The only thing that question tells me is that EQNext is going to be a full themepark MMO with a LFDungeons, in turn it means that they lied about the game having no instances, limited fast travel and not being for the mass (said by Georgeson a bit before the August reveal in an interview).
I'm starting to think that the August reveals was just them trying to get the more hardcore crowd that is starving for a game to spread the hype online than do a 180 degree turn in marketing to show the full glory of their WoW-clone with gimmicky voxel and AI.
Your first mistake was taking anything Georgeson said at face value this early on. He's a car salesman/marketing person and you should take anything he says with a grain of salt IMO.
People keep saying they want something new but nobody really knows what that would be when they say that. Ever since EQ2 came out I have been saying the next EQ game should essentially do a remake of EQ1 but with modern graphics/UI, a larger more detailed/interactive world and maybe a few tweaks to the hardcore elements to make it more accessible. Then I get excited to hear about EQN and how it's going to be a "re-imagining" of EQ1. However, the more I hear the more it sounds nothing like EQ at all which is a shame.
There is a huge base of EQ players that would love to return to the old Norrath and I know many people that never got the chance to play EQ back in it's heyday but would have liked to experience it. Sadly, EQN isn't going to give them any sense of EQ in the slightest.
EQ had a winning formula. It wasn't perfect by any stretch but no game since then has captured those winning EQ elements in a new setting or built on/improved what EQ acomplished IMO. I would have much rather seen them return to their roots and try to recapture what made EQ great but in a modern MMO then come up with gimmicks. Not saying what they are doing now are gimmicks but until we see a lot more info that's what it looks like.
The only thing that question tells me is that EQNext is going to be a full themepark MMO with a LFDungeons, in turn it means that they lied about the game having no instances, limited fast travel and not being for the mass (said by Georgeson a bit before the August reveal in an interview).
I'm starting to think that the August reveals was just them trying to get the more hardcore crowd that is starving for a game to spread the hype online than do a 180 degree turn in marketing to show the full glory of their WoW-clone with gimmicky voxel and AI.
Your first mistake was taking anything Georgeson said at face value this early on. He's a car salesman/marketing person and you should take anything he says with a grain of salt IMO.
People keep saying they want something new but nobody really knows what that would be when they say that. Ever since EQ2 came out I have been saying the next EQ game should essentially do a remake of EQ1 but with modern graphics/UI, a larger more detailed/interactive world and maybe a few tweaks to the hardcore elements to make it more accessible. Then I get excited to hear about EQN and how it's going to be a "re-imagining" of EQ1. However, the more I hear the more it sounds nothing like EQ at all which is a shame.
There is a huge base of EQ players that would love to return to the old Norrath and I know many people that never got the chance to play EQ back in it's heyday but would have liked to experience it. Sadly, EQN isn't going to give them any sense of EQ in the slightest.
EQ had a winning formula. It wasn't perfect by any stretch but no game since then has captured those winning EQ elements in a new setting or built on/improved what EQ acomplished IMO. I would have much rather seen them return to their roots and try to recapture what made EQ great but in a modern MMO then come up with gimmicks. Not saying what they are doing now are gimmicks but until we see a lot more info that's what it looks like.
Fortunately (unfortunately?) I've seen Dave's performance firsthand since he was brought on board from FreeRealms to monetize and simplify EQ and EQ2. You are absolutely correct. He is a highly charismatic salesman and his pitches make you really believe what he is trying to push forward.
Think critically of what he says. Take into context his reputation, knowing that he has had his paws on EQN's newest build from the beginning. Wait and see, and don't believe his hype.
The only thing that question tells me is that EQNext is going to be a full themepark MMO with a LFDungeons, in turn it means that they lied about the game having no instances, limited fast travel and not being for the mass (said by Georgeson a bit before the August reveal in an interview).
I'm starting to think that the August reveals was just them trying to get the more hardcore crowd that is starving for a game to spread the hype online than do a 180 degree turn in marketing to show the full glory of their WoW-clone with gimmicky voxel and AI.
