EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
Nola
Trakanon Raider
- 2,961
- 1,391
Bought the Landmark last week when it was on sale. Couldn't really get into it, guess the whole minecraft gameplay is not for me. Game looks real good but it also took a huge hit on my PC, was getting a constant low 20ish frame rates. Hopefully its not optimized or I would hate to see Freeport with a bunch of players running around. It would make my PC crash. Will definitely have to upgrade just to play EQnext.
Daidraco
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 9,314
- 9,421
I couldnt get into Landmark either, though I enjoyed MC and wouldnt put them on the same level. Theyre the same at their heart, but Landmark has a long ways to go/is more advanced. There is a rather steep learning curve to use the tool set thats given in Landmark. Like someone else said, you have to learn the 15 different ways you can edit a Voxel (negative, positive, inverse etc. etc. etc.) -Its just too much all at once, where MC - the learning curve is only realized once you make the Grand Cathedral (ex.). Im not sure how "I" would change Landmarks system, but I would definitely commission a redesign of it if I had any say.
The engine has yet to be truly optimized and Im not sure if they have fixed the issue where the Engine is rendering shit you cant see, either. I can only hope that everything is fixed by the time they put Next into Beta so I dont have to buy a $4000 PC to play it.
Morrow
Trakanon Raider
- 3,283
- 920
zzeris
King Turd of Shit Hill
- 18,936
- 73,937
It was a sarcastic response but diversity, by definition, is variety and 40 at launch is a lot more variety than the 14 EQ had. Did you possibly mean unique abilities or concept? If so, the SK was a warrior /necro hybrid, Pally a cleric/warrior hybrid, Ranger warrior/druid hybrid, BL was a monk/shammy hybrid with a powerful pet. See a easily noticed trend? Throw in just how generic the cleric really is(same with warrior and mage) and I'm trying to see unique here.
Or possibly you just liked the very focused and specific uses some classes had that required those classes in a group and just wanted to say class diversity as a blanket statement that EQ RULEZ and I picked a good class!!!! ?? Or are you just trying to act like the artificial restrictions placed on classes to slow the leveling curve and make it seem difficult instead of grindy? EQ itself was truly not a very hard game.
Also, my post was a reminder that this isn't EQ and there will always be whiny players. I prefer the new focus on me making a warrior and as I learn other classes(hopefully not required), I can glean certain skills I want to use to make me a better tank. That is far superior to a system where I make a Ranger and he is NEVER as good of a tank as a warrior. Much better than that old exclusionary system.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,556
- 7,863
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All classes should have the ability to spec for maximum dps, and that maximum potential should be the same for all classes. 'DPS' should not be a class defining role. It should be something that everyone can do, especially if their primary role (tanking/control, healing, support) isn't needed in a particular situation. You should be able to switch between 2 specs and gear-sets on the fly outside of combat.
That way there is still class interactivity, but you can play with your friends in any situation.
Note: that isn't to say I'm a proponent of class based progression systems. I think they are lazy and outdated.
That way there is still class interactivity, but you can play with your friends in any situation.
Note: that isn't to say I'm a proponent of class based progression systems. I think they are lazy and outdated.
Flobee
Vyemm Raider
- 2,610
- 3,003
I agree with your general idea here, but I really don't think homogenizing DPS across classes is the right way to handle it (see current WoW). While I would honestly like to see the idea of DPS disappear entirely, that would prolly require a replacement to the HP system and that is a whole other can of worms. A more realistic system, in my mind at least, would be to significantly lower the emphasis on damage, and concentrate more on class roles, and the diversity they can provide.
Meh, now that I think about it, I am basically saying the same thing as Quaid. I guess I just don't want to see 40 classes that can all DPS equally.
zzeris
King Turd of Shit Hill
- 18,936
- 73,937
I think Quaid's idea is similar to what WoW is doing and that's not all bad. DPS should not be the defining characteristic of your character. It should not be the basis of the game when everything is boiled down to it's core. That is the problem right now, not the ability of people to actually play their character how they want to without being hamstrung by an outdated system. Much like levels is a truly outdated concept that is being de-emphasized here, I hope someone soon can push the HP and DPS system out of gaming.
One problem has always been how to keep combat both interesting and slow enough that alternative ways of damage are of somewhat equal value. With mobs becoming easier and easier as the push for solo options has become mainstream, it is hard for DoT based classes or situational damage classes to excel or even compete until the endgame. This is also made harder by everyone complaining at any perceived slight or advantage. I hate the system but, as mentioned, no one has found a better one yet.
