I do agree with you. Alot of people think this game is too hard. I notice it in my groups, people complaining on alot of quests or basic stuff. What I think is the most funny is when people die and they say "im going to WoW, this shit wont happen there". I am one of the people who switch games alot, its not because its too hard for me, its because I get bored fast. I have always switched classes over and over and never achieved the final level. Highest lvl I have ever gotten is lvl 35 lol. I am forcing myself to lvl my zerker and not quit him, just to see what the game has to offer. Its not that I dont like the game, I actually love it, but I get bored of endless mob killing. Thats why I have exceeded to a higher lvl in MMOFPS's then mmorpgs. My personal solution is playing 2 games at once, and not over playing one. I always would level very fast in most rpgs, then slow down past the 20th level. So in EQ2 I log in and level some, and if I am in a good group I stay, if not I go play counter strike.
EQ2 itself isn't hard on its own. I don't know why people keep saying that.
It's being dependent on the skills and availability of other players that makes the game difficult. This game tests your people skills and coordination skills, not your monster hunting skills.
Have you played EQ2 aeric? Not to insult you, I am just wondering. The game is hard because the ability to get money and armor is very hard. Also as you said its dependent on people, but also your skills. You have to update your skills, like buying adept I on all of your important ones you need in combat. This gets very expensive when you also have to buy armor, weapons, and other things. Also combat is harder then other games, you have to pay attention so much more. Since most mobs group this makes it hard on illusionists and mezzing classes. Overall the game is harder then any other game I have played. Its not so hard you can't accomplish your goals, it just makes them a bit more challenging.
Getting money and armor is very easy... Both of my characters (27 berserker, 22 swashbuckler) have the best stuff they can wear at their level. For the most part, I am hard pressed to ever see anything at any price on the broker that either of them can wear. In fact, on my Swash, the armor from the armor quests were only marginal upgrades compared to the crafted stuff I'd already had equipped!
I quit my Berserker after finishing the AQs and wondering "what next?" I had to do tough access quests now that required groups, and led to areas that were more of the same. I'll never see those areas because there was no hook. Maybe without those access requirements I might have been sucked into paying SOE a few more months...
Getting skill upgrades is tough due to drop rates, but I notice very little difference between the different levels inside a given tier... Getting Adept I is about as far as I need to go at my level to be competent in my role in groups. Those I've upgraded to Adept 3 show some improvement, but rarely worth that upgrade price. Equipment has more of an effect for melee anyway. But in the end, player skill outweighs any character skill upgrades. If someone knows what they are doing, it shows... Whether or not they have all Adept 1s or all Apprentice 1s.
Combat is tough if party members don't listen, are distracted, don't know what they are doing, or run all over the place getting lost or aggroed. Otherwise it's very easy. You get the players that don't actively participate in the group... Why people do this, I have no idea. Why are you playing if you aren't "playing"? Run a DPS monitor in secret sometime and you will see what I mean. Also pay attention to casters--especially ones you've played before and know what role they should be playing.
I was in a group the other day where one of the casters decided to put themselves on auto-follow and simply left their computer. They didn't go linkdead, because it went on like that for 45 minutes, even after we realized what was going on and kicked him from the group! Still on auto-follow, running all over the place with us. I was in another group with one rogue doing 4 DPS in almost every fight, while myself and a monk were doing over 27 DPS very consistently. Even the tank beat him out all the time with his tanking gear. Maybe he just hasn't found the time to upgrade his stuff, but I'd say he wasn't hitting a single button besides auto-attack... maybe even keeping it on auto-attack all the time while keeping the tank targetted (auto-assist) and watching TV instead?
The above statements are not the only problems I have with this game anyway--if that was it, I'd still be with it most likely. The real reason is it's a world without soul or purpose. Compartmentalized, contrived, and controlled. Even a fake world should have some believable reason why it is there and its denizens have some sort of simulated purpose. This world seems like everyone is just propped up on sticks and marionnette strings waving their arms around. I know it is what's REALLY going on, but a good simulated world would make more of an effort to hide it.
Everything is on purpose... Locked encounters, level restrictions, instances, no less than 3 players in a group to go certain places, zone timers, no helping outside your group, mobs that become trivial and suddenly have no loot or reward of any kind. It's almost like they sensationalized everything about a fantasy world and threw it into the game with their production-level mo-cap and smug character models that seem to taunt you and think they are so appealing to you and you will love them... Forcing you to play a certain way that their studies show to be the most addictive way... then SOE thought that would be enough to keep us involved. They forgot to make sure that the addiction didn't come with a mind-numbing monotony. They forgot to go the next step--or just didn't have time to go there... or maybe they truly thought it was enough?
Maybe I'm just burned out, but aren't these games supposed to be long term? It's been 2 months. I played EQ1 for 4 years. No it wasn't virgin love. I played UO before it and never fell in love with that (still played it for longer than EQ2, though). It's because EQ1 was ground-breaking and actually FUN. EQ2 is clearly not fun for me, nor is it ground-breaking. Even the graphic engine is sub-par. You guys give it too much credit.
Anyway, I'll start up my account again if SOE gives me a reason to. So far, I'm not seeing it.
