WTF? Everquest... 3?

Pharone · Aug 9, 2019

Elidroth said:
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.

Minus the interdependence, you pretty much just described FFXIV when it comes to the classes and how they play.

If I was making the next iteration of EverQuest, I would...

Take the design of FFXIV
Add in grind dungoens
1. Mobs respawn
2. Chance to spawn rare mobs
3. Rare mobs drop uber loot
4. Dungeon is instanced for your group only
  1. unless your group chooses (upon instance creation) to make it a public instance
  2. Public instance will allow up to 2 other groups to attach to your instance
5. These dungeons do not replace the Main Story Quest (MSQ) dungeon runs. They are just an alternative for leveling up and getting gear
Change the design from Asian theme to being EverQuest themed

Conefed · Aug 9, 2019

Pharone said:
Minus the interdependence, you pretty much just described FFXIV when it comes to the classes and how they play.

If I was making the next iteration of EverQuest, I would...

Take the design of FFXIV

Add in grind dungoens

Mobs respawn

Chance to spawn rare mobs

Rare mobs drop uber loot

Dungeon is instanced for your group only

unless your group chooses (upon instance creation) to make it a public instance

Public instance will allow up to 2 other groups to attach to your instance

These dungeons do not replace the Main Story Quest (MSQ) dungeon runs. They are just an alternative for leveling up and getting gear

Change the design from Asian theme to being EverQuest themed

What if only the camps were instanced? There was something special to meeting others in dungeons and seeing people camp things you didn't even know were campable.

Pharone · Aug 9, 2019

Conefed said:
What if only the camps were instanced? There was something special to meeting others in dungeons and seeing people camp things you didn't even know were campable.

I totally get what you're saying as that was one of the coolest parts of EverQuest back in the day. I just feel that the player should have the choose of whether they want to use a public instance or private instance because sadly these days there is just a metric ton of toxic players out there. Things that were not an issue back in 2000 in EverQuest are a major issue today because, quite frankly, the average player's level of common decency to others online has dropped to levels no one ever expected.

In the old days of EverQuest, we created waiting lists for people to get in to groups in popular camps. Today the norm is for people to run your group out of camps they want by training you or just straight up stealing from your camp. Bot armies literally pick in to your zone, sit on the camp until the named spawns, kill it in less time than you can say "what the fuck just happened", and pick to another instance. And, lets not forget the ever popular tactic of charm gating the named mobs away from your camp to kill it.

I mean seriously. EverQuest of today is so toxic that the national center for disease control should be called in to clean it up. It's ridiculous.

In fact, I'll go one step further. There should be a third option for the group to choose when entering a dungeon...

Dungeon Options:

Private respawning dungeon
Public respawning dungeon
Public respawning dungeon with people on your ban list not allowed to enter

That would take care of the toxicity right there. You encounter mouth breathing scum that like to ruin the game for everyone around them. Put them on your ban list, and you never see them in any dungeon you go in to with option #3. And, make it account based rather than character based. Let the community police who they want to play with, and you will cut down on the toxicity by a lot when the assholes realize their world is shrinking by an ton every day.

Conefed · Aug 9, 2019

Pharone said:
I totally get what you're saying as that was one of the coolest parts of EverQuest back in the day. I just feel that the player should have the choose of whether they want to use a public instance or private instance because sadly these days there is just a metric ton of toxic players out there. Things that were not an issue back in 2000 in EverQuest are a major issue today because, quite frankly, the average player's level of common decency to others online has dropped to levels no one ever expected.

In the old days of EverQuest, we created waiting lists for people to get in to groups in popular camps. Today the norm is for people to run your group out of camps they want by training you or just straight up stealing from your camp. Bot armies literally pick in to your zone, sit on the camp until the named spawns, kill it in less time than you can say "what the fuck just happened", and pick to another instance. And, lets not forget the ever popular tactic of charm gating the named mobs away from your camp to kill it.

I mean seriously. EverQuest of today is so toxic that the national center for disease control should be called in to clean it up. It's ridiculous.

In fact, I'll go one step further. There should be a third option for the group to choose when entering a dungeon...

Dungeon Options:

Private respawning dungeon

Public respawning dungeon

Public respawning dungeon with people on your ban list not allowed to enter

That would take care of the toxicity right there. You encounter mouth breathing scum that like to ruin the game for everyone around them. Put them on your ban list, and you never see them in any dungeon you go in to with option #3. And, make it account based rather than character based. Let the community police who they want to play with, and you will cut down on the toxicity by a lot when the assholes realize their world is shrinking by an ton every day.

I completely forgot about the current state of things.

Only way a list would work now is if it was an actual coded game mechanic.

