Monsters and Memories (Project_N) - Old School Indie MMO

Sylas · 2025-08-17T11:02:45-0400

you must of played a class that could solo then.

cus march 1999 the game was fucking solved for every class that required a group, we didn't have the option to just putz around willy nilly we had to go where people were. good races/elves did crushbone>unrest>mistmoore>guk and evil races it was nro>highpass>aviaks/treants>guk

I saw every single zone as a rogue I could sneak around and they were all fucking empty except maybe a necro or druid soloing. Gorge of king Xorbb? fucking empty. lake rathe? empty. everything was empty except for a few solo camps like guards in butcherblock mtns or named camps. hell most of the fucking dungeons were empty except maybe someone camping a specific named. Runnyeye? Najena? Befallen? Sol A? Upper Guk? fucking empty. I spent a fuckton of time in befallen doing corpse recoveries for idiots who didn't know if you zone into a dungeon and there's no one there, there's a reason.

Burns · 2025-08-17T11:05:27-0400

Gravel said:
Except most places in EQ were dead. No one was ever grinding in OOT until they put the ring of the ancients there. Everyone was in fucking lower guk, or sebilis. Because players will flock to the path of least resistance.

I'm glad you found a game to flex on your ability to poop sock though. It's quite impressive.

I spent a bunch of time in OOT on my druid on release, as it was a great place for quad kiting. Specters first then moved to cyclops, or the other way round (been so long I forgot). Might have even done stuff before Specters.

I remember a bunch of people talking about Oasis being so great at the time, but it was always full of people, whereas OOT usually had some space available. Still, would quad kite Oasis specters when they were open too.

Quaid · 2025-08-17T11:14:15-0400

Flobee said:
Discounting the value of the "early adopters" solving things is, imo, short sighted. Choosing to streamline everything because "they'll solve it all anyway" is pretty foolish and lead to the dry boring gameplay we get in games today

Straw man. Nobody is suggesting that it’s all or nothing, and the game should be totally streamlined. The suggestion is that 4 hour boat rides are a bridge too far, and only rewarding to a small fraction of early adopters. Even then, likely only a small percentage of those folks.

The bulk of the gameplay reward for the vast majority will come from actually engaging with core systems. Not afk in a digital ocean.

Daidraco · 2025-08-17T11:16:06-0400

Flobee said:
That's simply not true if you're talking 1999 classic. I remember tons of folks doing inefficient stuff because they didn't know better and it was fun. Just because the game is solved now doesn't mean it always was. Granted in 2025 that solving will happen a lot faster, so not sure how you recreate that, but I'm interested to see how their attempts work.

Not exactly related to what you're saying - but I was always curious how EverQuest balanced out the reward vs risk for camps, dungeons, etc. Like how did they come up with ZEM in Swamp of No Hope, where you can barely turn away from the screen before you have another Pat breathing down your neck.. versus Burning Woods with a higher ZEM where you can literally run in a straight line and might not ever cross paths with anything?

Or how you can set up camp in some outdoor zones, and this type of mob not only yells for help, but also runs? Yet, another camp with the same level mobs on the other side of the zone is antisocial, and only ever melee's. They respawn at the same rate and are the same density.. but theyre worth the same exp? Speaking of, what about density? Or the spawn rate? Or their class types?

I'm saying, this conversation about "exploring" really kind of shines a spotlight on why people "DIDNT" explore. As has been said, its just not fucking worth it when you can die at every turn and lose more exp from dying than you would make from an exp camp all night.

I'm torn on whether I want every experience to be the same, no matter what you do. Does it open up the world and encourage "exploration"? Or does it homogenize it in some form or fashion? Part of me says yes, it should homogenize for the sake of gameplay, and the items and coin that are dropped from the mobs should be the defining characteristics. You can kill 45 snakes an hour because theyre easy, but a orcs in a dungeon that are social, run, and have multiple classes should die at 25 an hour, and have the same exp payout.

Kithani · 2025-08-17T11:17:56-0400

Locnar said:
All those old quirks from classic EQ were interdependent and only together , all together, made the magic happen. Yes you need long travel times and 4 hour boat rides to spam the globe because only with that will you be REWARDED by exploring and finding those "hidden gem" leveling grounds that you and your crew can stake out.