I respect your comments, and I do agree with alot of them. I do think EQ2 is missing its soul, as the review on this site said about EQ2. They are missing the fun that EQI had. But I do not think its all SoEs fault, I think its all mmorpgs now. They are all copies of eachother, so in a way we are playing the same game over and over again, restarting our leveling cycle in a new game that may look different, but in the inside is exactly the same from the last one you played. I do not think you will like WoW any more, I wouldnt be suprised to see you quit WoW in 2 months also. Its really no different then EQ2, its just another waste of 50 bucks. The only game that is really catching my eye is DnL, I have lots of hopes for that game. As for now I will get the all access pass and play Planetside and EQ2, in hopes that it will become much better past lvl 30.
Originally posted by 9216544 I do think EQ2 is missing its soul, as the review on this site said about EQ2. They are missing the fun that EQI had. But I do not think its all SoEs fault, I think its all mmorpgs now. They are all copies of eachother, so in a way we are playing the same game over and over again, restarting our leveling cycle in a new game that may look different, but in the inside is exactly the same from the last one you played.
I think there's a fair amount ot truth to that. Way back when we were all new or fairly new at this and having a great big world to explore with all these things to kill was just flat out exciting all by itself. We approached it with a "let me at it" attitude .. even though it was a LOT more difficult than any game out today. Now we're all experienced and to some extend jaded. Now it's more like "show me". But the reality is that a game can only give you so much. A lot depends on what you bring to it, as well as what other people bring ... you can never over-state the importance of the other people in the game. And that is one reason why the community in the game is a very important factor to me. Lousy community = adios for me.
As far as "purpose", that comes from within. What do YOU want out of the game. It's not that easy a question. What are YOUR goals. Some would just say "fun", but that's really an over-simplification. What constitutes fun, and what constitutes fun that will last.
In my opinion the ONLY thing which can make a game last for you for a long time is people. Every game gets boring without friends. And by the same token friends can elevate a routine gaming experience to a great one. I could not begin to count the number of hours I spend in EQ1 doing the most mind-numbing grinding imaginable, and yet we were having such a great time laughing and joking and just goofing around that nobody even noticed ... and we all couldn't wait to do it again the next night. Raids too ... eventually I got burnt out on raids, but for a long damn time they were just party time.
What we need a game to do is give us a good solid playing field which has enough content to last a long time. Then, it's up to us what we make of it. And you're right aeric, people skills are extremely important ... you don't have them, you fail at most MMORPGs, or at least have very limited success. End of story. But you know, MMORPGs are a fairly good place to learn them.
The problem isn't ONLY with SOE, you are right. It is with all of today's big dev houses who are in it to make a buck. You can tell when a guy who makes something has a passion for it... as opposed to the guy who is mass producing it to fill his coffers. With each title that comes and goes, people are getting more and more wise to this...
Don't succumb to this fatalistic view that you are jaded and nothing can impress you anymore. That will NEVER be the case. Be sure in knowing that whenever you have a tendency to think that about games, it's not you, it's the unimaginative devs or the publishers afraid of a bit of risk that are to blame.
Yes, it's a different world here in the new millenium. It's definitely not the late '90s anymore, where dollars were everywhere and lucrative schemes abounded. The safe way may be the smart way, but they are going to realize soon that this old EQ formula isn't impressing us anymore. You can't profit off these games anymore with a sold box and 2 months of subscription fees. You need to bring people in for the long haul. Any publisher thinking he's going to do that with the EQ formula is going to lose a lot of money.
Or... maybe that is enough. Maybe I am sorely misinformed and all they need is a burst of boxes flying off the shelves and a small core group of followers for the long haul. Perhaps that is better for them? WoW certainly seems successful enough, despite my severe doubts that it will be a long haul game.
Mark my words, there will be the next EQ... But no one will call it the new EQ. That's because it will be nothing like it. The only similarity will be the cash that will reward the corp that takes the risk and succeeds.
Originally posted by aeric67 Don't succumb to this fatalistic view that you are jaded and nothing can impress you anymore. That will NEVER be the case. Be sure in knowing that whenever you have a tendency to think that about games, it's not you, it's the unimaginative devs or the publishers afraid of a bit of risk that are to blame.
I just can't agree with that. You give far too many smart people who are working and trying very hard far too little credit. There just isn't going to be anything revolutionary in these games for a long time ... not until some method of increasing sensory immersion to a significant degree is available. Other than that, I haven't seen an idea in years that even approaches revolutionary ... all these ideas people like to think will be the salvation for the games, like seamless worlds, permadeath, whatever, are all little tweaks which some will like and some not. They don't really change anything. All we are GOING to get for the near future is incremental improvement. So pending being able to plug it into your brain , people are well advised to take a realistic view and make the best they can of it. It's not being fatalistic, it's being realistic. Works fine for me, I am totally enjoying myself ... others just set themselves up for constant disappointment.
Ahhh excellent posts from several players & no rantings (except for one "this other game is better post""). I hope this continues & dear I say spread to the other game forums.
