legacy of Ykesha patch, which involved Froglocks invading Grobb and kicking the Trolls out, who were then relocated to the Ogre starting city. It's still this way.
Click to expand...
1) They were moved to Neriak, not Oggok.
2) No it isn't.
 
G

Gecko_sl

shitlord
1,482
0
jello_sl said:
You can talk about leveling curve, difficulty, itemization, lore, and ingenuity in the MMO space until you are blue in the face but there are only a few areas EQ next would need to be savvy about to bring back what EQ had going for it:

1) Class interdependence, ditch the hero nonsense and let people play a certain role
2) Keep instancing to a bare minimum
3) Keep mob leashing to a bare minimum
.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you have it backwards. I think lore, ingenuity, difficulty, as well as fun and shiny innovation are what would make EQ Next a smash hit. I have no desire to relive the days of Old Sebilis, Lower Guk, or of zones dedicated to Druid kiting.

I think instancing should be used to make the world seamless and enact large areas with overlap to ensure plenty of other players as well as dynamic change.

I do somewhat love roles, but class interdepedence makes me remember the days of sitting in dungeons for hours unable to find a group due to no clerics. I'm sure this could be addressed without instancing, but I'm not quite sure how.
 
J

jello_sl

shitlord
24
0
Gecko_sl said:
Actually, I think you have it backwards. I think lore, ingenuity, difficulty, as well as fun and shiny innovation are what would make EQ Next a smash hit. I have no desire to relive the days of Old Sebilis, Lower Guk, or of zones dedicated to Druid kiting
..
Click to expand...
I simply outlined what little it would take to bring back what which made EQ what it was, like it or hate it. Concerns of being a smash hit is likely antithetical to a developers ability to create a game that has substance for its gamers.
 
G

Gecko_sl

shitlord
1,482
0
jello_sl said:
I simply outlined what little it would take to bring back what which made EQ what it was, like it or hate it. Concerns of being a smash hit is likely antithetical to a developers ability to create a game that has substance for its gamers.
Click to expand...
What made EQ was it being the only real game in town, not counting UO which was apples to oranges. That won't ever be the case for EQ Next. There are plenty of games out that offer a similar experience to early EQ.

If your three points really did create a game that had substance and appeal, Earth & Beyond would still be around.
 
alavaz

alavaz

Trakanon Raider
2,001
713
The only way a game is going to feel fresh is with fresh ideas and fresh technology. The whole idea that we can re-skin EQ won't work. Even the people who think they will love it forever and ever will probably be bored in 3 months. Let's face it the EQ model of MMO is a cracked game and regardless of skin, content is still going to get eaten up way faster than devs could even begin to put it out, mudflation will run rampant and it will just feel boring almost as soon as you hit cap and finish the first raid.

In my opinion the next big hit will probably utilize phasing and instancing very heavily (yes I know the disdain that garners around here), have social tools that help you connect with players with filters that actually make sense (i.e. show me players that play often during this timeframe) and really changes up the way levelling and progression is done without fucking with the things people love like engaging group and raid content, crafting and exploring. I think most people probably agree that combat somewhere between the keybind mashing chaos of WoW and the Homer Simpson desk bird drudgery of EQ would well accepted.
 
001001102

001001102

Silver Knight of the Realm
353
108
What's the word on this shit bros, is it going to be the next coming of Lyrical's Clean Nut or is it going to be EQ2-2?
 
Cinge

Cinge

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
7,017
2,089
No one knows but I guarantee there is certain people that will hate it no matter what :p
 
D

Destante

Lord Nagafen Raider
66
1
The no healer so no group problem can be solved by making healers fun ala vanguard. I cant think of a single time in that game where we were looking for a healer and sometimes would have 2 or three in a group. Disciples and bloodmages were fun as shit and clerics/shamans were both really well done with the different deities you could follow. The problem with early eq was that you needed a cleric because they were really the only healer that could rez if stuff went bad which meant a lengthy run back if you could even get back by yourself and usually killed off the group or resulted in a "lf cleric" if a few died on a bad pull.
 
xzi

xzi

Mouthbreather
7,526
6,763
I've never played Vanguard, but I loved the way a Warrior Priest played in Warhammer Online. They could out decent damage and decent healing at the same time (most offensive spells gave buffs or heals to your defensive target/you). I wish there were more healers like that, honestly.