Wtf is the point of cyclops island in OOT if you just put a teleporter there straight from the noob yard and every tom dick and harry is there too?

I think there is SOME (limited) merit to what you're saying, but I don't think you can just easily recreate the magic in 2025.

Back in 1999 most EQ players' homes had a single computer with dial-up internet and it wasn't powerful enough to alt tab out, very very few had a second monitor etc. Even if you did have such a setup, the internet was just fundamentally different and there wasn't jack shit to do, your alternative to playing EQ (other than playing a different game of course) would have been sitting around in AOL chat rooms which EQ was basically a DND simulator on top of a chat room.

I don't claim to know what the solution is but I definitely think you'll have a lot lower player engagement with such systems in today's world.
FWIW I do think the "exploration" aspect might be fun the first or even second time around but if you make it a repeat thing people will nope out in the long run.

Gravel · 2025-08-17T11:20:44-0400

Quaid said:
Straw man. Nobody is suggesting that it’s all or nothing, and the game should be totally streamlined. The suggestion is that 4 hour boat rides are a bridge too far, and only rewarding to a small fraction of early adopters. Even then, likely only a small percentage of those folks.

The bulk of the gameplay reward for the vast majority will come from actually engaging with core systems. Not afk in a digital ocean.

I only pointed out the boat thing because it stuck out to me.

But that said, I'm almost positive the response to it will be "make friends with a wizard or druid who can port you and avoid the boat." So what was the point of the boat ride in the first place then if the intention is you do everything you can to avoid it?

It means you're better off spending 3 hours sitting in a town begging for a portal than you are engaging in that system.

Flobee · 2025-08-17T12:49:54-0400

Quaid said:
Straw man. Nobody is suggesting that it’s all or nothing, and the game should be totally streamlined. The suggestion is that 4 hour boat rides are a bridge too far, and only rewarding to a small fraction of early adopters. Even then, likely only a small percentage of those folks.

The bulk of the gameplay reward for the vast majority will come from actually engaging with core systems. Not afk in a digital ocean.

I'm not saying that a 4 hour boat ride is a good idea, just that it's existence can serve a purpose that may not be immediately obvious. Below is a video I watched the other day about this exact topic. TLDW - making the "obvious" fix or change often has unintended consequences and sometimes the "bad" design exists for a reason and creates a specific desired outcome.

That's not to say that a 4 hour boat ride is a good idea, it probably isn't. It's just that it can serve a useful function that may not be achievable in a different way, regardless of how sure you are that it can... You're not a game designer and there may be factors involved that you're not aware of. Apply the same logic to every design decision you think is stupid. You might be right, or you might be missing context because you are on the outside of the design process

Quaid · 2025-08-17T13:24:57-0400

Flobee said:
I'm not saying that a 4 hour boat ride is a good idea, just that it's existence can serve a purpose that may not be immediately obvious. Below is a video I watched the other day about this exact topic. TLDW - making the "obvious" fix or change often has unintended consequences and sometimes the "bad" design exists for a reason and creates a specific desired outcome.

That's not to say that a 4 hour boat ride is a good idea, it probably isn't. It's just that it can serve a useful function that may not be achievable in a different way, regardless of how sure you are that it can... You're not a game designer and there may be factors involved that you're not aware of. Apply the same logic to every design decision you think is stupid. You might be right, or you might be missing context because you are on the outside of the design process

I hear your point, however i utterly reject the notion that it takes game designer experience to critique design choices.

Sylas · 2025-08-17T13:38:01-0400

You know who isn't a game designer? the 4 dudes in their garage making this game in their spare time. I assert there's tons of factors that they are not aware of that is shit design and they think its good because they are dumb

also the video you linked fluctuates between "no shit" and "bitch is you retarded?" on the points its trying to make.

you can argue about mass appeal vs niche and difficulty vs tedium but that's not the point that retard in that video is trying to make.

he is saying "the design used to be shitty, and that made it more difficult, which made you appreciate it more" then in the same breath admits that the new design with accurate hitboxes is more popular than every other game before it combined? Ok thanks for proving yourself wrong lol.

eating breakfast used to involve getting up early and leaving your cave with a spear and hunting prey, checking traps for small game and then remembering which berries tasted good vs which ones killed you. Now it involves getting up early to cook something/pour a bowl of cereal or hitting a drive through on the way to work.

