WTF? Everquest... 3?

Everyone's an expert on the internet.

I mean EQ is old enough that I imagine a fair amount of the base code is written in assembly. That isn't exactly extensible for modern platforms + finding people that understand it will be challenging. You may be right that something could be done with it, I just doubt that it would be worth the effort vs just using something modern off the shelf and altering it.

Sounds crazy but it is possible. I was writing a ton of assembly back then.

Just don't change the name of Muffins and you should be okay.

Years later i still felt EQ2 was much more challenging in raid than WoW

IT WAS ALL THOSE DAM BUTTONS!

you snark at it but imagine your rotation being 30+ buttons long!

Xexx said:

Years later i still felt EQ2 was much more challenging in raid than WoW

IT WAS ALL THOSE DAM BUTTONS!

you snark at it but imagine your rotation being 30+ buttons long!

Click to expand...

I love lots of abilities... but EQ2 all of them are so "samey" .,.. does XX damage, does XX+YY damage, does XX DOT, does XX+YY dot then make 30 buttons = eq2 almost

Ravishing said:

I could see salvaging a lot of data but not re-using the same DB structure.
Could easily transfer NPCs/Quests/Items/Dialogue lists into a new structure.
Most of this is already cataloged on fansites (Zam), I bet in a more efficient manner even.

Still need to hook everything up to the in-game assets & logic.

Click to expand...

If I was running the development, I would not use the existing servers (and certainly not the existing client). Like you said, there's things to salvage from the existing server, but from the get go, the direction of the project would be to create the server from scratch with current technologies.

The data would certainly be the first thing to export from the current servers. Put that in a modern relational database, so you can work with it, and then later on port it in to what ever data repository you decide to go with for the server. There's tons of data, and I am more than certain there is a lot of crap in there that needs to be cleared out.

The next thing I would do is pull the logic from the server code. This would be more along the lines of defining the logic based on what is in the old code, but not pulling any of the actual code. The likely hood of having anything you can copy/paste with out it sucking ass is very low. You just want to document the fuck out of the business logic, so your server developers can use it as reference for the new server code.

Everything else (security, communication, etc) is scrap level. None of it needs to be ported from the old server/client to the new version. These are the parts that will certainly have been improved upon by a metric ton over the past two decades in the industry. You would want to research current technologies, and use the best possible.

TL;DR .... just pull the data and business logic from the existing server FOR REFERENCE, and recreate everything with new technologies.

Lambourne said:

Still think they should do something with both the IP and the software they have. The EQ1 server backend handles combat, chat, spells, pathing, item database and all that other stuff an MMO needs to function, and it has 20 years of development in it making it far more robust than anything written from scratch would be. The server backend could easily be made to interface with a newer client. Developing a new "EQ3" client with new graphics and zones is still a lot of work, but having the server backend ready to go is a serious asset that they should do something more with.

Click to expand...

Clearly you've never seen behind the curtain. EQ is kept together with bubble gum and duct tape, and the sheer will of Jenn Chan. It and it's architecture should never be used in a game again.. ever.

Flobee said:

I mean EQ is old enough that I imagine a fair amount of the base code is written in assembly. That isn't exactly extensible for modern platforms + finding people that understand it will be challenging. You may be right that something could be done with it, I just doubt that it would be worth the effort vs just using something modern off the shelf and altering it.

Click to expand...

Uh.. EQ is C++

My vision of an EQ3 would be to go back to what made the EQ community what it is.. inter-dependence.. The classes would need to be structured such that players had to work together to get anything done. The solo game would be very limited, and yes, I'm well aware that would make it rather niche in scope.. but if you're going to do EverQuest, then do it, and don't make concessions to the 'please everyone' crowd.

Limit the number of classes. When I see games announced that have 40+ classes, I cringe. It sounds cool, but there's just no way to make 40+ classes feel unique and special. Balancing those classes is also a gigantic nightmare. For my EQ3, there would be probably a small number of classes with a variant spec for each to add flavor to your primary job.

Warrior - tank or dps spec. You either take a beating, or you dish it out, but not both.
Paladin/Shadowknight - You're either a healing focused tank, or a disease/pestilence focused tank. As a hybrid, you are middle of the road at tank & heal/dps. Flexibility is your asset.
Wizard - Pure Arcane or Necromantic. You're the glass cannon (wizard), or you're DOTs and raised undead pets. Either way, you deal damage.
Healer - Cleric or Shaman. Cleric is magical based.. Shaman is natural based. You're really the same job, just with a different way of getting it done.
Physical Damage - Rogue, Ranger, Monk. Rogue relies upon stealth and position. Ranger is ranged damage specialist, up close you'll get smoked. Monk is the close quarters fist fighter.

