Have People already forgotten about how EverQuest 2 was just that at launch?
- Massive Death XP penalties, including shared debt XP when running in Groups/Dungeons.
- Forced grouping all over. There was very little solo content. Most was Group oriented.
- High Level of Challenge / difficulty.
All stuff that worked against EQ2 right off the bat and made them loose subs faster than you can count.
Especially the Whole shared debt XP turned into a debacle that was extremely toxic against the community.
It was terrible. One unlucky PUG Group and you spend several hours grinding your debt XP away afterwards. An entire night gaming wasted.
The result was that People ended up on blacklists left and right for making a mistake. People scared to Group. And with the vast majority of content being Group content, this created a CATCH22 situation that frustrated people into unsubbing.
People just don't want these kind of games anymore today. They want to play games for fun, not as second job with fetish like punishment systems.
I am all for more Challenge and Group oriented content. But Challenge / difficulty doesn't have to translate in heavy punishment systems.
Again, as im trying to seperate simple speculation from fact here; theres no way you can prove that EQ2 did poorly in sales because of forced grouping. Theres simply no evidence to prove that alone or even mixed with harsh death penaltys were the reason for its failings. As a typical phrase in Research methods states: Correlation does not prove causation.
What about the extremely high system specs? WoW's main capital was gained from lower end PC's being able to run the game without hinderance from latency issues. EQ2 was made for a much more specified gaming computer, you couldnt just load it up on your moms laptop like WoW.
Again its merely speculation, its very difficult to damn an entire system of gameplay the existed in an entire phase of gaming history from one failed game that had multiple other issues.
Have People already forgotten about how EverQuest 2 was just that at launch?
- Massive Death XP penalties, including shared debt XP when running in Groups/Dungeons.
- Forced grouping all over. There was very little solo content. Most was Group oriented.
- High Level of Challenge / difficulty.
All stuff that worked against EQ2 right off the bat and made them loose subs faster than you can count.
Especially the Whole shared debt XP turned into a debacle that was extremely toxic against the community.
It was terrible. One unlucky PUG Group and you spend several hours grinding your debt XP away afterwards. An entire night gaming wasted.
The result was that People ended up on blacklists left and right for making a mistake. People scared to Group. And with the vast majority of content being Group content, this created a CATCH22 situation that frustrated people into unsubbing.
People just don't want these kind of games anymore today. They want to play games for fun, not as second job with fetish like punishment systems.
I am all for more Challenge and Group oriented content. But Challenge / difficulty doesn't have to translate in heavy punishment systems.
Again, as im trying to seperate simple speculation from fact here; theres no way you can prove that EQ2 did poorly in sales because of forced grouping. Theres simply no evidence to prove that alone or even mixed with harsh death penaltys were the reason for its failings. As a typical phrase in Research methods states: Correlation does not prove causation.
What about the extremely high system specs? WoW's main capital was gained from lower end PC's being able to run the game without hinderance from latency issues. EQ2 was made for a much more specified gaming computer, you couldnt just load it up on your moms laptop like WoW.
Again its merely speculation, its very difficult to damn an entire system of gameplay the existed in an entire phase of gaming history from one failed game that had multiple other issues.
The high system specs were only if you wanted to run everything on Max settings.
On medium settings the game ran just fine on the average system and still looked absolutely fantastic for it's time back then.
I was on a tight budget back then and definitely didn't have a high end system, but had no trouble running EQ2 with tweaked settings.
The harshness of EverQuest 2 at launch was ofcourse not the only thing that drove People away, but it was a major contribution to it.
The "Shared Debt XP" was one of the first things they got rid off and thank goodness for that. As the individual debt XP and corpse runs (forgot about that last one) was already harsh enough.
I absolutely loved the game and EverQuest 2 is still one of my all time favorite MMO's I keep coming back too. I have played it on and off for years since launch. I am just a year behind the maximum veteran reward. From which I played almost 2 to 3 years straight during EverQuest 2's peak days around the "Echoes of Faydwer" and "Rise of Kunark" expansions. Which really turned the game around and brought back a lot of players, boosting subscriptions beyond the 350k again.