It used to be more "difficult" but that doesn't make it a better design, no the design before used to be really fucking shitty. almost everyone failed and died from it. the only ones who beat the game lived long enough to have kids smart enough to redesign it.

Flobee · 2025-08-17T14:43:43-0400

Sylas said:
You know who isn't a game designer? the 4 dudes in their garage making this game in their spare time. I assert there's tons of factors that they are not aware of that is shit design and they think its good because they are dumb

also the video you linked fluctuates between "no shit" and "bitch is you retarded?" on the points its trying to make.

you can argue about mass appeal vs niche and difficulty vs tedium but that's not the point that retard in that video is trying to make.

he is saying "the design used to be shitty, and that made it more difficult, which made you appreciate it more" then in the same breath admits that the new design with accurate hitboxes is more popular than every other game before it combined? Ok thanks for proving yourself wrong lol.

eating breakfast used to involve getting up early and leaving your cave with a spear and hunting prey, checking traps for small game and then remembering which berries tasted good vs which ones killed you. Now it involves getting up early to cook something/pour a bowl of cereal or hitting a drive through on the way to work.

It used to be more "difficult" but that doesn't make it a better design, no the design before used to be really fucking shitty. almost everyone failed and died from it. the only ones who beat the game lived long enough to have kids smart enough to redesign it.

You're missing the point regarding the hit box, and honestly the entire point being discussed. It's not that the accurate hitbox isn't better, it probably is better, but it completely changes the experience in an unexpected way and that affects how people feel about it. It's more popular but better or worse for a particular player is subjective. The point is that the change has consequences that aren't immediately obvious.

I'm not trying to say that only a game designer can understand this stuff. I'm trying to say that you, and most of us, are looking at this from a players perspective. That's both obvious and expected. What I'm trying to say is that perspective is going to be lacking in the why for various decisions and what affects they are having on the overall design. Every design decision has an affect and changing it to something else has a different affect. A designer picks and chooses all of these things to, ideally, create a harmonizing affect that comes through to the player.

That being said we'll have to see how all the decisions being made that you all hate for this game turn out. I just don't think your reactions here are very well thought out. A lot of it is just complaining because in a vacuum it seems dumb to you. In the context that you present them I don't even disagree with you.

You're not going to see the genre, or the gaming industry in general, get better again without revisiting this stuff and sussing out what works and what doesn't.

Sylas · 2025-08-17T15:20:08-0400

I think it's pretty short sighted to say that at 30+ years of experience playing video games, some of us who have worked in the industry or adjacent, that none of us possess the basic concept of fucking perspective, that is just about the most retarded thing i've heard all day.

To sit here with a straight face and try and argue that nobody understands the concept of unintended consequences is fucking laughable.

You are the one missing the point, changing a hitbox to reflect reality was only one of about a dozen changes mentioned that both improved the gameplay and/or made the game easier, to sit back with rose colored glasses and pine over the retardedly inaccurate hitbox sizes in a vacuum is asinine. The hit box change was universally good, there is no downside to it. having invisible hitboxes larger than the character model is fucking retarded in every sense of the word and it has no redeeming value at all. Making all the other changes that simplified gameplay/made it easier, you can debate, but the hitboxes? you're a fucking retard.

If you want the hitboxes to be bigger to make the fight more challenging or make it harder to dodge then make the FUCKING MONSTER MODEL LARGER. The fact that you can't recognize that game designers make mistakes and not everything is unfixable shows a lack of imagination on your part.

ultimately, there are design choices that can be discussed and debated as they impact tedium vs challenge vs qol vs etc and that's all well and good. You can argue popularity/success indicates who's correct, and in many cases popularity does win. If a game design leads to 10 people enjoying it and 90 hating it and not playing it, well...people vote with their wallet. Clearly the 90 felt they improved monster hunter by the changes they made and now the 90 are loving it, despite the crying from the 10.

Then there are "design choices" that are just fucking retarded ass mistakes, that serve no value, are really just bugs (or incompetence on the part of the designers) such as hitboxes not matching the model and absolutely can and should be fixed.

