You are mistaken. Solo play was always intended to be part of EQ2 play as evidenced by the fact it was built into the mechanics before the game even hit beta. There have been some adjustments to how soloable some group content is and the amount of dedicated solo/duo content but that’s it. The fact that solo specific mechanics and mobs have been in the game since day one of beta makes it pretty clear that the option to solo play was always part of the design.
Actually, they added mechanics to identify group encounters, not the other way around. The MMO standard at that time was that all mobs where the same (IE solo content). This was a step to reduce the amount of solo content in favor of adding group content to the normal world (and dungeons). Yes I was a bit dramatic stating they had no plans for solo content, but I wasn't far off the mark. They bet the farm that people would only group like in EQ because you had no other choice in that game. Thus lack of vision.
Then as now outdoor areas are the primary solo zones while dungeons are more group focused. In addition group content is and has always been specifically designed to be soloable once you have a few levels on it.
Completing content because you nearly 'grey it out' it is not solo content. Also recall you don't get loot after a certain level range. I doubt that was their solo content design. I actually recall a change they made to certain named encounters so that people couldn't solo/duo them for treasure even with a good deal of levels above the monster.
There was also plenty of solo content at launch, though there was the problem that it wasn’t easily identifiable before hand so people picking up all the quests would frequently run into roadblocks. However, if you selected a highly soloable class like Paladin, Monk, etc you could solo almost any of the content at launch.
Again, just because some classes solo to effeciently doesn't mean there is solo content. Yes there was a smattering of fedex or kill X quests, but they were in serious shortage of supply. The whole game was a giant funnel to grouping. There was a large outcry from the community for real solo content at the time. I recall those roadblocks in the 'solo content' do 2-3 steps in a quest and then get to an encounter where 5 mobs in a group need to be killed that no solo class could possibly do (thus group) or there would be a heroic mob that needed to be killed to continue to quest. The problem wasn't idnetifying a solo quest, it was that you would at some point need a group to complete it!
You never needed to complete an access quest to get to any major outdoor zone. There were quests that followed the storyline of rediscovering zones like Zek, EL, etc and these did grant you access a few levels early but you were never forced to complete them. For example, the content in Zek and EL start at level 30, you could either wait until you were level 30 and get access automatically or you could complete a quest and get access as soon as level 25.
I stand corrected and you are right about just waiting 5+ level to get auto access to common zones. It sill was a bad design they eventually did away with, but you are right. However, just look at that concept, it weights so far in favor of grouping it seems like an abstract punishment to solo play.
Attuned items were in game from the very beginning. In fact they were part of your Island of Refuge quests on launch day. What you are probably thinking of is the fact that all crafted items were changed to be attunable, which was pretty much a no brainer. Without this item sink the market for new crafted items would quickly have disappeared. This was actually an extension of the tweaking in beta that removed un-repairable item wear, which was the original item sink. I recall mailing many item drops from my toons on the introduction island to several of my other characters on the inrto island (newbie island was awesome I admit, love that zone). There were a vast number of non crafted items that could be traded along with some nodrop items mostly from quest rewards if I recall. Long story short. Items from most mosters (outside the some of raid ones, but even then) were useless to people who killed them because they were to low level to be useful, so people would sell them or just mail them to alts. It was killing the crafters, so they made the change partly for that reason. The other part was because once you finished with an item you could just resell it or send it to an alt. There was no decay in the system, again lack of vision. Honestly in my 50 or whatever levels it was, I never once got an item from a monster drop that I could use, ever! That was so disheartening that most bosses dropped items that were always 5+ levels lower than what would be appropriate for a group killing that mob. Player crafted stuff was always better or the legendary quests items were superior. Dungeons and monsters servered no purpose other than grinding xp or waypoints for quests.
Yes there were attuned items at launch, but there were alot there were very much tradeable.
I’m not going to insert my comments into you post because it gets too hard to read…
They added a tag to make “group” and “solo” encounters easier to spot but the encounters themselves did not change and if you knew what you were doing you didn’t need the tag. From day 1 EQ2 had different base mob strengths ranging from triple down arrows to double up arrows (and later triple up arrows.) anything with two or more up arrows was intended for groups and said so as part of it’s detailed con description. (“XXX growls at you menacingly and is much tougher then it looks. This encounter is suitable for a group of 3-6 players.)
You could also get encounters made up of multiple mobs that were individually weaker. You could either use the detailed con description of the or simply look at how many mobs of what strength were linked to determine if it was a “group” encounter or not.
Group content was and is designed to be soloable by good players when it’s blue/green. At release there was considerable discussion about the fact you could do this and the dev response was that it was working the way it was intended. They went on to say that while they don’t balance this type of soloing nor guarantee that everyone can do it, the ability of more ambitious players to do it was by design.
I already told you there was lots of solo content available on release. The fact that you couldn’t find it doesn’t change this.
Personally I like the idea of quests to take you to each new zone as it gave you a reason to follow the ongoing storyline. It also makes very little sense to be sent to discover someplace that you have been hanging out freely in. Of course, that part of the storyline is over now so it probably makes sense to allow people to ignore the quests.