Your first mistake was taking anything Georgeson said at face value this early on. He's a car salesman/marketing person and you should take anything he says with a grain of salt IMO.
People keep saying they want something new but nobody really knows what that would be when they say that. Ever since EQ2 came out I have been saying the next EQ game should essentially do a remake of EQ1 but with modern graphics/UI, a larger more detailed/interactive world and maybe a few tweaks to the hardcore elements to make it more accessible. Then I get excited to hear about EQN and how it's going to be a "re-imagining" of EQ1. However, the more I hear the more it sounds nothing like EQ at all which is a shame.
There is a huge base of EQ players that would love to return to the old Norrath and I know many people that never got the chance to play EQ back in it's heyday but would have liked to experience it. Sadly, EQN isn't going to give them any sense of EQ in the slightest.
EQ had a winning formula. It wasn't perfect by any stretch but no game since then has captured those winning EQ elements in a new setting or built on/improved what EQ acomplished IMO. I would have much rather seen them return to their roots and try to recapture what made EQ great but in a modern MMO then come up with gimmicks. Not saying what they are doing now are gimmicks but until we see a lot more info that's what it looks like.
Fortunately (unfortunately?) I've seen Dave's performance firsthand since he was brought on board from FreeRealms to monetize and simplify EQ and EQ2. You are absolutely correct. He is a highly charismatic salesman and his pitches make you really believe what he is trying to push forward.
Think critically of what he says. Take into context his reputation, knowing that he has had his paws on EQN's newest build from the beginning. Wait and see, and don't believe his hype.
I was playing EQ2 at the time as well. The game was pretty good IMO but needed some work. Long standing bugs needed to be fixed. Huge class balance issues needed fixing or even acknowledging. What did Georgeson do instead when he came onboard? Fired the most popular content creators and spent all their time/resources on monetizing the game for F2P. That's when I quit. The fact that he has been involved from the start on EQN isn't encouraging to me.
I was playing EQ2 at the time as well. The game was pretty good IMO but needed some work. Long standing bugs needed to be fixed. Huge class balance issues needed fixing or even acknowledging. What did Georgeson do instead when he came onboard? Fired the most popular content creators and spent all their time/resources on monetizing the game for F2P. That's when I quit. The fact that he has been involved from the start on EQN isn't encouraging to me.
odd trivia - Georgeson worked on the SSI game, Pools of Darkness
Regardless of how anyone votes, they will probably go with option "B".
EQN is being designed into a console game and would need to be extremely simple, have an intuitive interface, and be very casual (just like the rest of the features this game offers).
Bleh,...this is so not what I'd want from a new EQ game.
How about a "None of the above" answer? With a place to comment, because I choose none of the pre-made, leading you to answer the way they want you to answers.
I prefer grouping where people actually stick together, good or bad until the end. This queueing system was kinda nice at start, but it leaves you empty and encourages a solo play mentality. Most of the random pug queues I have encountered has been a quick dash to the end boss, with no one even chatting. Not much of a group experience.
i want instanced dungeons to scale depending on my group size, so thus I can solo the dungeon or get a full group and get more mobs to fight and more bosses.
WTF kind of options were they? How many for a 'small group' do they mean? I bet its 4 or less.This game is so aimed at casuals in every single conceivable way it sickens me how far down MMORPG have fallen.Anyway group may as well fucking mean 1 because yeah we know its all DPS check dodge classes game.
These players will fuck off and leave the game after less than 1 month anyway for the next 'big thing' that doesn't exist anyway and never will because of casualization of the genre where you do fuck all but make pies and underpants and walk around a bit and kill 7 mobs to get max level
Well at least I still thank SOE for EQ2,the best MMORPG ever made or ever will be made. Casuals have fucked up the genre,yes they make more $$$£££ but they make the games shallow that a 5 year old can master with your 1 hotbar 4 buttons with 4 passive lazy ass skills.Rant over and I will never comment on this "game" again.