It's a fantastic game and if, with EverQuest Next, they can find a good middle ground between EQ1 and EQ2, putting the strength of both games in it, without harsh penalty systems. They might have a winner again.
Have People already forgotten about how EverQuest 2 was just that at launch?
- Massive Death XP penalties, including shared debt XP when running in Groups/Dungeons.
- Forced grouping all over. There was very little solo content. Most was Group oriented.
- High Level of Challenge / difficulty.
All stuff that worked against EQ2 right off the bat and made them loose subs faster than you can count.
Especially the Whole shared debt XP turned into a debacle that was extremely toxic against the community.
It was terrible. One unlucky PUG Group and you spend several hours grinding your debt XP away afterwards. An entire night gaming wasted.
The result was that People ended up on blacklists left and right for making a mistake. People scared to Group. And with the vast majority of content being Group content, this created a CATCH22 situation that frustrated people into unsubbing.
People just don't want these kind of games anymore today. They want to play games for fun, not as second job with fetish like punishment systems.
I am all for more Challenge and Group oriented content. But Challenge / difficulty doesn't have to translate in heavy punishment systems.
Again, as im trying to seperate simple speculation from fact here; theres no way you can prove that EQ2 did poorly in sales because of forced grouping. Theres simply no evidence to prove that alone or even mixed with harsh death penaltys were the reason for its failings. As a typical phrase in Research methods states: Correlation does not prove causation.
What about the extremely high system specs? WoW's main capital was gained from lower end PC's being able to run the game without hinderance from latency issues. EQ2 was made for a much more specified gaming computer, you couldnt just load it up on your moms laptop like WoW.
Again its merely speculation, its very difficult to damn an entire system of gameplay the existed in an entire phase of gaming history from one failed game that had multiple other issues.
The high system specs were only if you wanted to run everything on Max settings.
On medium settings the game ran just fine on the average system and still looked absolutely fantastic for it's time back then.
I was on a tight budget back then and definitely didn't have a high end system, but had no trouble running EQ2 with tweaked settings.
The harshness of EverQuest 2 at launch was ofcourse not the only thing that drove People away, but it was a major contribution to it.
The "Shared Debt XP" was one of the first things they got rid off and thank goodness for that. As the individual debt XP and corpse runs (forgot about that last one) was already harsh enough.
I absolutely loved the game and EverQuest 2 is still one of my all time favorite MMO's I keep coming back too. I have played it on and off for years since launch. I am just a year behind the maximum veteran reward. From which I played almost 2 to 3 years straight during EverQuest 2's peak days around the "Echoes of Faydwer" and "Rise of Kunark" expansions. Which really turned the game around and brought back a lot of players, boosting subscriptions beyond the 350k again.
It's a fantastic game and if, with EverQuest Next, they can find a good middle ground between EQ1 and EQ2, putting the strength of both games in it, without harsh penalty systems. They might have a winner again.
Time will tell.
EQ2 had a horrible launch. EQ2 was not even close to what EQ1 was. Gameplay wise, it didn't have the freedom of the original. That hurt it. The performance issue you mention was a huge issue as well. The game literally ran like crap, and looked like crap when you did get it to run fairly well. And after watching all those incredible videos of how insane the game looked for that day and time, it hurt very bad to have to run it at such low settings. Combine that with the fact that this other new game just came out, WoW, and it was totally doomed.
Leading up to EQ2's release, I never even looked at WoW. I didn't care a thing for it. My excitement was ALL on EQ2. It was heartbreaking to see that it didn't live up to what I imagined when I finally did play the beta, and day 1 release. But having tried WoW's open beta for a couple days, it ran so smooth, and it was fun as hell. I was converted, entirely.
With all of that said, I get your point. You are trying to say, "look, we did get a sequel to EQ. It was EQ2, and it flopped by comparison." And you are right. The issue is, and I have stated this before in another thread, was that most people realized there was this new way to play these games. Quests. Minimaps. No xp debt. Freedom, but "guided" freedom. It was awesome for a while. It sucked in millions of newer mmo players. This is what EQ2 strived to become as well, and is to this day. That whole "sequel" thing never happened. Vanguard also went this route, as it was obvious that they had to compete with WoW.