At release, most of the dropped items that didn’t attune were tiered common. There is still a fair bit of this around but it’s basically vendor trash because better stuff was introduced. The better dropped items almost always required you to attune.
Glad you broke your post out, multi colors get ugly and I regret doing it.
Anyhow, I understand the group/solo mechanic of mobs in the game even when they changed it so there was like 49 possible types of mobs between solo/heroic and all the up-down arrow possibilities (argh). My point was they did not add 'solo' mobs like you claimed, but added group based mobs to their core design on launch. Thus the reasoning for the new system and lends to the fact that is was a heavy group based game on release. Now that you mention it, the whole linking of encounter further points out how unsolo friendly the design was. Can't have anyone seperating a pack of mobs now.
Yes there were some solo quests that worked and plenty of single target mobs to grind xp on. It wasn't that I couldn't find it by a long shot. It just wasn't there in any reliable amount. Most quests, even the seemingly solo ones, ended up midway with some group based mob or mobs. Those few quests that were soloable were easily done in an hour or three, leaving huge empty gaps at every level with not much to do but grind. Am I the only one who remembers the outcry of how boring and unfeasable solo play was? (for the record I prefered group play, but it could be hard to comeby on the test server during that time. Even with myself as a tank and my wife as a healer)
I understand the devs had no problem with people soloing content they had outleveled, but that does not make for "solo content". Any game can be soloed it you overpower the mob by sheer levels. Saying a game has solo content if you a) happen to play the right class b) overshadow your target by several levels and c) should be one of the 'more ambitious' players is just ludicrous.
You say there was lots of solo content on release and I say they changed design course after getting their asses kicked by another game. Recall back if you will.
New treasure is available for solo players and small groups!
Enjoy a new solo instance in the Commonlands: Valley of the Rogue Magi!
Live Update #5 (The Bloodline Chronicles) (March 21, 2005)
Experience a new solo/small group adventure in the Invasion of the Vale!
It really wasn't there to start with and this was a dramatic core game shift for EQ2. This solo stuff didn't exist in 2004 early 2005 and it cost them dearly. Even the first round of solo stuff they added was rushed and very bland as far as gameplay went.
Edit: fixing the last few lines showing up in bold fonts.
Whoever started this thread is a Sony Shill end of story.
You guys want to know facts, let's talk about them.
- EQ1 release was incomplete, and it was buggy as hell.
- EQ1 expansion packs, nearly all of them upon release were incomplete and players paid monthly fees to beta test their bugg softwere.
- SWG: lets see where to start ohh yes, unfinished game that was rushed out; expansions rushed out: Everyone remember "TRIALS OF OBI", that expansion pack was released just before the NGE after Sony got their moeny from the expansion pack they finally were honest and said that they wanted to rush it out before NGE went into effect. Not to mention Sony denied NGE ever existed, people warned them not to release that insane NGE yet they did it and they did it without even testing it.
- EQ2: Sony LIED about missing features for example the Froglok race was never in-game at the release, people looked for the quest that started it never found it, it was months later that Sony added that quest and players were pissed. EQ2 released early, like every single pice of shit they release they release it in order to get money because they know people will be dumb enough to Beta Test their sofwere and pay for it.
I could go on and on and on, but I know I don't need to; anyone who takes the word of Sony rather then the player base is nothing but a shill either that or seriously have no idea what they're talking about.
SONY to us gamers is a MMORPG garbage heap where online games go to die.
You seem to be talking in circles. First you say that EQ2 had all group mobs at release and now you are saying it was all solo mobs?
At release EQ2 had mobs scaled to the difficulty of solo players and which carried a detailed description said explicitly that they could killed solo. I don’t know how any reasonable person could say these were group mobs. At launch EQ2 also had both encounters and single mobs scaled for groups of 3-6 players and again these encounters carried a detailed description telling you they were suitable for groups of 3-6 players.
In other words EQ2 had both group and solo encounters at launch.
Yes, when EQ2 launched there was some difficulty telling which quests were solo and which needed a group. This is completely separate from the question of whether solo quests existed, they did exist and there was plenty of them it was just hard to know which was which.
The identification problem was rectified within a couple months of the game launching. Yes more solo quests were added in the first few months after launch as well, but this doesn’t mean there were none to begin with. In fact adding quests both group and solo has been an ongoing process that has never really stopped so of course solo content has been added.
Whoever started this thread is a Sony Shill end of story.
Most viral marketing consists of negative attacks on the competition
There are plenty of ways to spread positive feelings about your products, but relatively few ways of attacking the competition without suffering a backlash. This type of marketing dates back to the FUD (spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns IBM used against its competition hand has never gone away.
SOE as a corporation spends more money on Forum Shills then probably any other company out there, and the reason they do it is to silence those people who they personally screwed over i.e the customers. Even this website is susceptible to this type of propaganda, but fortunately for us we have houndred of thousands gamers who played their games and they personally know what SOE is capable of.