I'm aware this list is missing some of people's favorite old classes from EQ, but I'm OK with that.. Start small, and add more classes later in the game maybe, but only maybe.

For each class, the number of abilities needs to remain small. Don't give players a gigantic ability bar.. give them abilities that feel powerful, that matter. Why have 40 abilities, when you only need, or really ever use 10.

Yeah, I know nothing ground breaking here as far as archetypes, but in reality there is no need to re-invent the wheel. What IS needed is to make these classes highly specialized to do their role in the game, and avoid creating the class that can do everything without any help.. IMO, making people play together, and building player communities is how you keep people playing the games for decades.

Itemization needs to remain flat as well. Go back to the early days of EQ when magical items were VERY rare. I look at items in modern games, and it hurts my head. If I need a special website or calculator to figure out if something I just found is better for me than what I have now, we've gone down the wrong path. This not only allows people multiple paths to improve their characters, but keeps existing content relevant for much longer as new things are released. Mudflation in MMOs has become the method by which game companies FORCE you to buy their newest content. I think that's the wrong path. Make the content good, make it fun, make it worth playing, and people will buy it.

It'll only be another 20 years or so until Disney owns every media company, just bide your time Mkopec.

Elidroth said:

Limit the number of classes. When I see games announced that have 40+ classes, I cringe. It sounds cool, but there's just no way to make 40+ classes feel unique and special. Balancing those classes is also a gigantic nightmare. For my EQ3, there would be probably a small number of classes with a variant spec for each to add flavor to your primary job.

Warrior - tank or dps spec. You either take a beating, or you dish it out, but not both.
Paladin/Shadowknight - You're either a healing focused tank, or a disease/pestilence focused tank. As a hybrid, you are middle of the road at tank & heal/dps. Flexibility is your asset.
Wizard - Pure Arcane or Necromantic. You're the glass cannon (wizard), or you're DOTs and raised undead pets. Either way, you deal damage.
Healer - Cleric or Shaman. Cleric is magical based.. Shaman is natural based. You're really the same job, just with a different way of getting it done.
Physical Damage - Rogue, Ranger, Monk. Rogue relies upon stealth and position. Ranger is ranged damage specialist, up close you'll get smoked. Monk is the close quarters fist fighter.

I'm aware this list is missing some of people's favorite old classes from EQ, but I'm OK with that.. Start small, and add more classes later in the game maybe, but only maybe.

Click to expand...

I largely agree with your vision with a couple of exceptions. For starters, I struggle to see a game that focuses on forced group interdependence yet does NOT have a crowd control role. CC is such a huge part of why players need to group. If there are no classes that specialize in CC, then I can't help but feel like it's largely a missing mechanic in your game, which is sad.

Also, giving only one class (War) the option to spec tank or DPS seems imbalancing to me. If it were me, I'd consolidate your Warr/Paly/SK classes by dropping the option to spec DPS and allow them to do their primary job (tanking) differently, the same way healers heal and DPS classes damage. Then create a CC role by way of a Bard or Enchanter. Everything else looks tight.

Yes, this class structure looks extremely familiar and I'm ok with that.

In terms of content and zone design, my vision would start with similar concepts to EQ1. Of course they need outdoor zones, cities, etc but places like Mistmoore, Unrest, Lower Guk, Karnors, Sebilis, Velks, are all great zones to pattern design after. I don't mean recreate those zones (although you could). I mean, use the same principles, such as sprawling and/or vertical layouts, dense mob pop, wanderers/roamers, rares/named mixed throughout, etc).

I'd also like to see some newer mechanics as well. Say what you want about it but I'm very intrigued by the disposition system being touted for Pantheon and would love to see something similar here. In short, mobs need better AI and that's a step in the right direction, IMO.

The last thing I'll touch on is with regards to itemization. I agree that today's games are incredibly bloated and that includes EQ Live. Entirely too many items and a ridiculously quick power curve have completely devalued the accomplishment of attaining anything. I still believe you can utilize today's spreadsheets/tools to design loot (in other words, it doesn't need to be hand-crafted) however, make loot fewer and further between instead of dropping like candy everywhere or given out freely as quest rewards. And take your time with the power curve. I'm fine with being in my teens before I get my first piece of magical gear. I just don't want to be lvl 40 and already equipping single pieces with +200 in all stats.

And the raid game should see an increase over group gear but not be so overly large that it creates an entirely different game between players (i.e. content that is challenging to groupers but raiders completely faceroll).

I could go on but that's enough for now.