"The Vison (tm)" prolly never actually existed on paper, as a written policy... prolly.
It is my belief that it was a business model or plan for the direction of the evolution of EQ.
This would have been a Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, Bill Trost as led by John Smedley "Vision". This policy would be (IMO) a design where each encounter required a group to defeat and each player class required the support of some other player class to advance through these "group" encounters. Each class would be unbalanced to require a group to level. Each encounter would require said group to defeat. Each encounter would require multiple steps or keys to progress through. Thus the evolution of the "Time sink" and the phrase "Welcome to our World" was coined.
I can find you many points around the web of items, points, issues and mods that break The Vision (tm), but I can't find anything that actually says "This IS The Vision (tm)".
My best guess/opinion
---------------------------------------- My dog barks some. Mentally you picture my dog, but I have not told you the type of dog which I have. Perhaps you even picture Toto, from "The Wizard of Oz." But I warn you, my dog is always with me.
My understanding of "The Vision" (with the capital letters and all) is that it was sort of the guiding principles of how the game was designed and how it played in when Brad was guiding development, hence the crying in some sectors of the fan community over the loss of The Vision... and wild, drunken parties over it in others.
I think Odenathus pretty much covered what the Vision was all about. It involved corpse runs, death penalties, and a lot of interdependence forced grouping. It had a pretty brutal newbie experience, as well. Sort of, "Here, kid. Here's a sword and a shirt. Good luck!" Your tutorial involved finding another player who knew a little more than you did. Basically, it was either what made EQ great, or it is what made it suck... depending entirely on how you felt about it. On one hand, every level you got felt like a triumph. On the other hand, you worked for it, which is hardly what most people play games for.
I used to miss the old game, but then I came to my senses. The newbie experience may have been dumbed down a bit, but it is also a lot more gentle on real newbies, and a lot faster and less annoying to get through if you're on your 15th character. Corpse runs are possible but not necessary with the ability to summon to guild lobby, where you can often get a res, which nullifies the death penalty. (Or, if you've been around for a little bit, there's your once a week "Get Out Of Death Free" card, Expedient Recovery.) AFAIK, it still isn't very solo-friendly for some classes, but, hey, you could always be a necro or a mage. *smirk*
... This is where I draw the line: __________________.
IMO the Vision was the reason why certain aspects of EQ1 were not initially changed despite popular distaste for them. The meaning of the term "Vision" has gained so many negative connotations over the years that I don't think anyone takes it seriously anymore.
But back in the day, the Vision made sense -- to some. Manual soulbinding, for example - required you to interact with other players in order to set your respawn point (unless you were a class that could use this spell). This system gave casters a role that wasn't directly related to just combat.
People who disliked this arrangement argued (quite loudly) that such a thing wasn't fun (how could waiting for a bind be fun?). Well you can imagine how difficult it could be to succinctly describe all the reasons for the 'unfun' parts of the game, and so Brad or his staff, or maybe even the players coined the term 'The Vision'.
When the 'un-fun' manual soulbinding was taken out, some enterprising casters lost a source of income, while others lost an opportunity to be nice (by giving binds for free), and casters lost a non-combat role. Some lamented the loss of the 'Vision', others rejoiced in an 'unfun' part of the game being taken out.
People get all the meanings mixed up. Archaic and hard-to-understand game systems are not good, at all - unless they serve a wider purpose, such as player interaction and community building.
Every game has a "Vision". Why can't you autopilot directly to a starbase in EVE? Hell, why doesn't autopilot warp you to 0km within stargates? Why does World of Warcraft have armor damage? Why does Vanguard have harsh death penalties?
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Cleric was the most needed but on the downside it was worthless in combat and about as boring as it gets. Every group needed one, it was impossible to solo as a cleric thus the population was kept low and the demand high.
Next came Enchanters, certainly more fun that clerics but it also had its downside and raids only needed 1-2 enchs unlike clerics that filled 4x the raids spots of enchs.
Basicly every class was balanced demand vs solo ability.
Something like a mage could solo xp and farm like machines but wernt needed in groups and barely for raids.