It's convenient for people to hail EQ2 over WOW, very very conveniant especially when you look at the stae of the 2 games when they were released. EQ2 in no way compared to WOW, not in polish and not in content; SOE charged people for beta and charged more money for minor content that should have been added to the game either before or after release. Blizzard on the other had spent the time adding content for free, and if you add up all the content that Blizzard added for free it will still = more then the content SOE customers paid for.
I never said it was all group mobs, just that is was a heavily group based game that lacked solo content. Sorry if I was misleading in any way. That was not my intentions.
Seriously, I understand the con system in EQ2 and all the various changes it went through from when I played the game. No need to explain it to me again. Just because the game had mobs that could be killed by lone players does not make it solo content. Technically yes it can be considered content, but it is the blandest generic meaningless variety that causes players to look elsewhere.
The quests, again I understood the quest system and the misleading aspects, but they were still few and far between for solo game play. I was test server if you recall. There were plenty of quests yes, but most required a group at some point or another. It wasn't some identification problem in the quest text that needed to be corrected. They simply didn't exist. Its not like some text flags were switched and suddenly people could see all this solo content that was always there. The game was designed around grouping and the designers didn't envision people wanting to play solo in an MMO.
I will concede that there were solo ENCOUNTERS as you put them because there were mobs scaled to challange a lone player. I will also concede that there were lots of these ENCOUNTERS sprinkled randomly around the world. I will even concede that there were a variety of difficulty settings for these solo ENCOUNTER mobs. None of that I dispute.
However when the overwhelming majority of those encounters do not have any quests related to engage them, any storyline reasons to encounter them or any reasoning at all to encounter them save the grinding of some XP when you don't have a group then that does NOT make for content. Grinding some solo xp on mobs can be a healthy addition to gameplay, but should not constitute the pinnacle of your soloable encounters. When the vast majority of the games content, quests, stories, adventuring, become unaccessable at an appropriate level without a group then that is lacking solo content.
Well, I will concede that WoW launched much more polished than EQ2, that was evident at the time. Both games had their problems, as all MMO's opening days do. Both have made significant strides in combatting those problems and both are great games even today. Most of the game stopping problems EQ2 had were client side. Most people don't have the "gamer rigs" that was needed to even run the game at the EQ2 launch, while WoW kept to the low polygon and low processor type programming. Some people don't mind graphics so much if it looks good and plays well, which the "style" of the graphics fit the Warcraft world quite well. I just didn't like them personally and was looking for a more "realistic" approach. Plus, I'm a heavy gamer, and my hardware was perfectly fine with the launch specs of EQ2.
A couple of things, though, just to give a bit more perspective, then I'm done and you guys can have your SoE sucks thread back.
The mini-xpacks for $5 were not mini-dungeons. While EQ2 was also adding content via the same as WoW, with more quests and other dungeons same as WoW, these packs were full fledge mini-expansions with dozens of areas (zones) and an entire line of separate quests (literally hundreds). These are optional, and you don't HAVE to have them to enjoy the rest of the game, which after 3 full size expansions, is still larger than Warcraft. BTW, they're not doing the packs any more, as they are making the expansions larger and adding even more content free through their large updates. This is another change due to player feedback.
Also wanted to mention that the combat update a year into EQ2 was a necessary change to the game. It did meet with a lot a flack, and there was a lot of in-game adjustments that had to be made during the change. While I agree that was a black spot on EQ2's history, that it had to be done at all, it made EQ2 the great game it is today. Content that was supposed to be difficult and requiring many people to beat, the differences between solo, group, and raid content, was too easily vanquished. Single groups were going into raid areas and beating it, bosses and all. Whether it was the fault of the people that made the combat mechanics, or the fault of the labeling of content, I don't know, but it definitely had to be redone. It just wasn't going to work.
My point is that all the changes that were made, even those that were met with criticism, were all steps to making the game much better. I went through all the combat changes, all the content changes, and didn't miss a beat. Others were not so able to adjust, and left. Such is gaming, and if they couldn't handle it, then they had the right to leave.
In my opinion, EQ2 launched slightly worse than WoW, but that is my opinion, because there were HUGE problems with WoW gameplay that I just absolute hate. Some people like certain things that way, and that is their choice. Buying training, looting quest items, the horrible talent tree, tradeskilling, and a myriad of other backwards systems that still exist to this day are examples of certain mechanics that I hate. That's my prerogative. Like I said, I'm really glad now I stuck with EQ2, and I'm grateful that SoE DID listen to their players and made it a much better game.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
SOE as a corporation spends more money on Forum Shills then probably any other company out there, and the reason they do it is to silence those people who they personally screwed over i.e the customers. Even this website is susceptible to this type of propaganda, but fortunately for us we have houndred of thousands gamers who played their games and they personally know what SOE is capable of. It's convenient for people to hail EQ2 over WOW, very very conveniant especially when you look at the stae of the 2 games when they were released. EQ2 in no way compared to WOW, not in polish and not in content; SOE charged people for beta and charged more money for minor content that should have been added to the game either before or after release. Blizzard on the other had spent the time adding content for free, and if you add up all the content that Blizzard added for free it will still = more then the content SOE customers paid for.