I'm hoping there are a lot of varieties of tank, DPS, healer, crowd control, etc and that people are able to experiment in lots of hopefully unique ways. I don't see it happening but they are pushing the boundaries which is a good first step.
One problem has always been how to keep combat both interesting and slow enough that alternative ways of damage are of somewhat equal value. With mobs becoming easier and easier as the push for solo options has become mainstream, it is hard for DoT based classes or situational damage classes to excel or even compete until the endgame. This is also made harder by everyone complaining at any perceived slight or advantage. I hate the system but, as mentioned, no one has found a better one yet.
I'm hoping there are a lot of varieties of tank, DPS, healer, crowd control, etc and that people are able to experiment in lots of hopefully unique ways. I don't see it happening but they are pushing the boundaries which is a good first step.
Malakriss
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 12,373
- 11,778
*single target sustained DPS should be equal. Burst, multi-target, and mass AE damage should vary based on class specializations. But then there has to be both group content and raid content that isn't primarily single named mobs. Those that don't excel at other damage specializations get the most support and enhancement abilities.
Posted this in the Landmark thread, too:Landmark w/ SOEs Terry Michaels and Dave Georgeson - YouTube
It's a ZAM interview that's mostly based on Landmark, but mentions EQN a bit.Here's an articleat ZAM that highlights some of the dev comments.
It's a ZAM interview that's mostly based on Landmark, but mentions EQN a bit.Here's an articleat ZAM that highlights some of the dev comments.
In today's day and age I think having a class that can't solo basic mobs is a death sentence. I think DPS classes should have more of a focus on something specific not just bigger numbers than a warrior.
Utnayan
F16 patrolling Rajaah until he plays DS3
- 16,314
- 12,083
Looks great on paper. Also, a lot of selling on futures here.
There are 3 major things wrong with the development process of EQ Next. I'll start by saying at least they are trying to do something new, and it should be commended. How they are going about it leads to epic failure.
1) There are too many points of failure out of their control. Storybricks, as it stands, is unproven technology. With that said, we have no idea if it will pan out the way SOE wants or not. The problem here is they are putting all their eggs into one basket and should storybricks just be another way to fill out randomly generated content with completely uninteresting storylines because it isn't coherent with the story driven content, it's boring to play through and makes a gamer not care to do any of that content at all. It's phony fluff and makes the world stale and uninspired. I'll agree that it would be better than placing random NPC's all over the place repeating 5 emotes over and over again and calling it atmosphere. Or worse, the traditional 3-5 pack of mobs standing around waiting to be killed... But it isn't going to be much more if it falls into the normal patterns of procedurally generated content we have all seen in the past.
2) Storybricks is selling it as a cost saving measure. Not good. The tool should be having publisher/developer investment in manpower to be able to use it effectively. Not being used as a one trick pony to populate a world and save money. That will lead to uninspired content I just mentioned above.
3) Landmark is not user friendly. Their emphasis shouldn't be on dynamic water, or whatever else they want to talk about. They should be hiring UI designers from Apple or something to give it an easy button. The 20% number thrown of gamers willing to build and create content is a cop out. If they design it to be easy and fun to use, that number increases dramatically and everyone (including SOE) is rewarded for it. Start making it fluid and easy to use for the general population. If they do not want to put resources dedicated to that, and outsource proven skilled designers that have experience in doing just that, that 20% number may as well be 10 people working in SOE's offices.
Hoping for the best. But I think everyone needs to keep it all in perspective. There are way too many points of failure, too much dependence on an outside organization, and as seen in the past, this doesn't bode well for any design group in this industry.
It's definitely a dicey move but hopefully it pans out. They're using multiple contractors (I guess that's the right word here?) to supply tools that serve as the foundation of their game, but I thought they had a heavy hand in developing those tools for EQN? That goes for the voxel engine and Storybricks, however I could be remembering wrong.
Maybe it'll all end up as a mess, I'm just happy someone's trying something new.
My only major concern right now is one I've repeated a few times and that's the voxel world. I think it looks fine in some regards, but in others it's severely limiting. Get too far away and a structure looks hideous. Up close it looks a lot better but the voxels sort of ... melt together and the textures lack any bump mapping so it all looks so flat. I'm sure this is all WIP stuff so we'll see how it develops over time.