But you know what? It has become old. Stale. Yes, I still find it fun to run around the latest theme-park, hold-your-hand mmo (like Wildstar that I'm currently playing). But is that what we really want? Do we really? I think the answer is "NO." I think that many who played the original EQ look back and realize that with all the pains that game had, the joy it gave totally outweighed it. I proved this to myself while playing P99. I realized full well that it isn't just "rose-colored glasses". The simple fact is the game just "had it". It had the true magic and wonder. A world, while dead and boring pretty much, that felt open to explore, and dangerous to cross.
It's almost like games recently have tried to do the complete opposite of what made EQ so great. Do any of you realize just how many spells EQ had?? They had to resort to using menus to traverse your spellbook because it was so huge. And these spells aren't just for combat either. They had TONS of utility as well. And now games are giving us 5 spells to play with (GW2 and what WoW has shamefully become). Our freedoms have been ripped away by these new mmos. They don't want to give you freedom, they want to have total and complete control over you and your choices, all while taking your money. It just sucks.
We didn't know that the new changes to mmos would cause them to suck forever. We didn't realize how good we had it back then with EQ1. Well, for me, I want it back. I was deceived into thinking that these new "features" would make the game more fun because it made things easier (quest markers, objective circles in maps, etc.). I'm not too stubborn to admit when I am wrong. And I was WRONG in thinking the "new mmo" was the answer to everything, that the "WoW-way" was how we all should be playing mmos. I was wrong, and I change my mind. I want another game like EQ1 with it's class interdependency and freedoms. It's unforgiving nature. I want the challenge, and rewards to go with it.
EQ2 seemed to have a lot of issues that plague modern day MMOs. It didn't have to do with difficulty so much as artificial restrictions IMO.
Most areas really forced you into grouping. I guess that is OK in a way, but to me it wasn't very enjoyable. I would walk out of a city and there were groups of 20 mobs sitting there. Even small groups were almost impossible to break apart.
Any useful combat buff seemed to have been nerfed and many of them dropped all together in combat like Spirit of the Wolf.
The linked experience loss has been mentioned and I forgot about that. It was pretty horrible.
To me this and WoW were the start of MMOs that didn't allow any player creativity. Actually EQ1 was the one that did that as they started nerfing a lot of the freedoms in that game as well. Things like kiting were starting to be heavily nerfed. Buffs were being nerfed. Being able to trade items was nerfed. Classes were being nerfed left and right. Instances were introduced in Lost Dungeons of Norrath. Part of this is because of how players abused the freedom and part is just overkill on the developers part. EQ had it's down sides like experience gain taking to long and there were a lot of static spawns. Camping was rampant as mentioned by others. I would like to see the freedoms EQ offered, but a game that more accurately implemented a sense of adventure for the players. I don't believe death penalties are big deal if items have less value and leveling/skilling up doesn't take so long.
I think it would be good to come up with a list of the freedoms that were offered by EQ to players and what they did with them. Those could then be taken into another game.
Furthermore.. Most zones didn't have that many camps as you like to portray EQ as having.. Indoor zones had mostly static spawns, but then what game DOESN'T? They ALL do.. you can't have 200 mobs walking around randomly inside a fort.. However the outdoor zones, were mostly roaming mobs...... "SG to docks" And just because players learned to pull mobs to safe areas to fight, doesn't make it a camp.. it's called smart play, because the last thing you needed in a Hill Giant fight was adds .. Adds in EQ would easily KILL you.. hence "TRAINSSSSSSSSS".. Stuff happens..
Diablo 3
Marvel Heroes
.. and if you play STO stories .. it is a one-time play, so you don't have to camp the SAME spawn spot again and again. You kill them once, and you are done.
To me this and WoW were the start of MMOs that didn't allow any player creativity.
Entertainment products should just entertain. Player "creativity"? I haven't seen any (except in games where there are tools to make player missions).