Sorry, this is the last one, i swear. This post is a lie. Pure a simple fantasy. You don't have to lie to get your point across, as we were having a very decent and respectable conversation. This is a pure 100% complete lie.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
Between horror stories of SWG, PSP, PS3, Blu-Ray, and my own experience with MxO, I really don't have anything to think over before going SoE bashing. It's quicker than reading pages of debate.
SOE as a corporation spends more money on Forum Shills then probably any other company out there, and the reason they do it is to silence those people who they personally screwed over i.e the customers. Even this website is susceptible to this type of propaganda, but fortunately for us we have houndred of thousands gamers who played their games and they personally know what SOE is capable of. It's convenient for people to hail EQ2 over WOW, very very conveniant especially when you look at the stae of the 2 games when they were released. EQ2 in no way compared to WOW, not in polish and not in content; SOE charged people for beta and charged more money for minor content that should have been added to the game either before or after release. Blizzard on the other had spent the time adding content for free, and if you add up all the content that Blizzard added for free it will still = more then the content SOE customers paid for.
Sorry, this is the last one, i swear. This post is a lie. Pure a simple fantasy. You don't have to lie to get your point across, as we were having a very decent and respectable conversation. This is a pure 100% complete lie. O rly?
Just go Google/Yahoo Sony + lawsuit + false + review or any combinations you deem fit. They do in fact hire people to post false reviews. FYI, Sony films owns Sony Online, so you do the math.
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. has agreed to pay the state $326,000 for using fake reviews attributed to a Connecticut newspaper in promoting its films.
Sony also has agreed to stop fabricating movie reviews, and to stop using ads in which Sony employees pose as moviegoers praising films they have just seen, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday. "These deceptive ads deserve two thumbs down -- and now are getting a third from Sony itself," Blumenthal said.
I never said it was all group mobs, just that is was a heavily group based game that lacked solo content. Sorry if I was misleading in any way. That was not my intentions.
Seriously, I understand the con system in EQ2 and all the various changes it went through from when I played the game. No need to explain it to me again. Just because the game had mobs that could be killed by lone players does not make it solo content. Technically yes it can be considered content, but it is the blandest generic meaningless variety that causes players to look elsewhere.
The quests, again I understood the quest system and the misleading aspects, but they were still few and far between for solo game play. I was test server if you recall. There were plenty of quests yes, but most required a group at some point or another. It wasn't some identification problem in the quest text that needed to be corrected. They simply didn't exist. Its not like some text flags were switched and suddenly people could see all this solo content that was always there. The game was designed around grouping and the designers didn't envision people wanting to play solo in an MMO.
I will concede that there were solo ENCOUNTERS as you put them because there were mobs scaled to challange a lone player. I will also concede that there were lots of these ENCOUNTERS sprinkled randomly around the world. I will even concede that there were a variety of difficulty settings for these solo ENCOUNTER mobs. None of that I dispute.
However when the overwhelming majority of those encounters do not have any quests related to engage them, any storyline reasons to encounter them or any reasoning at all to encounter them save the grinding of some XP when you don't have a group then that does NOT make for content. Grinding some solo xp on mobs can be a healthy addition to gameplay, but should not constitute the pinnacle of your soloable encounters. When the vast majority of the games content, quests, stories, adventuring, become unaccessable at an appropriate level without a group then that is lacking solo content.
I don’t know why you couldn’t find solo content at release because I found plenty of it. It was frustrating to find out the quest you were working on required a group, but I found plenty that did not.
Debates about how much solo content there was aside I also want to remind you that your original claim was that when it was released EQ2 didn’tplan to provide any solo content, and that they “copied” WoW by making more solo quests available.
“They are mimicking (better?) World of warcraft. More "solo" content, quest icon/loot rewards listed, soul bound items, etc.”
“I never said blizzard invented solo play, but Sony sure had no intentions of it being any part of EQ2 at launch. If by solo content in EQ2 you mean finding a few mobs in outdoor areas to grind xp on then yes I guess it had solo content at launch. There sure was not solo oriented quests or adventuring areas.”
In addition to the solo content that existed at launch, you yourself posted that lots of new solo quests were added in the first 3 live updates. (EQ2 is up to live update #34 today, so these are very early changes that had to have been in the works long before any impact from WoW would have been felt…) despite knowing about these very early additions to the amount of solo content available you made claims such as
“Actually, they added mechanics to identify group encounters, not the other way around. The MMO standard at that time was that all mobs where the same (IE solo content). This was a step to reduce the amount of solo content in favor of adding group content to the normal world (and dungeons). “
As I said, all that got changed was the addition of the “heroic” flag to encounters designed to challenge a group of players. In no way does this imply the mob was changed from a solo encounter (which you said were few and far between) to a group encounter.
Also wanted to mention that the combat update a year into EQ2 was a necessary change to the game. It did meet with a lot a flack, and there was a lot of in-game adjustments that had to be made during the change. While I agree that was a black spot on EQ2's history, that it had to be done at all, it made EQ2 the great game it is today. Content that was supposed to be difficult and requiring many people to beat, the differences between solo, group, and raid content, was too easily vanquished. Single groups were going into raid areas and beating it, bosses and all. Whether it was the fault of the people that made the combat mechanics, or the fault of the labeling of content, I don't know, but it definitely had to be redone. It just wasn't going to work.