Ravishing · Aug 9, 2019

I love these theorycraft topics. My idea for EQ3, in order of importance:

1.) Social
EQ was successful due to the social aspects. Everything about EQ was social. Groups, Guilds, Camps, Servers, Dungeons, Trading, etc etc etc. Even "solo" players partook socially because it was unavoidable. Instances, Auction Houses, among other things reduce social engagement. I'm not advocating to remove these things, but find ways to mitigate there impact on social engagement.

2.) Bite-sized progression
Today's gaming culture needs bite-sized progression. You can't spend 6 hours to gain a single level and expect player retention. This will be a huge challenge.

3.) Teamwork
Grouping & Raiding are obvious but needs to be more. Teamwork is part of social engagement, and solo players should have an avenue to work as a team with people too. Content for Alliances, Factions, Coalitions, etc. Doing content "for the greater good". Something a solo player could login and feel they helped obtain something bigger. Everyone wants to feel recognized & also like they contributed to big events.

4.) Camps + Non-Instanced gameplay.
For the players that just want to sit, chill and grind. A huge part of EQ was chillin with friends in a room in a dungeon, surrounded by 50+ other randos. I miss that. Instanced Dungeon crawling is shit gameplay. Instancing should be used to protect the servers, not to generate single player or small-group gameplay in an MMO. Find out a max players and only instance when that threshold is reached. Considering we have 100player BR games, I'd like to see 200 players (or more) zones in the next MMO before an instance is even considered.

Lambourne · Aug 9, 2019

I think a mixture of open world dungeons suitable for camping and instanced, ldon-type dungeons suits most needs. Camps can work great but if it takes you 30 minutes to fight down to the camp and can't get a replacement down there, it's basically pointless to even start if you only have an hour or so to play. You'd only piss off the other players.

An ldon-type dungeon where you know it's only going to take 45 minutes or so is easier to commit to. If it's private it can also be scaled to the player's level, a big advantage where you get a lot of bang for your developer buck, and the players don't suffer as much from overcrowding (which is what started the whole business with waiting lists, too many players for too little content). I think ldon was a good addition to EQ at the time, it could have been implemented better with more variety in zone design but as a concept I think it was promising. WoW went overboard with it, putting all the loot in them and making it pointless to do anything else.

Ravishing · Aug 9, 2019

Lambourne said:
I think a mixture of open world dungeons suitable for camping and instanced, ldon-type dungeons suits most needs. Camps can work great but if it takes you 30 minutes to fight down to the camp and can't get a replacement down there, it's basically pointless to even start if you only have an hour or so to play. You'd only piss off the other players.

An ldon-type dungeon where you know it's only going to take 45 minutes or so is easier to commit to. If it's private it can also be scaled to the player's level, a big advantage where you get a lot of bang for your developer buck, and the players don't suffer as much from overcrowding (which is what started the whole business with waiting lists, too many players for too little content). I think ldon was a good addition to EQ at the time, it could have been implemented better with more variety in zone design but as a concept I think it was promising. WoW went overboard with it, putting all the loot in them and making it pointless to do anything else.

Problem with LDON type content is once you start, its a slippery slope that never ends. Why bother with the contested dungeons if you can play in a private instance? If you only have 45mins or less, dont join a group, if you're losing a party member, do what everyone in EQ1 did for the first 5 or so years and find a replacement, then re-clear to your camp or use abilities to get you or the replacement there, or maybe the player is skilled enough to get there on his own. There was once a time where Invisibility worked, or you tagged behind another group to get to a group deeper down, etc. It made the game more fun & socially engaging.

There were also camps closer to zone-ins for the lower time commitment players.
Dungeons use to be dynamic, fun, and social. You couldn't just ignore the random players around you. It kept things fresh even though technically you were just trying to sit in 1 spot for hours on end.

Lambourne · Aug 9, 2019

It needs a careful balancing yes, they should be supplemental or parallel to OW dungeons and not (like WoW) the only option. OW dungeons are more social but that's by no means to be guaranteed to be a positive experience, as modern EQ shows. The instant gratification generation showing up will pull that level of social involvement down even more, good luck explaining to them that these particular frogs are yours by some unspoken agreement and they have to wait their turn on the list.

If you have both types, each with its own style of reward and pace, you maximize available playspace and reduce the negative aspects of a social game. If you have all sorts of dungeons (instanced run, easy OW and deep crawl OW dungeon) you also give life and variation to the world (which WoW sorely lacked, it turned increasingly game-ey where it didn't feel like an MMO world anymore but more like a personalized theme park ride)

Quineloe · Aug 9, 2019

Lambourne said:
Not really an issue if it works, and writing everything from scratch has its own pitfalls too. Having the thing not break in subscription-killing ways on your launch day is invaluable, there's been enough spectacular failures in MMO history. Especially in these days of twitch and twitter, if your first couple of hours are bad you are probably throwing away tens of thousands of potential customers.