Don't tell me grouping and drama is creative.
I don't think you read any of my posts. I went through a lot of the things that were player invented in EQ. Some were good and some were bad depending on what you liked.
Kiting/Charm Kiting/Quad Kiting/Fear Kiting - It wasn't intended, but players were able to do it solo. (not intended)
Taxi Rides - People sold ports for in game money. (not intended)
Selling/Giving buffs - Players sold buffs for money and gave them away for free to low levels in order to help them out. (not intended)
Trading Areas - There were areas of the game where people grouped up spontaneously to form large trade bazaars. (not intended)
Holy Trinity - The holy trinity didn't exist. It was just found that this was the most effective means to group in most cases. (not intended)
Corpse pulling - Rogues would pull corpses for you if you died in a nasty place. (not intended)
Raiding - Raiding wasn't part of the original game. It was created by the players. (not intended)
Camping/Camp Checks - This was invented by the players. You could argue this is a bad thing for the game. Many seemed to enjoy it. I don't believe camping is the way to play an adventure game myself. Still it was something the players had the freedom to do. They didn't have to camp. They could have just kept on the move while killing, exploring dungeons, going to different areas, and never staying stationary. It was just the most effective way to level (found by the player base)(but wasn't intended).
Pulling - This was not an intended mechanic, but people found it a safe way to level up. You had to be good at lulling/feign death/mezz/snare to pull well. It was a difficult job as you could easily get adds. (not intended)
Areas weren't originally segregated off for solo/group/raid/pvp. There was just group, but it was setup in a such a that is was possible for some classes to solo, but not easily. It made the world feel less artificial to me.
I'm sure I'm missing some things, but to me it had a lot more freedom then any of the theme parks you see today. To me the freedom them offer is all artificial. There really isn't anything you can do that isn't intended by the developer.
I think most of those things were actually intended.I have trouble believing any intelligent devwould not think that giving dungeons charm mez slow or fear would nut help them kill a mob. Same with pulling. That people would get together to sell wad intended. They just didn't know where it would happen our if it would be one or several places.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think most of those things were actually intended.I have trouble believing any intelligent devwould not think that giving dungeons charm mez slow or fear would nut help them kill a mob. Same with pulling. That people would get together to sell wad intended. They just didn't know where it would happen our if it would be one or several places.
Obviously some of those things were intended for a use, but in the cases I listed they weren't intended for that purpose. They didn't expect people to sell ports/buffs for cash. It was just something to help people get around. They didn't expect people to use snare, fear, charm, and things of that nature for kiting mobs. Kiting wasn't intended. Those were all things to help when grouping with other people. Yes people were intended to trade with one another, but not to form up large bazaar like consortiums on their own. The holy trinity and solo classes weren't intended. They were created via the player base. All the descriptions that you see in modern EQ came from the players. They weren't there originally when picking a class. You were generally expected to group in the game period. Soloing was an unintended thing.
To me this and WoW were the start of MMOs that didn't allow any player creativity.
Entertainment products should just entertain. Player "creativity"? I haven't seen any (except in games where there are tools to make player missions).
Don't tell me grouping and drama is creative.
I don't think you read any of my posts. I went through a lot of the things that were player invented in EQ. Some were good and some were bad depending on what you liked.
Kiting/Charm Kiting/Quad Kiting/Fear Kiting - It wasn't intended, but players were able to do it solo. (not intended)
Taxi Rides - People sold ports for in game money. (not intended)
Selling/Giving buffs - Players sold buffs for money and gave them away for free to low levels in order to help them out. (not intended)
Trading Areas - There were areas of the game where people grouped up spontaneously to form large trade bazaars. (not intended)
Holy Trinity - The holy trinity didn't exist. It was just found that this was the most effective means to group in most cases. (not intended)
Corpse pulling - Rogues would pull corpses for you if you died in a nasty place. (not intended)
Raiding - Raiding wasn't part of the original game. It was created by the players. (not intended)
Camping/Camp Checks - This was invented by the players. You could argue this is a bad thing for the game. Many seemed to enjoy it. I don't believe camping is the way to play an adventure game myself. Still it was something the players had the freedom to do. They didn't have to camp. They could have just kept on the move while killing, exploring dungeons, going to different areas, and never staying stationary. It was just the most effective way to level (found by the player base)(but wasn't intended).