I completely agree. While many people had issues with system requirements the real problem with EQ2 in its first year was that balance, both class v class and player vs environment was completely messed up.
Classes that were designed as DPS would come in last in DPS parses, classes designed as tanks would come in on top, only 1 of the 6 healer classes was actually viable in a healer role, only 1 or maybe 2 of the 6 tank classes were actually viable as tanks while the others were dominating solo play and DPS parses. Meanwhile the 1 healer class that worked were so good they trivialized most of the content, as was the one tank class that worked. Unless you played specific classes you were bound to be unhappy, and if you did play those classes you were unhappy when your ubarness was taken away.
EQ2 population peaked a few months after release and didnt start to climb again until just after the combat update and the main reason was that instead of 3-4 of the 24 classes being productive and fun to play they could all contribute and have fun. It was also the point at which the dev team stopped having to put out fires and could get down to the business of getting fun new content into the game.
The solo content was nearly non existant! For petes sake it was a barren wasteland if you were only interested in soloing. Go read the early forums, there were near riots about how much the solo game didn't exist and everything was forced grouping. Kudos to you if you managed to get through the early period of the game. I speculate that you did more grouping than you care to remember or perhaps you played a strong solo class that could tackle heroic mobs or outleveled the content so it was soloable? maybe you soloed everything because group debt was ruining the grouping experience (another great concept.... not). Whatever the reasons, people were leaving in good enough amounts enough so that SoE reacted by implementing solo content and thus the patches I listed.
Also, I stand by my original claim that this game did not intend to be solo friendly and was primarily directed at group play. All this wonderful solo content that I linked was patched months AFTER release in direct response to getting hammered by WoW. It wasn't additional content, it was the beginning of making changes so the game had a solo aspect. From the start of EQ2: Outdoor named mobs, heroic. Dungeon trash, heroic. Quest lines, heroic. Raids, group x 2/3/4 heroic. Even the communal zones had a sizable portion of heroics or swarms of linked mobs. Even the devs talked about how wonderful the game would be with managable sized guilds and groups compared to EQ. Nearly every design revolved around grouping. I vividly remember posting about not caring for people who want to solo in an MMO. Seems I missed the concept there back in the day
As for heroic mobs, yeah yeah the tag changed to make it identifiable. My comments about changing heroic to solo was in reference to the months and months of them changing gears and switching them around in the word MONTHS after release. The concept of making GROUP specific mobs was in their design since long before alpha (with the old arrow system). My point is this game was designed for group play from the ground up. Solo play was only considered as important after wow pretty much changed the landscape.
Much like an old fashion dumb mob i am amazed how in last 2 years we started to get people here who lack the simple ability to reason thru things. One of this is the SoE bashing. Firstly,we had the SWG changes which is a joint venture of LA/SoE yet 99% of the post are directed against SoE .Where is LA in all this?I even seen some of this bashers kissing LA butt simply because they own star wars licence and the star wars geeks know that they are only source of a new SW mmorpg for them. Then you have the vanguard issue.So many saying oh SoE ruined vanguard.Hello,SoE runs the CSR,billing,servers and publish it.The development of this game is purely sigil work.What do you want SoE to do?Print more nice looking boxes?Will that make the game better? Give them more time?Have they not done it already after M$ wanted a summer 2006 release?Vanguard had ample development time.SoE bought them some more months but i am sure like any company they don't plan to give a blank cheque to any game . Servers?What do you want them to do?The game engine is nowhere optimized .Not much you can do with servers when this happens.
have you run vanguard lately? notice the SOE LAUNCHER? you forgot that they also run the forums. so um, basically, vanguard has a bunch of old EQ devs (eq is soe, right?) who pretty much do what the people with the money (soe) tell them; but somehow soe is at no way in fault of vanguard being released too early or being craptastic?
talk about someone being a lemming...
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I never used to have a problem with SOE (EQ1 Days that is) but over the years they have made so many stupid choices screwed up a few games. There quick to make drastic changes in games and kill the game but whats really put me off SOE is there CSR's never have I met so many aragent, rude, and just plane nasty people who are supposed to be there to help you.
For me I prefer not to play games that are run by SOE anymore this is just down to bad experiance with CSR's I have seen time and time again people banned for asking a CSR questions about the game or an even. They call it harassment basicly they have loads of rules to protect the CSR's so they can basicly do what the hell they like. Just because a CSR is having a bad day they should not take it out on the players.
If I ever do play a SOE title again in the future I will be sure never to use there support or GM services just in case I get one thats having a bad day and feels the need to take it out on an innocent bystander in there game world.
For me personally SOE needs to stop making such drastic changes to games, have CSR's that dont login when having a bad day or just show a little professionalism then maybe I would trust one of there titles again.
[quote]Sorry, this is the last one, i swear. This post is a lie. Pure a simple fantasy. You don't have to lie to get your point across, as we were having a very decent and respectable conversation. This is a pure 100% complete lie.[/quote]
Why don't you learn logic before you try to use it.