The only thing that question tells me is that EQNext is going to be a full themepark MMO with a LFDungeons, in turn it means that they lied about the game having no instances, limited fast travel and not being for the mass (said by Georgeson a bit before the August reveal in an interview).
I'm starting to think that the August reveals was just them trying to get the more hardcore crowd that is starving for a game to spread the hype online than do a 180 degree turn in marketing to show the full glory of their WoW-clone with gimmicky voxel and AI.
Originally posted by Ecoces i want instanced dungeons to scale depending on my group size, so thus I can solo the dungeon or get a full group and get more mobs to fight and more bosses.
How about instead we focus on having an actual virtual world with no instancing, and leave the solo and group play to the singleplayer games with COOP?
The reason for this, is because it gives players more control over their grouping preferences. Option B just randomizes players, which could be a problem if there's no hard trinity in EQN.
EQnext is just a shamble. A lie wrapped in a legendary name. I won't touch this game at all but I will comment on it and prove what I have been saying all along.
to each their own
but i think it's healthier to move on from a game you have no interest in playing
The reason for this, is because it gives players more control over their grouping preferences. Option B just randomizes players, which could be a problem if there's no hard trinity in EQN.
i didn't like the matchmaker choices but i chose C as the lesser evil
reading the Dev responses, they seem split on matchmakers (3 like it, 3 are wary)
I agree with Georgeson -
David Georgeson
I haven't had much fun with matching systems. Players tend to play dungeon and disperse. No connections. Prefer friends.
Seems the majority of the posters on the EQN forums dont want to see a automatic LFG system reading thought the posts and looking at which ones have likes and dislikes. Which i have to agree with them, automatic system especialy those cross server ones are realy bad for the game community.
Originally posted by DamonVile Why would anyone not pick B ?
Because they have a clue about what makes a good game? A and C both work ok for me, B pretty much ruins games.
So a and c work for you but having a choice between a or c ruins a game for you. makes sense I guess...
I found this puzzling at first, then I went back and read the choices again and realized that B is not a combination of A and C.
B contains the concept of the game randomly matching people in groups while C talks about the game matching people based on their preferences and content needs.
Random anything in terms of matching players hasn't really been something I've enjoyed in MMO's so far, right now I pretty much am a person who only groups when the A scenario is in effect, so like Nadia said, none of the choices are really one I would favor.
Not sure why they didn't provide an option to form our own small groups, or provide a matching service based on preferences/content needs. That's the way to go in my opinion.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Ecoces i want instanced dungeons to scale depending on my group size, so thus I can solo the dungeon or get a full group and get more mobs to fight and more bosses.
How about instead we focus on having an actual virtual world with no instancing, and leave the solo and group play to the singleplayer games with COOP?
Thats what Next is really going to be. A single payer coop lobby shooter.
I hope EQN will be completely soloable. And I say this as someone who always grouped in MMOs. But that was in the past. Players have changed. The meaning of groups has changed. Not my style anymore.
Originally posted by Anthur I hope EQN will be completely soloable. And I say this as someone who always grouped in MMOs. But that was in the past. Players have changed. The meaning of groups has changed. Not my style anymore.
I feel random matchmaking has led to the degradation of grouping quality. When players can be randomly grouped into parties, it removes the accountability for their behavior. I feel this has led to the quality of social behavior we currently experience in large scale MMOs.
The reason EVE works so well is that it's social situation is conductive to personal accountability. If you decide to alienate others with your behavior, you will be very hard pressed to advance at a reasonable pace.
This is just my opinion, and not factual, so please do not flame. I will not respond to any criticism that is neither constructive nor warrented.
I see this sentiment a lot and usually it's from players that started back with UO and original EQ. The huge misconception here is that the accountability that you saw taking place in those games was due to having to form groups and that somehow the main factor that changed that was dungeon queues and instancing. This is wrong.