Pulling - This was not an intended mechanic, but people found it a safe way to level up. You had to be good at lulling/feign death/mezz/snare to pull well. It was a difficult job as you could easily get adds. (not intended)
Areas weren't originally segregated off for solo/group/raid/pvp. There was just group, but it was setup in a such a that is was possible for some classes to solo, but not easily. It made the world feel less artificial to me.
I'm sure I'm missing some things, but to me it had a lot more freedom then any of the theme parks you see today. To me the freedom them offer is all artificial. There really isn't anything you can do that isn't intended by the developer.
And therein lies the bottom line of Everquest Original. The utility was given to the players, and the players made use of it through creativity. The terms "snare", "root", "fear" that we still use today stemmed from the spells given to certain classes in EQ, and the use of them was originally designed then.
But now, devs know the potential of people's imaginations, and they take GREAT measures to squash their creativity, in terms of "balance". Even in current EQ you can't do some of the things you use to, like bard swarm kiting. Was it overpowered? Yes it was. Was it risky? Yes, one tiny mistake, and there was no saving you, instant death. But whiners whine, and devs listen, and in come the nerfs.
WoW is the perfect example of stifled creativity. Remember the open world pvp in Southshore? How much fun it was? Devs had to put a stop to it because it ruined the questing that they intended players to participate in for that area. I remember being a rogue in Scarlet Monestary, and was able to stealth through the entire zone and loot chests. The way I understood it, it was a perk of the class. It was creative on my part to discover/learn how to accomplish such a task, for it still had risk. Get caught, and you were going to die, period. But yeah, the devs put a stop to that as well.
Developers, now, want FULL control of their games and the people playing their games. If it wasn't designed for, or intended, they will destroy it. They want to be the Gods of their created world. And you are the servants, the worshipers. Ever listen to some of the WoW devs? Case in point. Arrogant, selfish, unappreciative, dicks.
To me this and WoW were the start of MMOs that didn't allow any player creativity.
Entertainment products should just entertain. Player "creativity"? I haven't seen any (except in games where there are tools to make player missions).
Don't tell me grouping and drama is creative.
I don't think you read any of my posts. I went through a lot of the things that were player invented in EQ. Some were good and some were bad depending on what you liked.
Kiting/Charm Kiting/Quad Kiting/Fear Kiting - It wasn't intended, but players were able to do it solo. (not intended)
Taxi Rides - People sold ports for in game money. (not intended)
Selling/Giving buffs - Players sold buffs for money and gave them away for free to low levels in order to help them out. (not intended)
Trading Areas - There were areas of the game where people grouped up spontaneously to form large trade bazaars. (not intended)
Holy Trinity - The holy trinity didn't exist. It was just found that this was the most effective means to group in most cases. (not intended)
Corpse pulling - Rogues would pull corpses for you if you died in a nasty place. (not intended)
Raiding - Raiding wasn't part of the original game. It was created by the players. (not intended)
Camping/Camp Checks - This was invented by the players. You could argue this is a bad thing for the game. Many seemed to enjoy it. I don't believe camping is the way to play an adventure game myself. Still it was something the players had the freedom to do. They didn't have to camp. They could have just kept on the move while killing, exploring dungeons, going to different areas, and never staying stationary. It was just the most effective way to level (found by the player base)(but wasn't intended).
Pulling - This was not an intended mechanic, but people found it a safe way to level up. You had to be good at lulling/feign death/mezz/snare to pull well. It was a difficult job as you could easily get adds. (not intended)
Areas weren't originally segregated off for solo/group/raid/pvp. There was just group, but it was setup in a such a that is was possible for some classes to solo, but not easily. It made the world feel less artificial to me.
I'm sure I'm missing some things, but to me it had a lot more freedom then any of the theme parks you see today. To me the freedom them offer is all artificial. There really isn't anything you can do that isn't intended by the developer.