Fact #1 = Blizzard released a polished game, they continually added content that we as gamers did not have to pay for, this is a fact get it. COmpare that to EQ2 which was released unfinished and buggy as hell, SOE spet the money they got from the customers and put them back into expansions and content that customers had to pay for. I love it how fanboys try to put a positive spin on SOE blunders.
Fact#2 = instead of finishing and polishing games and making them playable SOE loves to roll out their propaganda on countless websites that are affiliated with SOE; they do this every single time to hype up their games this is not a joke. So gamers should be carefull when beta testers say the "Game is not ready" and SOE says "Game is perfect", this is nothing but propaganda.
Granted there was a time that SOE didint have to give a shit and the reason they could do what they continually done is because they coarnered the market and they knew they had a product and no one could compete; that time is passed.
Granted WOW had it's problems but that game did several things i am thankfull for, they released a polished game and they added content for free for nearly 2 years; they didint roll out 6 unfinished and buggy expansions just to nicle and dime their customers. They moved up the bar in terms of customer expectations and what customers should expect from MMORPG's, this is a great thing.
I love when people tell me that SOE fixed EQ2, yeah ok it took them 2 years after release to complete a beta...... let's not get too crazy about it.
Comments
Anyhow, I understand the group/solo mechanic of mobs in the game even when they changed it so there was like 49 possible types of mobs between solo/heroic and all the up-down arrow possibilities (argh). My point was they did not add 'solo' mobs like you claimed, but added group based mobs to their core design on launch. Thus the reasoning for the new system and lends to the fact that is was a heavy group based game on release. Now that you mention it, the whole linking of encounter further points out how unsolo friendly the design was. Can't have anyone seperating a pack of mobs now.
Yes there were some solo quests that worked and plenty of single target mobs to grind xp on. It wasn't that I couldn't find it by a long shot. It just wasn't there in any reliable amount. Most quests, even the seemingly solo ones, ended up midway with some group based mob or mobs. Those few quests that were soloable were easily done in an hour or three, leaving huge empty gaps at every level with not much to do but grind. Am I the only one who remembers the outcry of how boring and unfeasable solo play was? (for the record I prefered group play, but it could be hard to comeby on the test server during that time. Even with myself as a tank and my wife as a healer)
I understand the devs had no problem with people soloing content they had outleveled, but that does not make for "solo content". Any game can be soloed it you overpower the mob by sheer levels. Saying a game has solo content if you a) happen to play the right class b) overshadow your target by several levels and c) should be one of the 'more ambitious' players is just ludicrous.
You say there was lots of solo content on release and I say they changed design course after getting their asses kicked by another game. Recall back if you will.
Live Update #1
- Tons of new quests, mostly for solo players
Live Update #2 (February 1, 2005)- First round of advanced solo encounters added for soloers and small groups!
Live Update #3 (February 17, 2005)- More encounters added for soloers and small groups, including solo instanced dungeons!
Live Update #4 (March 8, 2005)- New treasure is available for solo players and small groups!
- Enjoy a new solo instance in the Commonlands: Valley of the Rogue Magi!
Live Update #5 (The Bloodline Chronicles) (March 21, 2005)It really wasn't there to start with and this was a dramatic core game shift for EQ2. This solo stuff didn't exist in 2004 early 2005 and it cost them dearly. Even the first round of solo stuff they added was rushed and very bland as far as gameplay went.
Edit: fixing the last few lines showing up in bold fonts.
Whoever started this thread is a Sony Shill end of story.
You guys want to know facts, let's talk about them.
- EQ1 release was incomplete, and it was buggy as hell.
- EQ1 expansion packs, nearly all of them upon release were incomplete and players paid monthly fees to beta test their bugg softwere.
- SWG: lets see where to start ohh yes, unfinished game that was rushed out; expansions rushed out: Everyone remember "TRIALS OF OBI", that expansion pack was released just before the NGE after Sony got their moeny from the expansion pack they finally were honest and said that they wanted to rush it out before NGE went into effect. Not to mention Sony denied NGE ever existed, people warned them not to release that insane NGE yet they did it and they did it without even testing it.
- EQ2: Sony LIED about missing features for example the Froglok race was never in-game at the release, people looked for the quest that started it never found it, it was months later that Sony added that quest and players were pissed. EQ2 released early, like every single pice of shit they release they release it in order to get money because they know people will be dumb enough to Beta Test their sofwere and pay for it.
I could go on and on and on, but I know I don't need to; anyone who takes the word of Sony rather then the player base is nothing but a shill either that or seriously have no idea what they're talking about.
SONY to us gamers is a MMORPG garbage heap where online games go to die.
Most viral marketing consists of negative attacks on the competition
There are plenty of ways to spread positive feelings about your products, but relatively few ways of attacking the competition without suffering a backlash. This type of marketing dates back to the FUD (spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns IBM used against its competition hand has never gone away.