I don't give a shit about this game so I haven't really commented on any of the shit they are doing, just responding to what other people are saying. dark as fuck can't see at night? 4 hour boat rides? hell levels? Ok. I'm sure this game will be great to all 3 people who play it. and that's fine as long as the devs are cool with an amateur passion project and don't expect to ever make any fucking money from this, then go wild.

but on a forum filled with players that this sort of game should appeal to and everyone is telling you you are fucking retarded and the game is gonna be shit, then you might want to listen.

Flobee · 2025-08-17T15:37:40-0400

Sylas said:
I think it's pretty short sighted to say that at 30+ years of experience playing video games, some of us who have worked in the industry or adjacent, that none of us possess the basic concept of fucking perspective, that is just about the most retarded thing i've heard all day.

To sit here with a straight face and try and argue that nobody understands the concept of unintended consequences is fucking laughable.

You are the one missing the point, changing a hitbox to reflect reality was only one of about a dozen changes mentioned that both improved the gameplay and/or made the game easier, to sit back with rose colored glasses and pine over the retardedly inaccurate hitbox sizes in a vacuum is asinine. The hit box change was universally good, there is no downside to it. having invisible hitboxes larger than the character model is fucking retarded in every sense of the word and it has no redeeming value at all. Making all the other changes that simplified gameplay/made it easier, you can debate, but the hitboxes? you're a fucking retard.

If you want the hitboxes to be bigger to make the fight more challenging or make it harder to dodge then make the FUCKING MONSTER MODEL LARGER. The fact that you can't recognize that game designers make mistakes and not everything is unfixable shows a lack of imagination on your part.

ultimately, there are design choices that can be discussed and debated as they impact tedium vs challenge vs qol vs etc and that's all well and good. You can argue popularity/success indicates who's correct, and in many cases popularity does win. If a game design leads to 10 people enjoying it and 90 hating it and not playing it, well...people vote with their wallet. Clearly the 90 felt they improved monster hunter by the changes they made and now the 90 are loving it, despite the crying from the 10.

Then there are "design choices" that are just fucking retarded ass mistakes, that serve no value, are really just bugs (or incompetence on the part of the designers) such as hitboxes not matching the model and absolutely can and should be fixed.

I don't give a shit about this game so I haven't really commented on any of the shit they are doing, just responding to what other people are saying. dark as fuck can't see at night? 4 hour boat rides? hell levels? Ok. I'm sure this game will be great to all 3 people who play it. and that's fine as long as the devs are cool with an amateur passion project and don't expect to ever make any fucking money from this, then go wild.

but on a forum filled with players that this sort of game should appeal to and everyone is telling you you are fucking retarded and the game is gonna be shit, then you might want to listen.

No sir, a handful of loud people are saying they're retarded. I suspect most will be taking a wait and see approach. Maybe it will suck, and they'll probably change it, maybe it will be lightning in a bottle.

Complex systems create complex outcomes when variables are changed. You seem to be arguing with a straw man version of what I'm trying to say which is fine this is a forum after all.

Design requires making decisions that may seem "retarded" from the outside to achieve specific goals. With your 30 years of experience in (or adjacent to!) the industry I'm sure you can come up with plenty of examples of this as it's certainly nothing new.

Back to the actual point here instead of arguing about a random YouTube video. A 4 hour boat ride seems pretty stupid and it's not something I would do personally. I can imagine situations it could create in the game thought that could be desirable though. Loot at the other side of that trip is highly desirable and being among the first to take that trip and capitalize creates a memorable and fun experience for those involved. The rest of us will either wait to buy ports, or buy the cool gear from people that can/will do it. The fact that it becomes trivial later once solved does not negate it's value.

Can you create this example dynamic in another, better, way? Sure maybe, but then again maybe this is the best way to do it and they're willing to be called retarded by some FoH posters to create it because they think it's cool. Not everything has to be designed for maximizing profitability or accessibility. It may well be the case that this part of the game, well it's just not for you (or me), bro

Search

Monsters and Memories (Project_N) - Old School Indie MMO

Sylas

Burns

Avatar of War Slayer

Quaid

Trump's Staff

Daidraco

Avatar of War Slayer

Kithani

Blackwing Lair Raider

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole

Flobee

Vyemm Raider

Quaid

Trump's Staff

Sylas

Flobee

Vyemm Raider

Sylas

Flobee

Vyemm Raider