Well, having met the "Vision" head on, it needs corrective glasses. The game has great immersion, yet looses it quickly when you hit areas with 10-20 people and feel like your in Plane of Knowledge during a GM Event. It also tends to loose vision when things like the fellowship system (grouping beyond the 5 level span) is not put into a game quickly putting a rift between friends almost forcing you to create alternate characters to be able to play with different groups of friends.
Then their is the "no-zoning" or "chunking system that often winds up with a player being disconnected from a group, ported across a zone (were talking a trek equal to that of the trek from Everfrost to South Karana), or the ever favorite drop from the sky. Pets get lost, illusions and speed buffs tend to drop, mounts dismount, all part of the "seamless world".
It's honestly a shame because much of the feel of the golden days of EQ is there, however the game mechanics quickly remind you that it's not by loosing your complete UI when crashing to desktop in the middle of a journey or fight or dieing several times on a long journey due to chunking errors.
Death, like in the golden days of EQ is "meaningful" however it's also frustrating when those deaths are caused by performance issues and glitches and not by massive trains and screw ups.
What WAS the "Vision" they were meant to have over Everquest?
Having experienced the vision in action in EQ1 (early EQ1) and having parcipated through much of Vanguard beta through to launch, I would say the vision had to do with the following:
1) Death penalty -- making death "sting" makes the game exciting. The dungeons are scarier, the players are more careful, etc...
2) Dangerous world -- tougher encounters require more than one person to defeat, so grouping is required much of the time. Grouping creates socializing and makes gameplay more memorable.
3) Mysterious world -- you adventure where you dare, not to where some linear line of quests leads you.
From what I could tell, the game became WOW-like and had little of the vision left upon release. Plus, the absence of zones sort of blended the overall geography to the point that anyplace on a continent felt like any other place on that same continent.
They might have done better with a smaller, more distinct game world, less quests, and more danger. That might have returned the vision that was present in old EQ1.
Originally posted by BuzWeaverThe vision died after Velious.
I wish that would have just added tons of group-oriented content in the existing world. Dungeons that were discovered. However, the instances for some reason did not work well in Everquest; I am sure there are many theories as to why.
However, I liked Luclin, and I really love the Beastlord class. Of all my accounts, my Beastlord is the only one that is active.
Originally posted by BuzWeaverThe vision died after Velious.
I wish that would have just added tons of group-oriented content in the existing world. Dungeons that were discovered. However, the instances for some reason did not work well in Everquest; I am sure there are many theories as to why.
However, I liked Luclin, and I really love the Beastlord class. Of all my accounts, my Beastlord is the only one that is active. I enjoyed Luclin as well, however the changes that SOE were implementing was slowly going to change the heart and soul of EQ, as it was in the 'original vision'.
The Old Timers Guild Laid back, not so serious, no drama. All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
Comments
"The Vison (tm)" prolly never actually existed on paper, as a written policy... prolly.
It is my belief that it was a business model or plan for the direction of the evolution of EQ.
This would have been a Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, Bill Trost as led by John Smedley "Vision". This policy would be (IMO) a design where each encounter required a group to defeat and each player class required the support of some other player class to advance through these "group" encounters. Each class would be unbalanced to require a group to level. Each encounter would require said group to defeat. Each encounter would require multiple steps or keys to progress through. Thus the evolution of the "Time sink" and the phrase "Welcome to our World" was coined.
I can find you many points around the web of items, points, issues and mods that break The Vision (tm), but I can't find anything that actually says "This IS The Vision (tm)".
My best guess/opinion
----------------------------------------
My dog barks some. Mentally you picture my dog, but I have not told you the type of dog which I have. Perhaps you even picture Toto, from "The Wizard of Oz." But I warn you, my dog is always with me.
I'd say vision was just the way a developer envisages his game. When Brad left, there was a new 'vision' of the game.
I think Odenathus pretty much covered what the Vision was all about. It involved corpse runs, death penalties, and a lot of interdependence forced grouping. It had a pretty brutal newbie experience, as well. Sort of, "Here, kid. Here's a sword and a shirt. Good luck!" Your tutorial involved finding another player who knew a little more than you did. Basically, it was either what made EQ great, or it is what made it suck... depending entirely on how you felt about it. On one hand, every level you got felt like a triumph. On the other hand, you worked for it, which is hardly what most people play games for.