SOE as a corporation spends more money on Forum Shills then probably any other company out there, and the reason they do it is to silence those people who they personally screwed over i.e the customers. Even this website is susceptible to this type of propaganda, but fortunately for us we have houndred of thousands gamers who played their games and they personally know what SOE is capable of.
It's convenient for people to hail EQ2 over WOW, very very conveniant especially when you look at the stae of the 2 games when they were released. EQ2 in no way compared to WOW, not in polish and not in content; SOE charged people for beta and charged more money for minor content that should have been added to the game either before or after release. Blizzard on the other had spent the time adding content for free, and if you add up all the content that Blizzard added for free it will still = more then the content SOE customers paid for.
Seriously, I understand the con system in EQ2 and all the various changes it went through from when I played the game. No need to explain it to me again. Just because the game had mobs that could be killed by lone players does not make it solo content. Technically yes it can be considered content, but it is the blandest generic meaningless variety that causes players to look elsewhere.
The quests, again I understood the quest system and the misleading aspects, but they were still few and far between for solo game play. I was test server if you recall. There were plenty of quests yes, but most required a group at some point or another. It wasn't some identification problem in the quest text that needed to be corrected. They simply didn't exist. Its not like some text flags were switched and suddenly people could see all this solo content that was always there. The game was designed around grouping and the designers didn't envision people wanting to play solo in an MMO.
I will concede that there were solo ENCOUNTERS as you put them because there were mobs scaled to challange a lone player. I will also concede that there were lots of these ENCOUNTERS sprinkled randomly around the world. I will even concede that there were a variety of difficulty settings for these solo ENCOUNTER mobs. None of that I dispute.
However when the overwhelming majority of those encounters do not have any quests related to engage them, any storyline reasons to encounter them or any reasoning at all to encounter them save the grinding of some XP when you don't have a group then that does NOT make for content. Grinding some solo xp on mobs can be a healthy addition to gameplay, but should not constitute the pinnacle of your soloable encounters. When the vast majority of the games content, quests, stories, adventuring, become unaccessable at an appropriate level without a group then that is lacking solo content.
Well, I will concede that WoW launched much more polished than EQ2, that was evident at the time. Both games had their problems, as all MMO's opening days do. Both have made significant strides in combatting those problems and both are great games even today. Most of the game stopping problems EQ2 had were client side. Most people don't have the "gamer rigs" that was needed to even run the game at the EQ2 launch, while WoW kept to the low polygon and low processor type programming. Some people don't mind graphics so much if it looks good and plays well, which the "style" of the graphics fit the Warcraft world quite well. I just didn't like them personally and was looking for a more "realistic" approach. Plus, I'm a heavy gamer, and my hardware was perfectly fine with the launch specs of EQ2.
A couple of things, though, just to give a bit more perspective, then I'm done and you guys can have your SoE sucks thread back.
The mini-xpacks for $5 were not mini-dungeons. While EQ2 was also adding content via the same as WoW, with more quests and other dungeons same as WoW, these packs were full fledge mini-expansions with dozens of areas (zones) and an entire line of separate quests (literally hundreds). These are optional, and you don't HAVE to have them to enjoy the rest of the game, which after 3 full size expansions, is still larger than Warcraft. BTW, they're not doing the packs any more, as they are making the expansions larger and adding even more content free through their large updates. This is another change due to player feedback.
Also wanted to mention that the combat update a year into EQ2 was a necessary change to the game. It did meet with a lot a flack, and there was a lot of in-game adjustments that had to be made during the change. While I agree that was a black spot on EQ2's history, that it had to be done at all, it made EQ2 the great game it is today. Content that was supposed to be difficult and requiring many people to beat, the differences between solo, group, and raid content, was too easily vanquished. Single groups were going into raid areas and beating it, bosses and all. Whether it was the fault of the people that made the combat mechanics, or the fault of the labeling of content, I don't know, but it definitely had to be redone. It just wasn't going to work.
My point is that all the changes that were made, even those that were met with criticism, were all steps to making the game much better. I went through all the combat changes, all the content changes, and didn't miss a beat. Others were not so able to adjust, and left. Such is gaming, and if they couldn't handle it, then they had the right to leave.
In my opinion, EQ2 launched slightly worse than WoW, but that is my opinion, because there were HUGE problems with WoW gameplay that I just absolute hate. Some people like certain things that way, and that is their choice. Buying training, looting quest items, the horrible talent tree, tradeskilling, and a myriad of other backwards systems that still exist to this day are examples of certain mechanics that I hate. That's my prerogative. Like I said, I'm really glad now I stuck with EQ2, and I'm grateful that SoE DID listen to their players and made it a much better game.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
Guild Wars is still an MMO.
Just go Google/Yahoo Sony + lawsuit + false + review or any combinations you deem fit. They do in fact hire people to post false reviews. FYI, Sony films owns Sony Online, so you do the math.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1399624
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. has agreed to pay the state $326,000 for using fake reviews attributed to a Connecticut newspaper in promoting its films.
Sony also has agreed to stop fabricating movie reviews, and to stop using ads in which Sony employees pose as moviegoers praising films they have just seen, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday. "These deceptive ads deserve two thumbs down -- and now are getting a third from Sony itself," Blumenthal said.