Of course (when I played at least) their damage was easily outdamaged by another class or outhealed. They were mostly support BUT they could handle small group healing pretty easily as long as you could manage to not get hit by dumb shit.
 
Budos

Budos

Golden Knight of the Realm
592
10
Destante_sl said:
The no healer so no group problem can be solved by making healers fun ala vanguard. I cant think of a single time in that game where we were looking for a healer and sometimes would have 2 or three in a group. Disciples and bloodmages were fun as shit and clerics/shamans were both really well done with the different deities you could follow. The problem with early eq was that you needed a cleric because they were really the only healer that could rez if stuff went bad which meant a lengthy run back if you could even get back by yourself and usually killed off the group or resulted in a "lf cleric" if a few died on a bad pull.
Click to expand...
Healers in EQ were fun. You could do homework, study, or whatever, while you healed if you had a decent group. Plus, who wouldn't want to be wanted?

Manastone + CH, by itself, made the playing cleric fun.
 
Rezz

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
Healers in VG, especially 3-6 months in, were retarded OP as classes. There was a cleric in my guild that could solo shit that three equally geared and equally skilled other players grouped simply could not due to class design. To this day I think BMs and Disciples are still ridiculously powerful in any setting, so you basically take the idea of a necro from EQ but make it wanted in groups and you have the healer stance. Shit was berserk.

On the topic of what they need to include in EQ to bring in the dollars as well as keep the game out of the lolp2w crowd? I honestly don't know. What I would imagine they will do is incorporate social media in a semi non-intrusive way as well as a cash shop that offers non-essential but very nice bonuses to mundane experiences (skill gains/leveling) on top of devoting a substantial amount of time to creating visual effects to cater to the audience that purchases them. Mechanically your guess is as good as mine as I have yet to see a single drop of info about what they are doing besides using the mythic "SANDBOX!" word that gets panties wet around here for some reason. EQ certainly wasn't a sandbox for the most part unless simply being badly designed makes a game a sandbox. It has much more in common with modern mmos than most would like to remember, but you take away quest markers and dailies and you effectively have EQ of old. Wizard nukes were much like necro nukes were much like mage nukes. Necro dots were a lot like shaman dots were a lot like druid dots. Kick was a lot like bash was a lot like THUNDEROUS KICK! Damage in/damage out with mildly different flavors does not a sandbox make. The faction system was about the only sandboxy aspect and that -really- needs to be brought back.

Otherwise, hell, with almost no info it is hard to extrapolate what might be beyond pure speculation.
 
Flipmode

Flipmode

EQOA Refugee
2,091
312
Rezz_sl said:
Healers in VG, especially 3-6 months in, were retarded OP as classes. There was a cleric in my guild that could solo shit that three equally geared and equally skilled other players grouped simply could not due to class design. To this day I think BMs and Disciples are still ridiculously powerful in any setting, so you basically take the idea of a necro from EQ but make it wanted in groups and you have the healer stance. Shit was berserk.

On the topic of what they need to include in EQ to bring in the dollars as well as keep the game out of the lolp2w crowd? I honestly don't know. What I would imagine they will do is incorporate social media in a semi non-intrusive way as well as a cash shop that offers non-essential but very nice bonuses to mundane experiences (skill gains/leveling) on top of devoting a substantial amount of time to creating visual effects to cater to the audience that purchases them. Mechanically your guess is as good as mine as I have yet to see a single drop of info about what they are doing besides using the mythic "SANDBOX!" word that gets panties wet around here for some reason. EQ certainly wasn't a sandbox for the most part unless simply being badly designed makes a game a sandbox. It has much more in common with modern mmos than most would like to remember, but you take away quest markers and dailies and you effectively have EQ of old. Wizard nukes were much like necro nukes were much like mage nukes. Necro dots were a lot like shaman dots were a lot like druid dots. Kick was a lot like bash was a lot like THUNDEROUS KICK! Damage in/damage out with mildly different flavors does not a sandbox make. The faction system was about the only sandboxy aspect and that -really- needs to be brought back.