Far be it from me to undervalue the intelligence of the developers. I don't think I said anything of the sort. (EDIT: Now that I read back a bit, I can see where you got this. I didn't say devs in general weren't smart, I just used an unimaginative dev as an example of why you may feel like there's nothing new coming--unimaginative devs exist, but it's usually not the general rule).
Lack of innovation usually isn't the the developers' fault anyway, it's the unwillingness to take risks on the part of the money guys. Just because we aren't taking that next step isn't because someone isn't smart enough to do it--they just don't have the money to do it.
On a side note, why is it that people say the next big step in gaming is going to be Virtual Reality? We've been saying that for years! All the way back before Doom even came out! Yet, in the mean-time, we've had revolutionary steps in gaming occur, all without virtual reality. Sure, if it ever comes--this neural interface whatever--then it could change the way we play games, but until then I think there's plenty of room to grow with the current interfaces.
Okay, it's' a good topic (although somewhat lost in this thread I suppose) so I'll bite:
(1) What would constitute a risk-taking change?
(2) Given the current state of MMORPGs, what would constitute a "revolutionary" advancement now, short of significant advancement into virtual reality?
A risk-taking change right now would be forgetting that EverQuest ever existed, going back to the drawing board, and creating a game that is fun in its own way.
To itemize a few:
(1) Get rid of the damage-absorption/damage-dealing cooperative. Invent new ways for players to work together. (2) Lose the class and level system. A skill system that more subtly describes a character's abilities is, while harder to manage and balance, much more flexible and interesting. It's been done before, but not in a long time and rarely in a believable way. (3) Abandon the group mechanic. Why should I be forced to share my own experiences with five strangers? I am experiencing this for the first time. I am the one who landed that spectacular blow. I am the one who saved the life of the swordsman. (4) The "consider" system needs to go away as an automatic thing. Make it a skill or something that you learn as you experience the world. There ought to be ways to judge something you obviously know you couldn't beat, but sometimes we surprise even ourselves. It should be less absolute.
There's lots more, but I am too distracted now to gather my thoughts to explain well.
What I do know is that any one of these ideas or any others usually sounds bad at face value, because we tend to think of them as "plugins" to games that we already play or know about. "No way! EQ2 would never work without levels or classes!" Of course that situation wouldn't work. The mechanics need to be designed to work together... That is where the revolution comes from. Designing entire games from simple priciples... or if I may, designing from Vision.
Originally posted by aeric67 A risk-taking change right now would be forgetting that EverQuest ever existed, going back to the drawing board, and creating a game that is fun in its own way.To itemize a few:(1) Get rid of the damage-absorption/damage-dealing cooperative. Invent new ways for players to work together. This is a great idea, but if you really want to impress me, come up with some ideas. It sort of reminds me of the people in SWG when asked what would tney do to make SWG better. Their response is "Balance the Professions". Great how would you go about that?.... See it's a great idea but just saying won't make it so. (2) Lose the class and level system. A skill system that more subtly describes a character's abilities is, while harder to manage and balance, much more flexible and interesting. It's been done before, but not in a long time and rarely in a believable way. SWG did this and I think it is a great system, but you're right balancing a system like this is pretty much impossible. You have to come up with every possible combination of every possible skills and hope someone can't come up with a superman.(3) Abandon the group mechanic. Why should I be forced to share my own experiences with five strangers? I am experiencing this for the first time. I am the one who landed that spectacular blow. I am the one who saved the life of the swordsman. While I like the solo aspect more than grouping, I'm reminded of how ALL these games started. All of what we are playing now came from the basement of an chubby, glasses wearing kid named Gary. These games were meant to simulate D&D where you had a group of friends come over to form a party and go advernturing. This fact really hit home, when someone posted on the Offical EQ2 boards that they wanted to get a static group together that would meet on a set day and time and adventure and role-play together. This is when it hit home what an MMO should really be about in my eyes.(4) The "consider" system needs to go away as an automatic thing. Make it a skill or something that you learn as you experience the world. There ought to be ways to judge something you obviously know you couldn't beat, but sometimes we surprise even ourselves. It should be less absolute. I think this is an awesome idea. The start of this can be seen again in SWG. While you'll know Green, blue, white, yellow, red, as you raise in scout you get more information by examining the critter, and eventually at master scout you can see exactly what level it is.What I do know is that any one of these ideas or any others usually sounds bad at face value, because we tend to think of them as "plugins" to games that we already play or know about. "No way! EQ2 would never work without levels or classes!" Of course that situation wouldn't work. The mechanics need to be designed to work together... That is where the revolution comes from. Designing entire games from simple priciples... or if I may, designing from Vision.You are correct about this. It would meet with a lot of resistance. Someone posted an awesome article on the WoW forums about how people stop playing a game because of a certain aspect of the game, yet won't start playing a game that doesn't have that aspect. It really was a great read, and wish I could find it again.
Let me clarify something about my post real quick... When I said get rid of grouping, I meant get rid of the official act of making a group with others and all that entails. I never meant to encourage solo adventuring. You'd still group with others and explore that dungeon if it required the help of others, but you would just get your own experience from what acts you perform on the adventure.
As for your first question as to the "how" to do the items in my impromptu list, I'd have to think about it a bit before I answered. Since I don't get paid to design games all day long, I must admit my detailed practical ideas on how to make an MMOG are a bit lacking I only wanted to list a few items I think were good examples of ruts recent games have been trapped in.
That's not a bad idea for your grouping idea, the problem I see with it though is the support people, like the healers or the Bard types. Not everyone wants to fight, they just want to make the fighters better. I realize you're would like to try to break the traditional roles of Tank, healer, Nuker, what have you, but there should still be some support roles tbat would get nixed out on XP.
This is actually a very interesting discussion, we might be able to come up with the next MMO
Originally posted by aeric67 A risk-taking change right now would be forgetting that EverQuest ever existed, going back to the drawing board, and creating a game that is fun in its own way. To itemize a few: (1) Get rid of the damage-absorption/damage-dealing cooperative. Invent new ways for players to work together. I don't really understand what you mean here, so I can't really comment. It seems to me we all work together on many activities in the various games.
(2) Lose the class and level system. A skill system that more subtly describes a character's abilities is, while harder to manage and balance, much more flexible and interesting. It's been done before, but not in a long time and rarely in a believable way. I'm game either way. I find both systems interesting. Seems to me both systems are out there.
(3) Abandon the group mechanic. Why should I be forced to share my own experiences with five strangers? I am experiencing this for the first time. I am the one who landed that spectacular blow. I am the one who saved the life of the swordsman. We differ here. Unfortunately it seems that if you let people solo through a game most do just that. If a game is soloable what incentive is there to group. To me community is the only thing separating MMORPGs from box games ... that's where MMORPGs can really shine ... unfortunately, developers have to mandate grouping or the whole deal just devolves into a chatroom with a bunch of people soloing. Nevertheless, there are certainly games out there where people can solo all they want. EDIT: I just saw your later post. I am afraid that suggestion would destroy the "team" concept. To me the team should work together, succeed or fail together, and benefit equally. If people don't like who they're grouped with, don't group with them. Plus you'd have a hell of a time determining exp and such for support classes (how many mobs did you mes, did you mes the right ones, did you mes them fast enough, etc. etc. etc.)
(4) The "consider" system needs to go away as an automatic thing. Make it a skill or something that you learn as you experience the world. There ought to be ways to judge something you obviously know you couldn't beat, but sometimes we surprise even ourselves. It should be less absolute. I really dislike these increasingly elaborate con systems ... this is gaming for idiots (like exclamation points over quest mobs, lighted paths to follow for quests and to find things, etc.). But I don't know if you can eliminate it entirely without 90% of the players whining all day long about things being too tough and about dying too much. But I agree at least to the extent that most of it should be eliminated (I thought the original EQ1 con system was pretty decent). But hell, I would eliminate all these maps too ... I loved it back in the old days when I kept a notebook with locs of points in various zones and that's the primary way we found our way around until we knew a zone cold.
Anyway, I'd sure be game to try some of these things, and some would be somewhat risk-taking, because you really would be risking most gamers just giving up two days into the game and costing you a big investment. I don't know if any of this is "revolutionary" though, but then I don't know what is.
Point-for-point rebuttals of my examples are moot. That is not the point of what I am trying to say. The point is that every modern game has been based on the same basic principles as EverQuest. I gave some examples "from the hip" that could be changed, but they were only examples to show a divergence from the rut...
Umm, you see that as a "rebuttal"? Ooohkay. I thought we were just discussing what ideas might be revolutionary and I was allowed to comment I really didn't disagree much except as to one point which I feel would never work. I suppose having everyone stand on their heads would be a big change too, but it, too, would never work. Anyway, bottom line was even if some of it is interesting I don't see how any of it is revolutionary. My original point was that we're not going to see anyting revolutionary until VR advancements. I stand by it until somebody come up with a revolutionary idea.
For simple reference a rebuttal is when you go point by point making a counter argument. A good discussion involves a simple counter-argument to the post replying to(i.e. not point by point) and some of your own conjectures afterwords that will most likely be argued back. By using a point by point method of arguing you do several annoying and degrading things. Primarily to yourself. For one your going to lack credibility. Then you run the risk of people getting confused between your green text counter argument, and the actual quote. Also you arent actually making any type of case, but rather attacking the original posters ideas and beliefs. I hope that clarifies things.
EQ2 is hardly revolutionary because it didnt add anything new to the genre. It attempted to refine some key components but failed mostly. I highly disagree that nothing revolutionary will come until VR, because it not only blinds you to what is actually being done but it also isnt true.
There are many ways to achieve something revolutionary that arent by means big, but are new and exciting. Probably the one thing that can be revolutionized is something the players have been demanding for years, only to the deaf ears of developers. Quite simply it is adding in more gameplay. Currently no mmo made in the last 5 years has ever attempted at adding more gameplay features to the mmorpg genre. Some releases in the coming months attempt to. Probably the most ground-breaking attempts are being made by Dark and Light.
Maybe "responses" would have been a better way of putting it.
Let's look at virtual reality for a second then. Take EverQuest 2, and slap the ability to use a body glove that detects movements allowing you to interact in the world and seeing everything in true 3D using head gear or something. Let's go further and put a neural interface on the game. All you have to do is go into a trance and play the game as you would have a dream, or something like that.
How does that suddenly make EverQuest 2 revolutionary? You still have the same mechanics that have been basically the same in every MMORPG since early 1999! You just have an awesome interface to go with it. Is that enough to call EQ2 revolutionary?
Let's do something slightly more believable. Say I go out and buy a 30-inch Apple widescreen LCD monitor, an Alienware computer with twin SLI 6800 Ultras, the most precise gaming mouse money can buy, 7.1 surround speaker system from a top of the line manufacturer, all in a dedicated room with all the ammenities. It's possible to get now, if you have the money. But will that make the gameplay revolutionary? It would certainly be going down that same path as virtual reality... no doubt you will be much more immersed with all this stuff, but will it truly renew the game? Or is that not enough? Is neural immersion the only answer? Shouldn't I see at least SOME of the benefit with my awesome monitor, computer, sound system that I could buy now?
I don't think so. I think the basic tenets to making an MMOG need to be changed before we will get something revolutionary. Start with a basic idea or goal, and go from there. Forget EverQuest ever existed.
Cleffy, if you can't be bothered to even read what others post, much less make any attempt to understand it, don't waste our time. He made four points. I said I didn't understand one, agreed with two and disagreed with one. It was inserted after his points for the sake of clarity ... obviously doing no good whatsoever in your case. My later response to aeric was merely intended to indicate that I hadn't intended to seem argumentative, as I believe he understood. I happen to think this is an interesting topic and I enjoy discussing it (AS I clearly stated above). If you just have some need to vent, take it to someone else.
Look up the word "revolutionary". It means what it means. You don't get to make up your own peculiar definitions.
And guys, I never said EQ2 is revolutionary. It isn't. What I said, if anyone could be bothered to read what others post, is "I haven't seen an idea in years that even approaches revolutionary". **I** am the one here saying there's nothing revolutionary and won't be any time soon. Let's not set up strawmen to attack. I have challenged anyone to show me something revolutionary. Haven't seen it yet.
That's the problem. Something that is revolutionary isn't something you can show someone until it's actually happened. I'll try to let you know when it does.
In the meantime, you are maintaining that you don't think you'll see it until VR comes along. I am saying otherwise. I can't tell you what exactly the revolution will entail, I can only tell you what the status quo is--the thing that stands to see change in a revolution. If you are not convinced that the status-quo can be changed except by one thing (VR), then there isn't any point to discussing this line of thought anymore.
Well since I wrote this topic i started a new toon, actually more then just one:) and now i am trying to lvl it up nice and slow, take my time, cause i dont want to get burned out real quick. I tried the tradeskill a bit more and it turned out to be real fun, though it is time and money consuming, especially money:)
I also managed to try out WOW, well I just played it for a day but I dont think that is my type of game and crowd. I guess I will stick to EQ2 a bit more till DnL comes round and will check that out too.
Comments
I do agree with you. Alot of people think this game is too hard. I notice it in my groups, people complaining on alot of quests or basic stuff. What I think is the most funny is when people die and they say "im going to WoW, this shit wont happen there". I am one of the people who switch games alot, its not because its too hard for me, its because I get bored fast. I have always switched classes over and over and never achieved the final level. Highest lvl I have ever gotten is lvl 35 lol. I am forcing myself to lvl my zerker and not quit him, just to see what the game has to offer. Its not that I dont like the game, I actually love it, but I get bored of endless mob killing. Thats why I have exceeded to a higher lvl in MMOFPS's then mmorpgs. My personal solution is playing 2 games at once, and not over playing one. I always would level very fast in most rpgs, then slow down past the 20th level. So in EQ2 I log in and level some, and if I am in a good group I stay, if not I go play counter strike.
EQ2 Qeynos Guild- http://www.imperium-arcanum.com
EQ2 itself isn't hard on its own. I don't know why people keep saying that.
It's being dependent on the skills and availability of other players that makes the game difficult. This game tests your people skills and coordination skills, not your monster hunting skills.
Have you played EQ2 aeric? Not to insult you, I am just wondering. The game is hard because the ability to get money and armor is very hard. Also as you said its dependent on people, but also your skills. You have to update your skills, like buying adept I on all of your important ones you need in combat. This gets very expensive when you also have to buy armor, weapons, and other things. Also combat is harder then other games, you have to pay attention so much more. Since most mobs group this makes it hard on illusionists and mezzing classes. Overall the game is harder then any other game I have played. Its not so hard you can't accomplish your goals, it just makes them a bit more challenging.
EQ2 Qeynos Guild- http://www.imperium-arcanum.com
I've played EQ2 since release.
Getting money and armor is very easy... Both of my characters (27 berserker, 22 swashbuckler) have the best stuff they can wear at their level. For the most part, I am hard pressed to ever see anything at any price on the broker that either of them can wear. In fact, on my Swash, the armor from the armor quests were only marginal upgrades compared to the crafted stuff I'd already had equipped!
I quit my Berserker after finishing the AQs and wondering "what next?" I had to do tough access quests now that required groups, and led to areas that were more of the same. I'll never see those areas because there was no hook. Maybe without those access requirements I might have been sucked into paying SOE a few more months...
Getting skill upgrades is tough due to drop rates, but I notice very little difference between the different levels inside a given tier... Getting Adept I is about as far as I need to go at my level to be competent in my role in groups. Those I've upgraded to Adept 3 show some improvement, but rarely worth that upgrade price. Equipment has more of an effect for melee anyway. But in the end, player skill outweighs any character skill upgrades. If someone knows what they are doing, it shows... Whether or not they have all Adept 1s or all Apprentice 1s.
Combat is tough if party members don't listen, are distracted, don't know what they are doing, or run all over the place getting lost or aggroed. Otherwise it's very easy. You get the players that don't actively participate in the group... Why people do this, I have no idea. Why are you playing if you aren't "playing"? Run a DPS monitor in secret sometime and you will see what I mean. Also pay attention to casters--especially ones you've played before and know what role they should be playing.
I was in a group the other day where one of the casters decided to put themselves on auto-follow and simply left their computer. They didn't go linkdead, because it went on like that for 45 minutes, even after we realized what was going on and kicked him from the group! Still on auto-follow, running all over the place with us. I was in another group with one rogue doing 4 DPS in almost every fight, while myself and a monk were doing over 27 DPS very consistently. Even the tank beat him out all the time with his tanking gear. Maybe he just hasn't found the time to upgrade his stuff, but I'd say he wasn't hitting a single button besides auto-attack... maybe even keeping it on auto-attack all the time while keeping the tank targetted (auto-assist) and watching TV instead?
The above statements are not the only problems I have with this game anyway--if that was it, I'd still be with it most likely. The real reason is it's a world without soul or purpose. Compartmentalized, contrived, and controlled. Even a fake world should have some believable reason why it is there and its denizens have some sort of simulated purpose. This world seems like everyone is just propped up on sticks and marionnette strings waving their arms around. I know it is what's REALLY going on, but a good simulated world would make more of an effort to hide it.
Everything is on purpose... Locked encounters, level restrictions, instances, no less than 3 players in a group to go certain places, zone timers, no helping outside your group, mobs that become trivial and suddenly have no loot or reward of any kind. It's almost like they sensationalized everything about a fantasy world and threw it into the game with their production-level mo-cap and smug character models that seem to taunt you and think they are so appealing to you and you will love them... Forcing you to play a certain way that their studies show to be the most addictive way... then SOE thought that would be enough to keep us involved. They forgot to make sure that the addiction didn't come with a mind-numbing monotony. They forgot to go the next step--or just didn't have time to go there... or maybe they truly thought it was enough?
Maybe I'm just burned out, but aren't these games supposed to be long term? It's been 2 months. I played EQ1 for 4 years. No it wasn't virgin love. I played UO before it and never fell in love with that (still played it for longer than EQ2, though). It's because EQ1 was ground-breaking and actually FUN. EQ2 is clearly not fun for me, nor is it ground-breaking. Even the graphic engine is sub-par. You guys give it too much credit.
Anyway, I'll start up my account again if SOE gives me a reason to. So far, I'm not seeing it.
I respect your comments, and I do agree with alot of them. I do think EQ2 is missing its soul, as the review on this site said about EQ2. They are missing the fun that EQI had. But I do not think its all SoEs fault, I think its all mmorpgs now. They are all copies of eachother, so in a way we are playing the same game over and over again, restarting our leveling cycle in a new game that may look different, but in the inside is exactly the same from the last one you played. I do not think you will like WoW any more, I wouldnt be suprised to see you quit WoW in 2 months also. Its really no different then EQ2, its just another waste of 50 bucks. The only game that is really catching my eye is DnL, I have lots of hopes for that game. As for now I will get the all access pass and play Planetside and EQ2, in hopes that it will become much better past lvl 30.
EQ2 Qeynos Guild- http://www.imperium-arcanum.com
I think its after 30 that the game starts to slow down, hopefully that will change.
--------------------------------------------
MacroMagic.250free.com For the Best EQ2 Macros!
--------------------------------------------
MacroMagic.250free.com For the Best EQ2, WoW, SWG, and Lineage 2 Macros!
I think there's a fair amount ot truth to that. Way back when we were all new or fairly new at this and having a great big world to explore with all these things to kill was just flat out exciting all by itself. We approached it with a "let me at it" attitude .. even though it was a LOT more difficult than any game out today. Now we're all experienced and to some extend jaded. Now it's more like "show me". But the reality is that a game can only give you so much. A lot depends on what you bring to it, as well as what other people bring ... you can never over-state the importance of the other people in the game. And that is one reason why the community in the game is a very important factor to me. Lousy community = adios for me.
As far as "purpose", that comes from within. What do YOU want out of the game. It's not that easy a question. What are YOUR goals. Some would just say "fun", but that's really an over-simplification. What constitutes fun, and what constitutes fun that will last.
In my opinion the ONLY thing which can make a game last for you for a long time is people. Every game gets boring without friends. And by the same token friends can elevate a routine gaming experience to a great one. I could not begin to count the number of hours I spend in EQ1 doing the most mind-numbing grinding imaginable, and yet we were having such a great time laughing and joking and just goofing around that nobody even noticed ... and we all couldn't wait to do it again the next night. Raids too ... eventually I got burnt out on raids, but for a long damn time they were just party time.
What we need a game to do is give us a good solid playing field which has enough content to last a long time. Then, it's up to us what we make of it. And you're right aeric, people skills are extremely important ... you don't have them, you fail at most MMORPGs, or at least have very limited success. End of story. But you know, MMORPGs are a fairly good place to learn them.
The problem isn't ONLY with SOE, you are right. It is with all of today's big dev houses who are in it to make a buck. You can tell when a guy who makes something has a passion for it... as opposed to the guy who is mass producing it to fill his coffers. With each title that comes and goes, people are getting more and more wise to this...
Don't succumb to this fatalistic view that you are jaded and nothing can impress you anymore. That will NEVER be the case. Be sure in knowing that whenever you have a tendency to think that about games, it's not you, it's the unimaginative devs or the publishers afraid of a bit of risk that are to blame.
Yes, it's a different world here in the new millenium. It's definitely not the late '90s anymore, where dollars were everywhere and lucrative schemes abounded. The safe way may be the smart way, but they are going to realize soon that this old EQ formula isn't impressing us anymore. You can't profit off these games anymore with a sold box and 2 months of subscription fees. You need to bring people in for the long haul. Any publisher thinking he's going to do that with the EQ formula is going to lose a lot of money.
Or... maybe that is enough. Maybe I am sorely misinformed and all they need is a burst of boxes flying off the shelves and a small core group of followers for the long haul. Perhaps that is better for them? WoW certainly seems successful enough, despite my severe doubts that it will be a long haul game.
Mark my words, there will be the next EQ... But no one will call it the new EQ. That's because it will be nothing like it. The only similarity will be the cash that will reward the corp that takes the risk and succeeds.
Ahhh excellent posts from several players & no rantings (except for one "this other game is better post""). I hope this continues & dear I say spread to the other game forums.
Keep it up
*Sig virus help me spread*
Far be it from me to undervalue the intelligence of the developers. I don't think I said anything of the sort. (EDIT: Now that I read back a bit, I can see where you got this. I didn't say devs in general weren't smart, I just used an unimaginative dev as an example of why you may feel like there's nothing new coming--unimaginative devs exist, but it's usually not the general rule).
Lack of innovation usually isn't the the developers' fault anyway, it's the unwillingness to take risks on the part of the money guys. Just because we aren't taking that next step isn't because someone isn't smart enough to do it--they just don't have the money to do it.
On a side note, why is it that people say the next big step in gaming is going to be Virtual Reality? We've been saying that for years! All the way back before Doom even came out! Yet, in the mean-time, we've had revolutionary steps in gaming occur, all without virtual reality. Sure, if it ever comes--this neural interface whatever--then it could change the way we play games, but until then I think there's plenty of room to grow with the current interfaces.
Okay, it's' a good topic (although somewhat lost in this thread I suppose) so I'll bite:
(1) What would constitute a risk-taking change?
(2) Given the current state of MMORPGs, what would constitute a "revolutionary" advancement now, short of significant advancement into virtual reality?
A risk-taking change right now would be forgetting that EverQuest ever existed, going back to the drawing board, and creating a game that is fun in its own way.
To itemize a few:
(1) Get rid of the damage-absorption/damage-dealing cooperative. Invent new ways for players to work together.
(2) Lose the class and level system. A skill system that more subtly describes a character's abilities is, while harder to manage and balance, much more flexible and interesting. It's been done before, but not in a long time and rarely in a believable way.
(3) Abandon the group mechanic. Why should I be forced to share my own experiences with five strangers? I am experiencing this for the first time. I am the one who landed that spectacular blow. I am the one who saved the life of the swordsman.
(4) The "consider" system needs to go away as an automatic thing. Make it a skill or something that you learn as you experience the world. There ought to be ways to judge something you obviously know you couldn't beat, but sometimes we surprise even ourselves. It should be less absolute.
There's lots more, but I am too distracted now to gather my thoughts to explain well.
What I do know is that any one of these ideas or any others usually sounds bad at face value, because we tend to think of them as "plugins" to games that we already play or know about. "No way! EQ2 would never work without levels or classes!" Of course that situation wouldn't work. The mechanics need to be designed to work together... That is where the revolution comes from. Designing entire games from simple priciples... or if I may, designing from Vision.
Let me clarify something about my post real quick... When I said get rid of grouping, I meant get rid of the official act of making a group with others and all that entails. I never meant to encourage solo adventuring. You'd still group with others and explore that dungeon if it required the help of others, but you would just get your own experience from what acts you perform on the adventure.
As for your first question as to the "how" to do the items in my impromptu list, I'd have to think about it a bit before I answered. Since I don't get paid to design games all day long, I must admit my detailed practical ideas on how to make an MMOG are a bit lacking
I only wanted to list a few items I think were good examples of ruts recent games have been trapped in.
That's not a bad idea for your grouping idea, the problem I see with it though is the support people, like the healers or the Bard types. Not everyone wants to fight, they just want to make the fighters better. I realize you're would like to try to break the traditional roles of Tank, healer, Nuker, what have you, but there should still be some support roles tbat would get nixed out on XP.
This is actually a very interesting discussion, we might be able to come up with the next MMO
Point-for-point rebuttals of my examples are moot. That is not the point of what I am trying to say. The point is that every modern game has been based on the same basic principles as EverQuest. I gave some examples "from the hip" that could be changed, but they were only examples to show a divergence from the rut...
so EQ2 is your pinnacle of revolutionary? lol
For simple reference a rebuttal is when you go point by point making a counter argument. A good discussion involves a simple counter-argument to the post replying to(i.e. not point by point) and some of your own conjectures afterwords that will most likely be argued back. By using a point by point method of arguing you do several annoying and degrading things. Primarily to yourself. For one your going to lack credibility. Then you run the risk of people getting confused between your green text counter argument, and the actual quote. Also you arent actually making any type of case, but rather attacking the original posters ideas and beliefs. I hope that clarifies things.
EQ2 is hardly revolutionary because it didnt add anything new to the genre. It attempted to refine some key components but failed mostly. I highly disagree that nothing revolutionary will come until VR, because it not only blinds you to what is actually being done but it also isnt true.
There are many ways to achieve something revolutionary that arent by means big, but are new and exciting. Probably the one thing that can be revolutionized is something the players have been demanding for years, only to the deaf ears of developers. Quite simply it is adding in more gameplay. Currently no mmo made in the last 5 years has ever attempted at adding more gameplay features to the mmorpg genre. Some releases in the coming months attempt to. Probably the most ground-breaking attempts are being made by Dark and Light.
I hope that cleared things up.
Maybe "responses" would have been a better way of putting it.
Let's look at virtual reality for a second then. Take EverQuest 2, and slap the ability to use a body glove that detects movements allowing you to interact in the world and seeing everything in true 3D using head gear or something. Let's go further and put a neural interface on the game. All you have to do is go into a trance and play the game as you would have a dream, or something like that.
How does that suddenly make EverQuest 2 revolutionary? You still have the same mechanics that have been basically the same in every MMORPG since early 1999! You just have an awesome interface to go with it. Is that enough to call EQ2 revolutionary?
Let's do something slightly more believable. Say I go out and buy a 30-inch Apple widescreen LCD monitor, an Alienware computer with twin SLI 6800 Ultras, the most precise gaming mouse money can buy, 7.1 surround speaker system from a top of the line manufacturer, all in a dedicated room with all the ammenities. It's possible to get now, if you have the money. But will that make the gameplay revolutionary? It would certainly be going down that same path as virtual reality... no doubt you will be much more immersed with all this stuff, but will it truly renew the game? Or is that not enough? Is neural immersion the only answer? Shouldn't I see at least SOME of the benefit with my awesome monitor, computer, sound system that I could buy now?
I don't think so. I think the basic tenets to making an MMOG need to be changed before we will get something revolutionary. Start with a basic idea or goal, and go from there. Forget EverQuest ever existed.
Cleffy, if you can't be bothered to even read what others post, much less make any attempt to understand it, don't waste our time. He made four points. I said I didn't understand one, agreed with two and disagreed with one. It was inserted after his points for the sake of clarity ... obviously doing no good whatsoever in your case. My later response to aeric was merely intended to indicate that I hadn't intended to seem argumentative, as I believe he understood. I happen to think this is an interesting topic and I enjoy discussing it (AS I clearly stated above). If you just have some need to vent, take it to someone else.
Look up the word "revolutionary". It means what it means. You don't get to make up your own peculiar definitions.
And guys, I never said EQ2 is revolutionary. It isn't. What I said, if anyone could be bothered to read what others post, is "I haven't seen an idea in years that even approaches revolutionary". **I** am the one here saying there's nothing revolutionary and won't be any time soon. Let's not set up strawmen to attack. I have challenged anyone to show me something revolutionary. Haven't seen it yet.
That's the problem. Something that is revolutionary isn't something you can show someone until it's actually happened. I'll try to let you know when it does.
In the meantime, you are maintaining that you don't think you'll see it until VR comes along. I am saying otherwise. I can't tell you what exactly the revolution will entail, I can only tell you what the status quo is--the thing that stands to see change in a revolution. If you are not convinced that the status-quo can be changed except by one thing (VR), then there isn't any point to discussing this line of thought anymore.
Well since I wrote this topic i started a new toon, actually more then just one:) and now i am trying to lvl it up nice and slow, take my time, cause i dont want to get burned out real quick. I tried the tradeskill a bit more and it turned out to be real fun, though it is time and money consuming, especially money:)
I also managed to try out WOW, well I just played it for a day but I dont think that is my type of game and crowd. I guess I will stick to EQ2 a bit more till DnL comes round and will check that out too.
No matter how slow and how nice you think you are playing EQ2.
There would be no UBER character in this game.
Because there is no character development in this game. You are just one of them.
What's the fun if you were not uber to playing a game? Enjoy the community and looking at the nice graphics and smell the fresh air.
What are you supposed to be like if you are not uber? You sucked.