Seriously, go look it up yourself.
I completely agree. While many people had issues with system requirements the real problem with EQ2 in its first year was that balance, both class v class and player vs environment was completely messed up.
Classes that were designed as DPS would come in last in DPS parses, classes designed as tanks would come in on top, only 1 of the 6 healer classes was actually viable in a healer role, only 1 or maybe 2 of the 6 tank classes were actually viable as tanks while the others were dominating solo play and DPS parses. Meanwhile the 1 healer class that worked were so good they trivialized most of the content, as was the one tank class that worked. Unless you played specific classes you were bound to be unhappy, and if you did play those classes you were unhappy when your ubarness was taken away.
EQ2 population peaked a few months after release and didnt start to climb again until just after the combat update and the main reason was that instead of 3-4 of the 24 classes being productive and fun to play they could all contribute and have fun. It was also the point at which the dev team stopped having to put out fires and could get down to the business of getting fun new content into the game.
The solo content was nearly non existant! For petes sake it was a barren wasteland if you were only interested in soloing. Go read the early forums, there were near riots about how much the solo game didn't exist and everything was forced grouping. Kudos to you if you managed to get through the early period of the game. I speculate that you did more grouping than you care to remember or perhaps you played a strong solo class that could tackle heroic mobs or outleveled the content so it was soloable? maybe you soloed everything because group debt was ruining the grouping experience (another great concept.... not). Whatever the reasons, people were leaving in good enough amounts enough so that SoE reacted by implementing solo content and thus the patches I listed.
Also, I stand by my original claim that this game did not intend to be solo friendly and was primarily directed at group play. All this wonderful solo content that I linked was patched months AFTER release in direct response to getting hammered by WoW. It wasn't additional content, it was the beginning of making changes so the game had a solo aspect. From the start of EQ2: Outdoor named mobs, heroic. Dungeon trash, heroic. Quest lines, heroic. Raids, group x 2/3/4 heroic. Even the communal zones had a sizable portion of heroics or swarms of linked mobs. Even the devs talked about how wonderful the game would be with managable sized guilds and groups compared to EQ. Nearly every design revolved around grouping. I vividly remember posting about not caring for people who want to solo in an MMO. Seems I missed the concept there back in the day
As for heroic mobs, yeah yeah the tag changed to make it identifiable. My comments about changing heroic to solo was in reference to the months and months of them changing gears and switching them around in the word MONTHS after release. The concept of making GROUP specific mobs was in their design since long before alpha (with the old arrow system). My point is this game was designed for group play from the ground up. Solo play was only considered as important after wow pretty much changed the landscape.
have you run vanguard lately? notice the SOE LAUNCHER? you forgot that they also run the forums. so um, basically, vanguard has a bunch of old EQ devs (eq is soe, right?) who pretty much do what the people with the money (soe) tell them; but somehow soe is at no way in fault of vanguard being released too early or being craptastic?
talk about someone being a lemming...
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
For me I prefer not to play games that are run by SOE anymore this is just down to bad experiance with CSR's I have seen time and time again people banned for asking a CSR questions about the game or an even. They call it harassment basicly they have loads of rules to protect the CSR's so they can basicly do what the hell they like. Just because a CSR is having a bad day they should not take it out on the players.
If I ever do play a SOE title again in the future I will be sure never to use there support or GM services just in case I get one thats having a bad day and feels the need to take it out on an innocent bystander in there game world.
For me personally SOE needs to stop making such drastic changes to games, have CSR's that dont login when having a bad day or just show a little professionalism then maybe I would trust one of there titles again.
[quote]Sorry, this is the last one, i swear. This post is a lie. Pure a simple fantasy. You don't have to lie to get your point across, as we were having a very decent and respectable conversation. This is a pure 100% complete lie.[/quote]
Why don't you learn logic before you try to use it.
Fact #1 = Blizzard released a polished game, they continually added content that we as gamers did not have to pay for, this is a fact get it. COmpare that to EQ2 which was released unfinished and buggy as hell, SOE spet the money they got from the customers and put them back into expansions and content that customers had to pay for. I love it how fanboys try to put a positive spin on SOE blunders.
Fact#2 = instead of finishing and polishing games and making them playable SOE loves to roll out their propaganda on countless websites that are affiliated with SOE; they do this every single time to hype up their games this is not a joke. So gamers should be carefull when beta testers say the "Game is not ready" and SOE says "Game is perfect", this is nothing but propaganda.
Granted there was a time that SOE didint have to give a shit and the reason they could do what they continually done is because they coarnered the market and they knew they had a product and no one could compete; that time is passed.
Granted WOW had it's problems but that game did several things i am thankfull for, they released a polished game and they added content for free for nearly 2 years; they didint roll out 6 unfinished and buggy expansions just to nicle and dime their customers. They moved up the bar in terms of customer expectations and what customers should expect from MMORPG's, this is a great thing.
I love when people tell me that SOE fixed EQ2, yeah ok it took them 2 years after release to complete a beta...... let's not get too crazy about it.