Otherwise, hell, with almost no info it is hard to extrapolate what might be beyond pure speculation.
Click to expand...
And that's why class roles need to be balanced. Any healing class should take a dps hit and a class like blood mage/disciple are inherently OP. Everyone wants their cake and eat it too with no trade offs. Devs need to put the players back in their place and balance that shit. You go in knowing if you play a healer you wont be able to solo nearly as well as a dps class but you will have survivability and the potential to kill harder stuff. People just want to do everything on one character and that leads to homogenous, bland classes that dont do anything well.
 
arallu

arallu

Golden Knight of the Realm
536
47
Edit, nm saw it was posted a page back )

Saw this earlier today at the end of an interview w/ Smedley:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/14/so...verquest-next/

So, the teams have just seen Everquest Next for the first time. How did that go down?

You know, I was really nervous about that. We showed it to them on Monday, and I couldn't sleep on Sunday night because I was scared. We've thrown out two previous designs of the game to go with something pretty crazy and. well, it's awesome. When the team saw it I could barely breath when they were watching it. But when I'd finished they were clapping and cheering - and these guys are gamers, so they're not afraid to call bullshit when they see us make a mistake. It's happened before. We've made mistakes, and the guys internally will call us on it every time. But they loved this, and we really felt vindicated that the way we're going with Everquest Next is the right way. I feel good about it. We're not trying to make WOW2 or Everquest 2.5 - we're making something that we think will define the next generation of MMOs.

The genre Everquest has occupied is pretty full now, so it must be very difficult to come up with something genuinely new.

Well, that's the trouble. Everybody has been making the same game since Everquest, really. If you look back, Ultima Online was out before us and really, all the current crop of MMOs are a lot like Everquest - they're in that style. They're great because the quality level has really improved, but nobody has really changed the game. Now, you saw it with League of Legends - Riot took DOTA and made it mainstream, so now everyone is playing that. You saw the same kind of thing in the Online RPG space. So, the previous designs we had for the next Everquest were cookie-cutter, they were 'me too'. We had some great, innovative things in there and they'd have been great games in themselves, but they wouldn't have been enough to keep an audience. We've had people playing Everquest for 13 years and we kept that in our mind as the main goal when making Everquest Next.

How are you feeling about your decision to pursue free-to-play as aggressively as you have done?

We definitely made the right call, and we like what we're doing. I think free-to-play is pure for one simple reason: people can vote right away. If they don't like your game they can just walk away because they didn't pay anything for it - it's the most democratic way to make games. And if they don't want to pay for it now, our hope is that they pay for it later, but they don't have to. So it makes me feel good that the games we make are being judged on their merit, not just how well we can market them or force them to play and pay like Zynga tried. It's pure and I love that.
Click to expand...
 
Furious

Furious

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
2,923
4,994
Smed says

"We definitely made the right call, and we like what we're doing. I think free-to-play is pure for one simple reason: people can vote right away. If they don't like your game they can just walk away because they didn't pay anything for it "

So they giving away free boxes for Eq Next?
 
Cinge

Cinge

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
7,017
2,089
I thought the consensus, for a while now , has been it was going to be f2p? Given how much smed seems to push/love it.
 
L

Laerazi_sl

shitlord
293
2
not just how well we can market them or force them to play and pay like Zynga tried.
Click to expand...
.. except for Planetside 2 where you have the option of either spending a month of grinding to unlock a gun, or pay $10 in SC for it. I'm okay with it, because its F2P, but I don't see how this is any different than Zynga allowing players to fast-forward grinds with real money.

It just seems wrong for Smed to try and distance himself from what they are clearly doing
 
xzi

xzi

Mouthbreather
7,526
6,763
He shouldn't be ashamed of the F2P model, especially if they can handle it like they did in Planetside 2. I wonder how successful their cash shop has been in PS2, really.

I'm not a fan of being able to buy any (top level) gear at all via money in a fantasy type MMO, though. Unless it is just a reskin of something, that's just silly. Boosters, reskins, fun stuff, vanity items.. that would give a pretty big chunk of money I'd imagine.
 
Muligan

Muligan

Trakanon Raider
3,213
893
At least Smed doesn't seem ignorant. I like the nod to LoL. What they have done under the radar (somewhat) has been amazing. A year ago, you would not have seen any mainstream advertising or product placement/displays for LoL. Now look at them... I would hate to know just how much money they are making and they continue, in my opinion, to offer quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.