What happened was; populations grew. EQ had accountability (for the most part) but that was only due to the fact that there weren't that many people that *could* play it. Gaming machines were expensive and even internet access was inconsistent and/or prohibitive for a lot of people, ESPECIALLY with the amount of time you needed to stay connected in EQ essentially tying up your phone line at that time.
We can wish for the days of accountability, community, and all those other things that were more easily attainable through a smaller player-base but it seems flawed to think that somehow forcing inconvenience will change the other factors. Even without dungeon queues you will still have a large player-base and a fair amount of anonymity.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Personally I wouldn't pick B because can't stand random queing a dungeon to be grouped with shitheads I don't know who just speed run a dungeon and don't give a flying ballsack about me or whoever else is in the group. It's nice to build a relationship with players in the game whether just friends, alliance, or guild and play the content together.
However, I see the appeal to people for random que. Mostly those who don't have patience to do the above, or the skills to do the above. Either or there is a preference.
I would like to just not see a random finder in the game at all, but doubt that will happen!
Originally posted by Arskaaa "when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".
Comments
Your first mistake was taking anything Georgeson said at face value this early on. He's a car salesman/marketing person and you should take anything he says with a grain of salt IMO.
People keep saying they want something new but nobody really knows what that would be when they say that. Ever since EQ2 came out I have been saying the next EQ game should essentially do a remake of EQ1 but with modern graphics/UI, a larger more detailed/interactive world and maybe a few tweaks to the hardcore elements to make it more accessible. Then I get excited to hear about EQN and how it's going to be a "re-imagining" of EQ1. However, the more I hear the more it sounds nothing like EQ at all which is a shame.
There is a huge base of EQ players that would love to return to the old Norrath and I know many people that never got the chance to play EQ back in it's heyday but would have liked to experience it. Sadly, EQN isn't going to give them any sense of EQ in the slightest.
EQ had a winning formula. It wasn't perfect by any stretch but no game since then has captured those winning EQ elements in a new setting or built on/improved what EQ acomplished IMO. I would have much rather seen them return to their roots and try to recapture what made EQ great but in a modern MMO then come up with gimmicks. Not saying what they are doing now are gimmicks but until we see a lot more info that's what it looks like.
Fortunately (unfortunately?) I've seen Dave's performance firsthand since he was brought on board from FreeRealms to monetize and simplify EQ and EQ2. You are absolutely correct. He is a highly charismatic salesman and his pitches make you really believe what he is trying to push forward.
Think critically of what he says. Take into context his reputation, knowing that he has had his paws on EQN's newest build from the beginning. Wait and see, and don't believe his hype.
I will
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/19/soe-live-2012-smedley-says-eqnext-is-largest-sandbox-style-mmo/
EQ2 fan sites
I was playing EQ2 at the time as well. The game was pretty good IMO but needed some work. Long standing bugs needed to be fixed. Huge class balance issues needed fixing or even acknowledging. What did Georgeson do instead when he came onboard? Fired the most popular content creators and spent all their time/resources on monetizing the game for F2P. That's when I quit. The fact that he has been involved from the start on EQN isn't encouraging to me.
odd trivia - Georgeson worked on the SSI game, Pools of Darkness
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/by_year/developerId,2352/
when did he step into EQ2? after Hartsman left w Kunark launch in Dec 2007?
http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/16077
found it, April 2010
ZAM Interviews New EQ2 Producer, Dave Georgeson
http://eq2.zam.com/story.html?story=22148
EQ2 fan sites
Bleh,...this is so not what I'd want from a new EQ game.
maybe I'm just old
Because they have a clue about what makes a good game? A and C both work ok for me, B pretty much ruins games.
So a and c work for you but having a choice between a or c ruins a game for you. makes sense I guess...
What a bunch of choices these are!!
How about a "None of the above" answer? With a place to comment, because I choose none of the pre-made, leading you to answer the way they want you to answers.
