EQ Never

I want teamwork to be the most critical element to "DPS". Like I can do 50 dps, and my friend can do 70 dps, and the mob has 12k health. It'll take us 100 seconds to beat it using no synergy, but I have knockdowns and he has snares. My knockdowns fail a lot unless the mob is affected by immobilize (snare/root), his snares fail a lot when the mob is targeting him, we both do bonus damage against prone (knockdown/stun/sap) targets, and anyone gets attacks of opportunity from the back of the target, so working together we do way way way more damage, and the mob dies in 10 seconds, essentially the time it takes to snare, knockdown, and position ourselves.

Then you spend your time communicating teamwork with your allies and less time giving a shit about the +5 str or +4 dex on a pair of gloves. That shit is stupid. Environmental factors should be #1 rather than knowing your dps rotation or priority queue. The type of opponent, the type of group, etc. that you have should determine your strategy.

Big W Powah!_sl said:

I'm not a DOTA/LoL/HoN player, so I don't know how it feels in those games.

However, my gut reaction is that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth not having a cancel for any ability. For PvE I see the validity of it; Risk taking the big hit from the boss to get off your powerful ice comet. However, the pvp side of me really hates the idea. Simply because my ice comet is going to be a longer cast due to animation than rogues super backstab, which does the same damage. Thus, ice comet will never be useable due to the fact that a rogue can exploit it to instagib the clothie.

Yes, conjecture/speculation/bullshit/blah blah blah. You know that shit will happen. You know it will hurt the pvp game...and if you can't telegraph boss moves well enough, it hurts pve as well.

Click to expand...

If you havent played those MOBAs, they are pure pvp games and it works fine. Without escalating the theorycrafting, the ice comet is ranged so obviously different from backstab.Bottom line is that they need to view it as a balancing tool and not just give everything the same animation lock, though.

I like the direction they took with Ogres, but again, Jeff's opinions on 'funny/ugly races' annoy the shit out of me. I shouldn't be surprised after the 'denial of service' garbage.

'Well blah blah from experience we know most players don't choose to play 'joke races'. Why make a race people don't want to play?'

Maybe it's okay for a playable race to be rarely encountered by players. It would certainly contribute to the identity of that race, and the culture of the game's community. Having a 'slapstick' race has always resulted in game-specific jokes, memes, stereotypes etc and has always enriched the gaming experience for me. The content and assets created for that 'joke race' provide cultural meta content for the entire population of the game.

Dumb choice, IMO.

a_skeleton_02_sl said:

On the other hand spending the massive amount of time it takes to design and create a race that 5% of the population will play does make horrible business sense.

Click to expand...

Only if you look at it from the perspective of creating that race for the player playing it, rather than for every player in the game world. I think that's flawed thinking.

a_skeleton_02_sl said:

I think it's necessary thinking, Pulling numbers out of my ass, If it costs 1000 man hours to create an ugly race and it costs 1000 man hours to create a traditional race and in order to hit your timetable and guide lines you can only choose one. Since this is the 50th game your company has made you know that the ugly race you want to make is rarely played but all the traditional race you make see lots of use. You will make the choice that gives your players more appealing content 100% of the time.

Butler even addressed it at the end of the video that they have a limited "bandwith" to make a lot of races in the beginning so they are focusing on the core popular races and then will expand on other races after the game is out.

Click to expand...

Oh ya, I get it. It makes total 'sense'. I just disagree.

I think stimulating a game community's culture is of utmost importance, and I would spend a disproportionate amount of resources on nurturing it. I believe giving the races certain character attributes that evoke common responses in people to be an easy way to do this. I would intentionally create a slapstick/ugly race that acted as a pariah to everyone else.

Original Model Ogre with the Crooked Smile was best model.

Troll gets second place.

Is it just me or does EQN's version of the dwarf look strikingly similar to the Warhammer Online dwarf?

Dark elves look like Draenei

Ogres look like the Roegadyn/Galka or whatever from FFXIV

Copy pasted warhammer dwarves...

Tell me I'm wrong.

a_skeleton_02_sl said:

If you have an hour and aVERYhigh tolerance for cringe you can learn about about Dwarf and Ogre designs for EQ Next.

Click to expand...

Are they seriously sticking with the whole, "Walt Disney" art?

Merlin_sl said:

Are they seriously sticking with the whole, "Walt Disney" art?

Click to expand...

Looks that way. It's a good fit for the voxel world they've created. Play up & mirror the chunky look to the world via the character art. It was a good call, and the models are well done when you look at them through that lens.

Would I have preferred something different? Ya for sure. But not at the cost of the destructible world.

Quaid_sl said:

Looks that way. It's a good fit for the voxel world they've created. Play up & mirror the chunky look to the world via the character art. It was a good call, and the models are well done when you look at them through that lens.

Would I have preferred something different? Ya for sure. But not at the cost of the destructible world.

Click to expand...

How am I supposed to immerse myself in the world with fucking "Circle of Life" and "A Whole New World" going through my head? I guess I could replace my raid soundtracks, remove the trance and just buy Walt Disney "best of" cds.

Quaid_sl said:

Would I have preferred something different? Ya for sure. But not at the cost of the destructible world.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one, I don't really give a crap about graphics or character models. If I have to see triangle tits everywhere in order to experience good combat mechanics and rewarding dynamic gameplay (procedural + destructability) I'll have no problem with it.

Good graphics don't mean a damn thing to me.

a_skeleton_02_sl said:

Just finished watching the lore video for Ogres and Dwarves.

Dwarves are exactly the same as original EQ they did not want to change the lore and they are a keystone of the series.

Ogres are neutral aligned, Noble warriors, master craftsman, and "The best cooks in Norrath" they are basically Native Americans a proud noble race that protects nature and only takes what they need.


Also, TheyWILL NOTmake ugly races like old ogres and trolls because players don't want to play them and it doesn't make "business sense" They said they may make battle scared heads/creation options for you to choose from but they will never make sloppy ugly characters.

Click to expand...

That is kinda sad. I loved the eq1 troll even the luclin revamp of it. I still remember the day when my friends computer after luclin came out had the bug where a lot of player characters looked naked. I was on my troll shadowknight that was a female for extra hideousness and he came around the corner and saw me. I heard a cry of horror from across the room and the most hilarious look on my friends face as he saw more of a troll woman than any human should.

I can see them making that call races that are just ugly tend to be very niche with few people playing them. You can make a monster race but it has to be bad ass and awesome looking not just fugly.