Do you not remember how much stuff in EQ did *not* work?

Ravishing · Aug 9, 2019

Lambourne said:
careful balancing

There goes that idea

Lambourne · Aug 9, 2019

Quineloe said:
Do you not remember how much stuff in EQ did *not* work?

I do, but 20 years on, most of it actually works. That was really my point, it's had years of issues and bugs fixed.

I haven't programmed anything since the C64 days but as a business and private user I have noticed this particular cycle of "get program -> has issues -> get completely new program to solve issues -> new program has different issues -> repeat. Seems to be particularly pervasive in software, for some reason it's rare for them to actually fix something and stop messing with it once it works. Games being released as a buggy mess and being patched into something approaching a working version is a decades old trend at this point.

Again, I'm not a programmer and there's probably some reason I don't know about, but as a user you always end up with something that half works and stops being fixed long before it would be considered an acceptable and complete product in any other industry.

Ravishing · Aug 9, 2019

Lambourne said:
I do, but 20 years on, most of it actually works. That was really my point, it's had years of issues and bugs fixed.

I haven't programmed anything since the C64 days but as a business and private user I have noticed this particular cycle of "get program -> has issues -> get completely new program to solve issues -> new program has different issues -> repeat. Seems to be particularly pervasive in software, for some reason it's rare for them to actually fix something and stop messing with it once it works. Games being released as a buggy mess and being patched into something approaching a working version is a decades old trend at this point.

Again, I'm not a programmer and there's probably some reason I don't know about, but as a user you always end up with something that half works and stops being fixed long before it would be considered an acceptable and complete product in any other industry.

What are these gross generalizations.

Software in general is always evolving. Because people that make software are innovative and think they can make things better. If people never strived to do things better then we'd still be using AOL and windows 3.1

Games always evolve because if they didn't eventually players would leave the game. If you want games that never change, buy single player games that never get updated.

Updates are bound to introduce bugs that need to be fixed.

2+2=4

Lambourne · Aug 9, 2019

Ravishing said:
What are these gross generalizations.

Software in general is always evolving. Because people that make software are innovative and think they can make things better. If people never strived to do things better then we'd still be using AOL and windows 3.1

Games always evolve because if they didn't eventually players would leave the game. If you want games that never change, buy single player games that never get updated.

Updates are bound to introduce bugs that need to be fixed.

2+2=4

You're just proving my point, sometimes things that work fine don't need constant "innovation that makes things better". If my car mechanic decides he can make the engine better when the car is two years old but now the air conditioning doesn't work anymore, that's not acceptable but somehow in software it is.

Jorren · Aug 9, 2019

Open dungeons with Public Event type camps could work. Warhammer had a couple of those and they were kinda cool. Enhance that and you could have a winner.

Elidroth · Aug 12, 2019

So yeah.. I completely forgot about the CC roles.. lol. I definitely remember how amazing a well-played Enchanter was in EQ, but at the same time, that can be a trap.. because if you then have dungeons that require a CC player, then if one isn't available at that time, you can't do that content. I think the best solution there is rather than have a specialized CC class (although I'm not against it), giving various classes CC options/abilities might be better. The initial EQ3 ideas I posted above were literally off-the-cuff stuff I'd been mulling over for a while.. Nothing had been full fleshed out or even put down on paper.. FFXIV's job system is cool for sure.. I feel like it does contribute to a little lack of attachment to your class though.. I'm still not sold on it being the best way to handle that..

Instancing vs Open World
Definitely merits to both.. I would prefer key story elements be instanced so you can give players a well crafted experience, but at the same time, I definitely enjoyed the open world stuff in EQ.. A good balance of both is where I'd prefer it to be.. One of the great things about older MMOs is the content wasn't level locked. If you weren't ready for an area, you simply got destroyed by it. I LIKED that feel.. It added to the dangerous nature of exploration.. which to me was fun.

Solo vs Group
Yeah.. I know there has to be solo play options.. What I want to avoid is creating a world where the solo player can really get through damned near everything on their own. You want the good shit? Group up, and go after it. The really good stuff will ABSOLUTELY be locked behind harder content. And I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone should get to see/do everything just because they paid for the game. Sorry, but no. And I think it's 100% fair if you're up front and open about it so players know what they're getting themselves into beforehand.