I prefer grouping where people actually stick together, good or bad until the end. This queueing system was kinda nice at start, but it leaves you empty and encourages a solo play mentality. Most of the random pug queues I have encountered has been a quick dash to the end boss, with no one even chatting. Not much of a group experience.
WTF kind of options were they? How many for a 'small group' do they mean? I bet its 4 or less.This game is so aimed at casuals in every single conceivable way it sickens me how far down MMORPG have fallen.Anyway group may as well fucking mean 1 because yeah we know its all DPS check dodge classes game.
These players will fuck off and leave the game after less than 1 month anyway for the next 'big thing' that doesn't exist anyway and never will because of casualization of the genre where you do fuck all but make pies and underpants and walk around a bit and kill 7 mobs to get max level
Well at least I still thank SOE for EQ2,the best MMORPG ever made or ever will be made. Casuals have fucked up the genre,yes they make more $$$£££ but they make the games shallow that a 5 year old can master with your 1 hotbar 4 buttons with 4 passive lazy ass skills.Rant over and I will never comment on this "game" again.
Pretty much.
How about instead we focus on having an actual virtual world with no instancing, and leave the solo and group play to the singleplayer games with COOP?
Option C is better.
The reason for this, is because it gives players more control over their grouping preferences. Option B just randomizes players, which could be a problem if there's no hard trinity in EQN.
to each their own
but i think it's healthier to move on from a game you have no interest in playing
EQ2 fan sites
i didn't like the matchmaker choices but i chose C as the lesser evil
reading the Dev responses, they seem split on matchmakers (3 like it, 3 are wary)
I agree with Georgeson -
David Georgeson
I haven't had much fun with matching systems. Players tend to play dungeon and disperse. No connections. Prefer friends.
EQ2 fan sites
I found this puzzling at first, then I went back and read the choices again and realized that B is not a combination of A and C.
B contains the concept of the game randomly matching people in groups while C talks about the game matching people based on their preferences and content needs.
Random anything in terms of matching players hasn't really been something I've enjoyed in MMO's so far, right now I pretty much am a person who only groups when the A scenario is in effect, so like Nadia said, none of the choices are really one I would favor.
Not sure why they didn't provide an option to form our own small groups, or provide a matching service based on preferences/content needs. That's the way to go in my opinion.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Thats what Next is really going to be. A single payer coop lobby shooter.
Uhm, what does B mean... is the "random" a sort of dungeon finder tool, then no.
If it is "i venture in the wilderness, and meet these strangers whom i need to team up with to defeat the evil Gnoll Boss", then yes fuck yes!
I see this sentiment a lot and usually it's from players that started back with UO and original EQ. The huge misconception here is that the accountability that you saw taking place in those games was due to having to form groups and that somehow the main factor that changed that was dungeon queues and instancing. This is wrong.
What happened was; populations grew. EQ had accountability (for the most part) but that was only due to the fact that there weren't that many people that *could* play it. Gaming machines were expensive and even internet access was inconsistent and/or prohibitive for a lot of people, ESPECIALLY with the amount of time you needed to stay connected in EQ essentially tying up your phone line at that time.
We can wish for the days of accountability, community, and all those other things that were more easily attainable through a smaller player-base but it seems flawed to think that somehow forcing inconvenience will change the other factors. Even without dungeon queues you will still have a large player-base and a fair amount of anonymity.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Personally I wouldn't pick B because can't stand random queing a dungeon to be grouped with shitheads I don't know who just speed run a dungeon and don't give a flying ballsack about me or whoever else is in the group. It's nice to build a relationship with players in the game whether just friends, alliance, or guild and play the content together.
However, I see the appeal to people for random que. Mostly those who don't have patience to do the above, or the skills to do the above. Either or there is a preference.
I would like to just not see a random finder in the game at all, but doubt that will happen!
Originally posted by Arskaaa
"when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".
I'm with you
EQ2 fan sites