Maybe it'll all end up as a mess, I'm just happy someone's trying something new.
My only major concern right now is one I've repeated a few times and that's the voxel world. I think it looks fine in some regards, but in others it's severely limiting. Get too far away and a structure looks hideous. Up close it looks a lot better but the voxels sort of ... melt together and the textures lack any bump mapping so it all looks so flat. I'm sure this is all WIP stuff so we'll see how it develops over time.
zzeris
King Turd of Shit Hill
- 18,936
- 73,937
Ut,
To throw another perspective on the points you have made.
1) Storybricks can't do any worse than what we have and they know exactly what kind of story telling experience is out there right now. Sure, it may end up being less revolutionary than hoped for from all fronts. That doesn't make it a failure except to people that are expecting way too much compared to the current market.
2) Storybricks can be a cost saving feature just because it lends a system just like Unity has a system for developers. Any time there is one set system where the developer doesn't have to create something from scratch, there is savings. Cost saved in one area can always be used in another and this isn't a garage development group here. I know your usual diatribe about the 'landed nobility' and maybe this time it just might surprise you. Who knows yet right?
3) I agree Landmark isn't user friendly enough and they do have to improve on that. They are trying to push all the right buttons but you have to give the supposed creators the right tools. They have to make it easier and I agree with you 100% here.
Glad to see you here pushing your perspective. They can't do worse than the Elder Scrolls right?
To throw another perspective on the points you have made.
1) Storybricks can't do any worse than what we have and they know exactly what kind of story telling experience is out there right now. Sure, it may end up being less revolutionary than hoped for from all fronts. That doesn't make it a failure except to people that are expecting way too much compared to the current market.
2) Storybricks can be a cost saving feature just because it lends a system just like Unity has a system for developers. Any time there is one set system where the developer doesn't have to create something from scratch, there is savings. Cost saved in one area can always be used in another and this isn't a garage development group here. I know your usual diatribe about the 'landed nobility' and maybe this time it just might surprise you. Who knows yet right?
3) I agree Landmark isn't user friendly enough and they do have to improve on that. They are trying to push all the right buttons but you have to give the supposed creators the right tools. They have to make it easier and I agree with you 100% here.
Glad to see you here pushing your perspective. They can't do worse than the Elder Scrolls right?
Utnayan
F16 patrolling Rajaah until he plays DS3
- 16,314
- 12,083
Oh for sure. I completely agree. What I do not agree with though was from that interview when they are trying to hype up features and futures that do not exist. I know that they preface it with it is hopeful the tool does this or that, or what it might be able to do, but that's pretty dangerous. If they care about not overselling their product. Which they may or may not care about.
Again, completely agree that it will be a cost saver for development. My problem is that it is one of the key points as to why to use the tool. I would hope they are using it for what it * could * theoretically become and the immersive components it would drive into an MMORPG world. It mostly comes from this:
Hearthstone dev invents stories that tell themselves | Polygon
I would rather they concentrate on emergent narratives and how they plan to do that, without selling it as a cost leader. In my jaded view point, that typically means, to me, a way to push a ton of fluff content and call it a day on a more automated basis without having to dedicate a team to certain areas and filler material; without taking advantage of what the tool "may" be able to do. Some people here have already posted about how it will be basic for SOE and EQ Next at the start because they have to learn how to use the tool properly. When I see this coming from Brian Schwab, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Again, being completely cynical and jaded, the first thing that enters my mind is the scapegoat process if features aren't or are there, and just haven't been properly implemented. Brian Schwab's quote below.
That philosophy, as you agree on point 3, should be SOE's main tagline in development as it stands when it comes to Landmark. Rather than that, we are hearing from Georgeson that they only expect about 20% of the folks that play Landmark/EQ Next to build content. Again, I definitely do not see it that way. If they build the tools properly and make it easy/fun to use, I would guess a strong majority would be invested. Again, the jaded Ut in me thinks they are already giving up on that front because they can't make it easy and start throwing out this 20% number.
Mot definitely not. Again, I give them kudos for attempting something new with an ability to have a lot of potential. I just see it as a very easy tool to abuse, and in this space, abuse of a tool over using it to fully flesh out a world on a timeline/budget for a title (EQ Next) with 3 stop/starts doesn't seem like (Historically) the best foundation for a major game launch using this technology.