Oh.. someone mentioned LDON.. Yeah.. no.. Fuck that. LDON was endless grind. There was nothing fun about running the same shit over and over ad nauseum. People did it because it was the path of least resistance, but Jesus that was mind-numbing tedium. I wish I could do away with the 'Quest Here' markers like the ! over NPCs heads and make players actually go out and discover shit.. Unfortunately, thanks to the 100 websites that will pop up before the game even launches, with cookie recipes on how to do every damned thing.. that's kind of pointless. I definitely would want to do some epic level quests though that aren't explicitly called out on the quest hub NPCs for players who care to actually read and investigate stuff.. I think back to the frenzy of exploration/cooperation of the early EQ epics as an example. I'd love to bring that shit back somehow..

Vinjin · Aug 12, 2019

Elidroth said:
So yeah.. I completely forgot about the CC roles.. lol. I definitely remember how amazing a well-played Enchanter was in EQ, but at the same time, that can be a trap.. because if you then have dungeons that require a CC player, then if one isn't available at that time, you can't do that content. I think the best solution there is rather than have a specialized CC class (although I'm not against it), giving various classes CC options/abilities might be better. The initial EQ3 ideas I posted above were literally off-the-cuff stuff I'd been mulling over for a while.. Nothing had been full fleshed out or even put down on paper.. FFXIV's job system is cool for sure.. I feel like it does contribute to a little lack of attachment to your class though.. I'm still not sold on it being the best way to handle that..

Instancing vs Open World
Definitely merits to both.. I would prefer key story elements be instanced so you can give players a well crafted experience, but at the same time, I definitely enjoyed the open world stuff in EQ.. A good balance of both is where I'd prefer it to be.. One of the great things about older MMOs is the content wasn't level locked. If you weren't ready for an area, you simply got destroyed by it. I LIKED that feel.. It added to the dangerous nature of exploration.. which to me was fun.

Solo vs Group
Yeah.. I know there has to be solo play options.. What I want to avoid is creating a world where the solo player can really get through damned near everything on their own. You want the good shit? Group up, and go after it. The really good stuff will ABSOLUTELY be locked behind harder content. And I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone should get to see/do everything just because they paid for the game. Sorry, but no. And I think it's 100% fair if you're up front and open about it so players know what they're getting themselves into beforehand.

Oh.. someone mentioned LDON.. Yeah.. no.. Fuck that. LDON was endless grind. There was nothing fun about running the same shit over and over ad nauseum. People did it because it was the path of least resistance, but Jesus that was mind-numbing tedium. I wish I could do away with the 'Quest Here' markers like the ! over NPCs heads and make players actually go out and discover shit.. Unfortunately, thanks to the 100 websites that will pop up before the game even launches, with cookie recipes on how to do every damned thing.. that's kind of pointless. I definitely would want to do some epic level quests though that aren't explicitly called out on the quest hub NPCs for players who care to actually read and investigate stuff.. I think back to the frenzy of exploration/cooperation of the early EQ epics as an example. I'd love to bring that shit back somehow..

Approved! Now we just need to find you some funding.

Ukerric · Aug 13, 2019

Elidroth said:
Oh.. someone mentioned LDON.. Yeah.. no.. Fuck that. LDON was endless grind. There was nothing fun about running the same shit over and over ad nauseum.

One word: Currencies. A currency in your game turns the game into a grind. You can get away with some currencies, like... XP... or gold... because those currencies are earned literally everywhere while playing the game the way you want. But if you have only specific locations for a currency, then it becomes a grind.

The LDON problem was compounded by the enforced transient nature of its dungeons. You had to do a dungeon, then leave, reshuffle it, then come back. And again. And again. And your objective for that dungeon was getting the currency, and that's it.

iannis · Aug 13, 2019

Quineloe said:
Do you not remember how much stuff in EQ did *not* work?

A majority of it. Which was fine at the time really.

The online community has changed so much that player enforcement of server culture isn't possible anymore. It never really was possible. I remember my guild would boil down to the core every time we want to war with an upstart guild. And it would puff back up when our core grinder ed their core off the server.

It actually was not fun even when you won.

pharmakos · Aug 13, 2019

Elidroth said:
that can be a trap.. because if you then have dungeons that require a CC player, then if one isn't available at that time, you can't do that content.

same can be said of tank and healer, no?

Conefed · Aug 13, 2019

I'd like to see near endless advancement and upgrades, skill ups, etc., but at the same time not require them by having the gameplay so solid that it's fun at every level and thus no real need to grind. Sometimes grinding can be cathartic, but it also doesn't have to be arbitrarily there.

WTF? Everquest... 3?

Trakanon Raider

Blackwing Lair Raider

Trakanon Raider

Blackwing Lair Raider

Uninspiring Title

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Uninspiring Title

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Uninspiring Title

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Uninspiring Title

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Maximum Derek

Trakanon Raider

Lord Nagafen Raider

Bearded Ape

Musty Nester

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

Blackwing Lair Raider