I used to miss the old game, but then I came to my senses. The newbie experience may have been dumbed down a bit, but it is also a lot more gentle on real newbies, and a lot faster and less annoying to get through if you're on your 15th character. Corpse runs are possible but not necessary with the ability to summon to guild lobby, where you can often get a res, which nullifies the death penalty. (Or, if you've been around for a little bit, there's your once a week "Get Out Of Death Free" card, Expedient Recovery.) AFAIK, it still isn't very solo-friendly for some classes, but, hey, you could always be a necro or a mage. *smirk*
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
But back in the day, the Vision made sense -- to some. Manual soulbinding, for example - required you to interact with other players in order to set your respawn point (unless you were a class that could use this spell). This system gave casters a role that wasn't directly related to just combat.
People who disliked this arrangement argued (quite loudly) that such a thing wasn't fun (how could waiting for a bind be fun?). Well you can imagine how difficult it could be to succinctly describe all the reasons for the 'unfun' parts of the game, and so Brad or his staff, or maybe even the players coined the term 'The Vision'.
When the 'un-fun' manual soulbinding was taken out, some enterprising casters lost a source of income, while others lost an opportunity to be nice (by giving binds for free), and casters lost a non-combat role. Some lamented the loss of the 'Vision', others rejoiced in an 'unfun' part of the game being taken out.
People get all the meanings mixed up. Archaic and hard-to-understand game systems are not good, at all - unless they serve a wider purpose, such as player interaction and community building.
Every game has a "Vision". Why can't you autopilot directly to a starbase in EVE? Hell, why doesn't autopilot warp you to 0km within stargates? Why does World of Warcraft have armor damage? Why does Vanguard have harsh death penalties?
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Cleric was the most needed but on the downside it was worthless in combat and about as boring as it gets. Every group needed one, it was impossible to solo as a cleric thus the population was kept low and the demand high.
Next came Enchanters, certainly more fun that clerics but it also had its downside and raids only needed 1-2 enchs unlike clerics that filled 4x the raids spots of enchs.
Basicly every class was balanced demand vs solo ability.
Something like a mage could solo xp and farm like machines but wernt needed in groups and barely for raids.
Then their is the "no-zoning" or "chunking system that often winds up with a player being disconnected from a group, ported across a zone (were talking a trek equal to that of the trek from Everfrost to South Karana), or the ever favorite drop from the sky. Pets get lost, illusions and speed buffs tend to drop, mounts dismount, all part of the "seamless world".
It's honestly a shame because much of the feel of the golden days of EQ is there, however the game mechanics quickly remind you that it's not by loosing your complete UI when crashing to desktop in the middle of a journey or fight or dieing several times on a long journey due to chunking errors.
Death, like in the golden days of EQ is "meaningful" however it's also frustrating when those deaths are caused by performance issues and glitches and not by massive trains and screw ups.
Having experienced the vision in action in EQ1 (early EQ1) and having parcipated through much of Vanguard beta through to launch, I would say the vision had to do with the following:
1) Death penalty -- making death "sting" makes the game exciting. The dungeons are scarier, the players are more careful, etc...
2) Dangerous world -- tougher encounters require more than one person to defeat, so grouping is required much of the time. Grouping creates socializing and makes gameplay more memorable.
3) Mysterious world -- you adventure where you dare, not to where some linear line of quests leads you.
From what I could tell, the game became WOW-like and had little of the vision left upon release. Plus, the absence of zones sort of blended the overall geography to the point that anyplace on a continent felt like any other place on that same continent.
They might have done better with a smaller, more distinct game world, less quests, and more danger. That might have returned the vision that was present in old EQ1.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
I wish that would have just added tons of group-oriented content in the existing world. Dungeons that were discovered. However, the instances for some reason did not work well in Everquest; I am sure there are many theories as to why.
However, I liked Luclin, and I really love the Beastlord class. Of all my accounts, my Beastlord is the only one that is active.
I wish that would have just added tons of group-oriented content in the existing world. Dungeons that were discovered. However, the instances for some reason did not work well in Everquest; I am sure there are many theories as to why.
However, I liked Luclin, and I really love the Beastlord class. Of all my accounts, my Beastlord is the only one that is active. I enjoyed Luclin as well, however the changes that SOE were implementing was slowly going to change the heart and soul of EQ, as it was in the 'original vision'.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett