Anyone who likes LotR should read the Silmarillion, it's great
Is this the time to pop in and say that the usual lore of EQ may be skewed from the original due to the Discord's involvement in the timeline? People were freaking out that Firiona was a Ranger type, it was the most abrupt example that though familiar EQN will be different.
EQ2 does have creation restrictions but if you roll a Troll SK and level high enough to betray you can be a Paladin. I hope for the same system in EQN except more indepth and tied to deities.
I do think it would be cool for certain races to gain both racial faction and alignment with other class guilds thru quests and so forth to eventually be able to become say a necro if they were a high elf. I think the process should be grueling though, and not something you could choose at character creation.
How does it defy lore? Like an Ogre using magic? Gee where have I seen that before? (Shadowknights)
I think any race should be able to be any class, but there must be tangible pros and cons to go with it. Maybe an Ogre Necro isn't that smart, so his magic is weaker, but is physically more powerful (resistance to knock downs, more HPs, etc).
It would fit the lore and help make players stand out.
Also, if you're just speaking of good/evil, the lore is filled with "Fallen goodguys" and "Repenting badguys". You could roleplay a Darkelf that has turned his back on Inny and has chosen to protect the world as a druid or a ranger of Tunare.
Or a disgruntled High Elf that was mad that the wasn't given enough respect by his peers so he turned to necromancy.
The possibilities are limitless, in both a roleplaying sense and a character creation sense. I'm not saying there should be a cost (Statistical, factional, etc) but I think there's no harm in having more freedom. Even though no one can ever agree on what makes a good sandbox, isn't the core ideal that everyone agrees makes a good sandbox "More Freedom"?
I don't think at character selection every race / class combination should be available. To me it represents racial differences in philosophy, teachings and the gods that that particular race worships that need to be separated at start.
What I would love to see is a way to change it later on. Using the Dark Elf example, there should be deity quests to change what god you worship and then allow you to switch to a class under that deity. This would allow that pariah mechanic for those who want to do it, as well as some notoriety among the server for someone who's put in the time to do that. Something that would be fairly unique and rare and a real accomplishment to do. Maybe even seeing some physical appearance change as you gain favor with the other god.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
I have make a similar post before, but i think i was misunderstand (probably for my bad english), so i try to explain more clearly:
do you think that all races can do all classes or you prefer some restrictions as EQ1?
I think that some races should have limitations due their ability scores or alligment, so for example i think that an ogre or troll, that are supposed to be stupid and clumsy shouldnt be allowed to do a wizard , monk or thief, an high elf that is supposed to be a good race shouldnt be allowed to play a necromancer or a shadow knight (i know that we dont know what classes will be in EQN so these are only example).
I personaly like the restrictions of EQ1, the only thing that i disapprove of EQ was that a troll can join a group with an high elf or a shadow knight play together with a paladin and so on.
I voted no, but I do think it will depend on how they put the emphasis on classes, skills, and itemization.
If items are restricted to classes, like in EQ, we will probably see more restrictions on class abilities and less customization of character abilities (more itemization and things like 'hero's forge').
If the system was more like AO, for instance, where each class/race was able to scale up skill points at a different rate, we would see more restrictions on skill usage and not as much on class abilities or items.
In a way, I like AO system. You could pick a flimzy race, and be a tank if you sunk enough time into figuring out how to make them durable (items/skills/etc).
To your comment, a Troll would not be a wizard, but with this example, a Troll would just not be as smart as an Erudite, but much more durable. They would rely much more on items and skills to augment their mental abilities, but have a very easy time taking a hit. Erudites would need to invest more into taking a hit - might even out later on. I realize this is very distant from the EQ idea, but I don't think we are going to see much familiarity in these systems come Aug 2nd.
I voted yes, because I can't vote for 'I don't want classes'. I know a lot of eq vets want holy trinity classes. That would just turn EQNext into another tank/spank themepark, so no thanks.
Right there with you. No classes. Skills with a cap, please.
I would be okay with every race being able to play every class IF it came at a cost.
For instance, say you were a troll, whose race's traditional social structure is arranged such that shaman are their spiritual leaders/healers. Now, say you also really want to play a priest. In a clan of trolls, a priest would be considered an outsider and embody the imperialistic, bourgeois ideals of the supposed "higher" races (stupid humans). Realistically, anyone CAN do anything they set their mind to, but only at the cost of relationships (sometimes.) You can't decide to be a Satanist in a Catholic family and expect there to be no blow back. So you can be that troll priest if you REALLY want to, but in doing so you sacrifice your reputation among your race, preventing you from accessing content/gear/what have you that you would otherwise be able to access.
God knows what the reality will be, and I'm not holding my breath for anything like this is EQN, but its worth a thought!
I voted no. Usually it is lore breaking when all races can play all classes (unless the series was made that way initially like Aion/Tera). For example, when Horde got Paladins and Alliance got Shaman in WoW...
I chose no. I like uniqueness for my characters. That's one thing i disliked about EQ2 and even GW2. It's not a gamebreaker for me though, but i just prefer races with unique classes.
Originally posted by kitarad It screws the lore up so no.
That's not an issue in the case of Everquest since it's SOE's proprietary world.
SOE designs Lore around the gameplay they create. So if they design a game where humans can be evil, then according to the lore, humans can be evil. There no 3rd party lore for SOE to be aligning to like with LoTR or Star Wars. Whatever SOE decides to do, THAT is the lore.
Not to mention that in general it makes for extremely bad and hard to immerse yourself in lore where every single person of a certain race is automaticaly defined to be of a certain moral standing and/or profession.
See, this is the problem. People are talking about EQ but looking at WoW. EQ was/is not based on good vs evil. Alliance vs. Horde. Light vs. Dark. There are many 'factions'. Usually, the factions you are friendly with follow the same deity as you or they have the same alignment as you. Dark Elves, Ogres, and Trolls in EQ were allied because they all worshipped the same deities. Depending on which of the many deities you chose, limited your options towards your alignment. Like a human that was agnostic, could go to the dwarf city Kaladim and not get killed by the guards. But a Human that followed Innoruuk, would be killed by the guards.
IMO, this is depth. This is what games do not have anymore. hopefully EQN delivers.
I voted no, but I guess if somebody really wanted a troll mage if there was a penalty on their intelligence as there is in a lot of mmos/rpg games no problem with that tho why you would want to with a handicap maybe just to be a bit different :P
Originally posted by Tindale111 I voted no, but I guess if somebody really wanted a troll mage if there was a penalty on their intelligence as there is in a lot of mmos/rpg games no problem with that tho why you would want to with a handicap maybe just to be a bit different :P
It doesn't have to be a handicap. I could just have different benefits. A troll mage might do less damage with spells, but able to endure more damage and get knocked down / stunned less. Remember, as these game's combat systems are getting more advanced and more of them are going to action style combat, the days of sitting in the back throwing fireballs and not getting hit are pretty much gone.
A gnome warrior might do less damage and get stunned more, but maybe they're more agile and avoid attacks better or learn skills faster with higher intelligence.
It just comes down to roleplaying and how you want to customize your character.
Opening everything up to everyone because the customer should get whatever he wants is part of what is wrong with games these days. It's the spoiled little brats who kick and scream until they get their way. It's entitlement.
No, I want the devs to show them who the boss is and not cave into their demands. Because if the devs cave in on one thing, they will cave in over and over again. It teaches the children they can be rewarded with their tactics.
How does more freedom on class / race combinations have anything to do with entitlement?
You could easily reverse this statement back around on you. "People who think classes should not have any race restrictions are just being brats trying to take what they like about other games and force their preferences on other people. The devs should not cave to these people who think their entitled to getting what they want".
See how that works?
This rant to me sounds more like you enjoy talking about "entitlement" even in subjects that have nothing to do with it. We're not talking about loot hand outs and free houses. We're talking about character customization. Get a grip.
Also, I think more freedom is better, but EQ and EQ2 had class/race restrictions. I expect them to be following suite with this game, and I don't think either choice is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.
Because you feel you are entitled to this little bit of "freedom".
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I voted yes, because I can't vote for 'I don't want classes'. I know a lot of eq vets want holy trinity classes. That would just turn EQNext into another tank/spank themepark, so no thanks.
Right there with you. No classes. Skills with a cap, please.
Another person who thinks being a certain class determines what skills, armor, and weapons you can use.
EQ was not like many newer MMOs where there is 4 classes and all 4 classes get a different armor and weapon type. In EQ, you had many choices as to which weapon you used depending on what class you were. Warriors, for example, could use any weapon. Two-handed/one-handed swords, axes, clubs, shields, bows, anything that wasn't a class specific weapon like a ranger epic sword or something. Now mages, couldn't use as many weapons. Daggers, some clubs, most staves. Now clerics, druid, and shamans could only use blunt type weapons unless it was a that classes signature weapon. Shamans had spears, Clerics had Flails, druids had scimitars. Now here is the best part, every weapon type in the game had a skill identifier of ##/400. I think I could be wrong on the skill cap. Anyway the cap isn't important. Whats important is that there is a skill based system with a cap. The more you used the skill, the more it went up. You couldn't go from using swords as a warrior and suddenly switching to 2 handed club. Well, you could equip it, but you would have to use it for a while before you do much damage with it. The damage you dealt with a weapon was determined by your skill with it's type.
So, in short, you CAN have classes and skills with a cap.
Opening everything up to everyone because the customer should get whatever he wants is part of what is wrong with games these days. It's the spoiled little brats who kick and scream until they get their way. It's entitlement.
No, I want the devs to show them who the boss is and not cave into their demands. Because if the devs cave in on one thing, they will cave in over and over again. It teaches the children they can be rewarded with their tactics.
How does more freedom on class / race combinations have anything to do with entitlement?
You could easily reverse this statement back around on you. "People who think classes should not have any race restrictions are just being brats trying to take what they like about other games and force their preferences on other people. The devs should not cave to these people who think their entitled to getting what they want".
See how that works?
This rant to me sounds more like you enjoy talking about "entitlement" even in subjects that have nothing to do with it. We're not talking about loot hand outs and free houses. We're talking about character customization. Get a grip.
Also, I think more freedom is better, but EQ and EQ2 had class/race restrictions. I expect them to be following suite with this game, and I don't think either choice is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.
Because you feel you are entitled to this little bit of "freedom".
WHY SHOULD YOU GET IT?
Because you feel you're entitled to less "freedom".
WHY SHOULD YOU GET IT?
I don't feel I'm entitled to anything. I get what the devs give and I find the good in it and play it or I move on to something I enjoy. My point is that this subject has nothing to do with entitlement and your argument is laughable at best.
I voted yes, because I can't vote for 'I don't want classes'. I know a lot of eq vets want holy trinity classes. That would just turn EQNext into another tank/spank themepark, so no thanks.
Right there with you. No classes. Skills with a cap, please.
Another person who thinks being a certain class determines what skills, armor, and weapons you can use.
EQ was not like many newer MMOs where there is 4 classes and all 4 classes get a different armor and weapon type. In EQ, you had many choices as to which weapon you used depending on what class you were. Warriors, for example, could use any weapon. Two-handed/one-handed swords, axes, clubs, shields, bows, anything that wasn't a class specific weapon like a ranger epic sword or something. Now mages, couldn't use as many weapons. Daggers, some clubs, most staves. Now clerics, druid, and shamans could only use blunt type weapons unless it was a that classes signature weapon. Shamans had spears, Clerics had Flails, druids had scimitars. Now here is the best part, every weapon type in the game had a skill identifier of ##/400. I think I could be wrong on the skill cap. Anyway the cap isn't important. Whats important is that there is a skill based system with a cap. The more you used the skill, the more it went up. You couldn't go from using swords as a warrior and suddenly switching to 2 handed club. Well, you could equip it, but you would have to use it for a while before you do much damage with it. The damage you dealt with a weapon was determined by your skill with it's type.
So, in short, you CAN have classes and skills with a cap.
He is saying he wants to custom create his own class using skill points.
For example, you have something like 4 trees, Tank, Healer, Melee DPS, Magic DPS
And in those trees you have branching skills spells and stat bonuses and you can distribute the points how you want.
Make a "Warrior with enchanter CC spells", or a pure Enchanter, or an Enchanter with Necro spells, etc etc.
He's not talking about what you're talking about.
This is all moot though, EQN is already confirmed to have a class system. Not a choose-your-skills system.
I voted yes, because I can't vote for 'I don't want classes'. I know a lot of eq vets want holy trinity classes. That would just turn EQNext into another tank/spank themepark, so no thanks.
Right there with you. No classes. Skills with a cap, please.
Another person who thinks being a certain class determines what skills, armor, and weapons you can use.
EQ was not like many newer MMOs where there is 4 classes and all 4 classes get a different armor and weapon type. In EQ, you had many choices as to which weapon you used depending on what class you were. Warriors, for example, could use any weapon. Two-handed/one-handed swords, axes, clubs, shields, bows, anything that wasn't a class specific weapon like a ranger epic sword or something. Now mages, couldn't use as many weapons. Daggers, some clubs, most staves. Now clerics, druid, and shamans could only use blunt type weapons unless it was a that classes signature weapon. Shamans had spears, Clerics had Flails, druids had scimitars. Now here is the best part, every weapon type in the game had a skill identifier of ##/400. I think I could be wrong on the skill cap. Anyway the cap isn't important. Whats important is that there is a skill based system with a cap. The more you used the skill, the more it went up. You couldn't go from using swords as a warrior and suddenly switching to 2 handed club. Well, you could equip it, but you would have to use it for a while before you do much damage with it. The damage you dealt with a weapon was determined by your skill with it's type.
So, in short, you CAN have classes and skills with a cap.
He is saying he wants to custom create his own class using skill points.
For example, you have something like 4 trees, Tank, Healer, Melee DPS, Magic DPS
And in those trees you have branching skills spells and stat bonuses and you can distribute the points how you want.
Make a "Warrior with enchanter CC spells", or a pure Enchanter, or an Enchanter with Necro spells, etc etc.
He's not talking about what you're talking about.
This is all moot though, EQN is already confirmed to have a class system. Not a choose-your-skills system.
yes. if you want to be a wood elf necromancer then why the hell not? lore? that is a stupid argument because each character is as individual as its creator meaning there are good hearted dark elves and evil halflings running around norrath, especially if SoE wants to call this a sandbox.
Originally posted by evilized yes. if you want to be a wood elf necromancer then why the hell not? lore? that is a stupid argument because each character is as individual as its creator meaning there are good hearted dark elves and evil halflings running around norrath, especially if SoE wants to call this a sandbox.
Ya that's what I said. Some people just don't get it.
Originally posted by evilized yes. if you want to be a wood elf necromancer then why the hell not? lore? that is a stupid argument because each character is as individual as its creator meaning there are good hearted dark elves and evil halflings running around norrath, especially if SoE wants to call this a sandbox.
Given that they have said they want the world to be a living breathing environment (as much as you can in modern MMOs) lore would actusally be a pretty good arguement or why even bother calling it Everquest? or basing it in Norrath?
I can understand many people couldn't care less about any backstory or setting their games take place in but there are many who do. Why is it any better for you to tell others how to play than others telling you?
The term sandbox also has differing meanings and magnitudes depending on who you ask. As for it's application to EQN nobody knows yet, but I can almost guarantee 'completely free open do anything' sandbox some are hoping for... it won't be.
I voted no, I hope they stick to their guns on the game to some degree. As much as people mocked it I wouldn't mind a return to the 'You're in our world' philosophy, as people don't know what they really want and many, if given what they asked for, would moan about it just as badly as any incarnation handed them originially.
Comments
Is this the time to pop in and say that the usual lore of EQ may be skewed from the original due to the Discord's involvement in the timeline? People were freaking out that Firiona was a Ranger type, it was the most abrupt example that though familiar EQN will be different.
How does it defy lore? Like an Ogre using magic? Gee where have I seen that before? (Shadowknights)
EQ already allows for really strange class/race combinations. Gnome Warrior anyone?
I think any race should be able to be any class, but there must be tangible pros and cons to go with it. Maybe an Ogre Necro isn't that smart, so his magic is weaker, but is physically more powerful (resistance to knock downs, more HPs, etc).
It would fit the lore and help make players stand out.
Also, if you're just speaking of good/evil, the lore is filled with "Fallen goodguys" and "Repenting badguys". You could roleplay a Darkelf that has turned his back on Inny and has chosen to protect the world as a druid or a ranger of Tunare.
Or a disgruntled High Elf that was mad that the wasn't given enough respect by his peers so he turned to necromancy.
The possibilities are limitless, in both a roleplaying sense and a character creation sense. I'm not saying there should be a cost (Statistical, factional, etc) but I think there's no harm in having more freedom. Even though no one can ever agree on what makes a good sandbox, isn't the core ideal that everyone agrees makes a good sandbox "More Freedom"?
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I don't think at character selection every race / class combination should be available. To me it represents racial differences in philosophy, teachings and the gods that that particular race worships that need to be separated at start.
What I would love to see is a way to change it later on. Using the Dark Elf example, there should be deity quests to change what god you worship and then allow you to switch to a class under that deity. This would allow that pariah mechanic for those who want to do it, as well as some notoriety among the server for someone who's put in the time to do that. Something that would be fairly unique and rare and a real accomplishment to do. Maybe even seeing some physical appearance change as you gain favor with the other god.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
Define "an evil individual" . Answer well or face the following statement "Well you have EQ 1 for that."
I voted no, but I do think it will depend on how they put the emphasis on classes, skills, and itemization.
If items are restricted to classes, like in EQ, we will probably see more restrictions on class abilities and less customization of character abilities (more itemization and things like 'hero's forge').
If the system was more like AO, for instance, where each class/race was able to scale up skill points at a different rate, we would see more restrictions on skill usage and not as much on class abilities or items.
In a way, I like AO system. You could pick a flimzy race, and be a tank if you sunk enough time into figuring out how to make them durable (items/skills/etc).
To your comment, a Troll would not be a wizard, but with this example, a Troll would just not be as smart as an Erudite, but much more durable. They would rely much more on items and skills to augment their mental abilities, but have a very easy time taking a hit. Erudites would need to invest more into taking a hit - might even out later on. I realize this is very distant from the EQ idea, but I don't think we are going to see much familiarity in these systems come Aug 2nd.
Right there with you. No classes. Skills with a cap, please.
I would be okay with every race being able to play every class IF it came at a cost.
For instance, say you were a troll, whose race's traditional social structure is arranged such that shaman are their spiritual leaders/healers. Now, say you also really want to play a priest. In a clan of trolls, a priest would be considered an outsider and embody the imperialistic, bourgeois ideals of the supposed "higher" races (stupid humans). Realistically, anyone CAN do anything they set their mind to, but only at the cost of relationships (sometimes.) You can't decide to be a Satanist in a Catholic family and expect there to be no blow back. So you can be that troll priest if you REALLY want to, but in doing so you sacrifice your reputation among your race, preventing you from accessing content/gear/what have you that you would otherwise be able to access.
God knows what the reality will be, and I'm not holding my breath for anything like this is EQN, but its worth a thought!
I voted no. Usually it is lore breaking when all races can play all classes (unless the series was made that way initially like Aion/Tera). For example, when Horde got Paladins and Alliance got Shaman in WoW...
See, this is the problem. People are talking about EQ but looking at WoW. EQ was/is not based on good vs evil. Alliance vs. Horde. Light vs. Dark. There are many 'factions'. Usually, the factions you are friendly with follow the same deity as you or they have the same alignment as you. Dark Elves, Ogres, and Trolls in EQ were allied because they all worshipped the same deities. Depending on which of the many deities you chose, limited your options towards your alignment. Like a human that was agnostic, could go to the dwarf city Kaladim and not get killed by the guards. But a Human that followed Innoruuk, would be killed by the guards.
IMO, this is depth. This is what games do not have anymore. hopefully EQN delivers.
It doesn't have to be a handicap. I could just have different benefits. A troll mage might do less damage with spells, but able to endure more damage and get knocked down / stunned less. Remember, as these game's combat systems are getting more advanced and more of them are going to action style combat, the days of sitting in the back throwing fireballs and not getting hit are pretty much gone.
A gnome warrior might do less damage and get stunned more, but maybe they're more agile and avoid attacks better or learn skills faster with higher intelligence.
It just comes down to roleplaying and how you want to customize your character.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Because you feel you are entitled to this little bit of "freedom".
WHY SHOULD YOU GET IT?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Another person who thinks being a certain class determines what skills, armor, and weapons you can use.
EQ was not like many newer MMOs where there is 4 classes and all 4 classes get a different armor and weapon type. In EQ, you had many choices as to which weapon you used depending on what class you were. Warriors, for example, could use any weapon. Two-handed/one-handed swords, axes, clubs, shields, bows, anything that wasn't a class specific weapon like a ranger epic sword or something. Now mages, couldn't use as many weapons. Daggers, some clubs, most staves. Now clerics, druid, and shamans could only use blunt type weapons unless it was a that classes signature weapon. Shamans had spears, Clerics had Flails, druids had scimitars. Now here is the best part, every weapon type in the game had a skill identifier of ##/400. I think I could be wrong on the skill cap. Anyway the cap isn't important. Whats important is that there is a skill based system with a cap. The more you used the skill, the more it went up. You couldn't go from using swords as a warrior and suddenly switching to 2 handed club. Well, you could equip it, but you would have to use it for a while before you do much damage with it. The damage you dealt with a weapon was determined by your skill with it's type.
So, in short, you CAN have classes and skills with a cap.
Because you feel you're entitled to less "freedom".
WHY SHOULD YOU GET IT?
I don't feel I'm entitled to anything. I get what the devs give and I find the good in it and play it or I move on to something I enjoy. My point is that this subject has nothing to do with entitlement and your argument is laughable at best.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
He is saying he wants to custom create his own class using skill points.
For example, you have something like 4 trees, Tank, Healer, Melee DPS, Magic DPS
And in those trees you have branching skills spells and stat bonuses and you can distribute the points how you want.
Make a "Warrior with enchanter CC spells", or a pure Enchanter, or an Enchanter with Necro spells, etc etc.
He's not talking about what you're talking about.
This is all moot though, EQN is already confirmed to have a class system. Not a choose-your-skills system.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Good. More like EQ and less like Rift
I voted yes. Too much racism and classism irl anyway.
Ya that's what I said. Some people just don't get it.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Given that they have said they want the world to be a living breathing environment (as much as you can in modern MMOs) lore would actusally be a pretty good arguement or why even bother calling it Everquest? or basing it in Norrath?
I can understand many people couldn't care less about any backstory or setting their games take place in but there are many who do. Why is it any better for you to tell others how to play than others telling you?
The term sandbox also has differing meanings and magnitudes depending on who you ask. As for it's application to EQN nobody knows yet, but I can almost guarantee 'completely free open do anything' sandbox some are hoping for... it won't be.
I voted no, I hope they stick to their guns on the game to some degree. As much as people mocked it I wouldn't mind a return to the 'You're in our world' philosophy, as people don't know what they really want and many, if given what they asked for, would moan about it just as badly as any incarnation handed them originially.