And therein lies the bottom line of Everquest Original. The utility was given to the players, and the players made use of it through creativity. The terms "snare", "root", "fear" that we still use today stemmed from the spells given to certain classes in EQ, and the use of them was originally designed then.
But now, devs know the potential of people's imaginations, and they take GREAT measures to squash their creativity, in terms of "balance". Even in current EQ you can't do some of the things you use to, like bard swarm kiting. Was it overpowered? Yes it was. Was it risky? Yes, one tiny mistake, and there was no saving you, instant death. But whiners whine, and devs listen, and in come the nerfs.
WoW is the perfect example of stifled creativity. Remember the open world pvp in Southshore? How much fun it was? Devs had to put a stop to it because it ruined the questing that they intended players to participate in for that area. I remember being a rogue in Scarlet Monestary, and was able to stealth through the entire zone and loot chests. The way I understood it, it was a perk of the class. It was creative on my part to discover/learn how to accomplish such a task, for it still had risk. Get caught, and you were going to die, period. But yeah, the devs put a stop to that as well.
Developers, now, want FULL control of their games and the people playing their games. If it wasn't designed for, or intended, they will destroy it. They want to be the Gods of their created world. And you are the servants, the worshipers. Ever listen to some of the WoW devs? Case in point. Arrogant, selfish, unappreciative, dicks.
Well at least someone gets what I'm saying. I think you had to play some of the first few MMOs to a lot to really get it. Even then I guess some people might not get it. They may not have seen those things as things that were invented by the player base. Personally I can't really play today's MMOs because I can't stand being pigeon holed into a certain way of playing. I do remember vanilla WoW having some unintended freedom of choice. I played a Paladin and it wasn't intended that they could take down elite group mobs solo by healing/mitigating damage almost indefinitely. That is long gone.
Furthermore.. Most zones didn't have that many camps as you like to portray EQ as having.. Indoor zones had mostly static spawns, but then what game DOESN'T? They ALL do.. you can't have 200 mobs walking around randomly inside a fort.. However the outdoor zones, were mostly roaming mobs...... "SG to docks" And just because players learned to pull mobs to safe areas to fight, doesn't make it a camp.. it's called smart play, because the last thing you needed in a Hill Giant fight was adds .. Adds in EQ would easily KILL you.. hence "TRAINSSSSSSSSS".. Stuff happens..
Diablo 3
Marvel Heroes
.. and if you play STO stories .. it is a one-time play, so you don't have to camp the SAME spawn spot again and again. You kill them once, and you are done.
Seriously dude.. You're comparing Diablo 3 to EQ? STO is just instance joke wanting to be a real MMORPG.. I'ts lobby based mostly, just like CS sourse or CoD..
Played early WoW... do not really get the stuff you guys are on about... the game was intended as a themepark and they made it thus, same with EQ granted back then things weren't so clear but even in the absence of WoW EQ would've become what it is today because that is what it is supposed to be like.
If you want creativity, if you want to bend the rules, if you want to see the lines and decide to walk outside them then games like EVE are where you go and every other type of game (from the PVP-centric to the PVE-centric ones) will inevitably degrade into certain predictable patterns but if you get a game which is equal parts PVE and PVP, neither side favored nor neglected and you get a wee bit lucky you will get a game where progression stops where you want it to and the stories (good, bad, loltastic, whatever) never stop. Never made a long term friend in WoW, GW1, GW2 or any other MMO... with EVE I have a group I run with and whom transcend the game (I've played DayZ with some of them, Fallen Earth with others, Hell we even used to do World of Tanks platoons back in the day). That is a game worth playing, not EQ, not WoW, not DFUW or MO but one that has a spot for all and a fuck to give about none of them, you make your game and you play it.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think most of those things were actually intended.I have trouble believing any intelligent devwould not think that giving dungeons charm mez slow or fear would nut help them kill a mob. Same with pulling. That people would get together to sell wad intended. They just didn't know where it would happen our if it would be one or several places.
Obviously some of those things were intended for a use, but in the cases I listed they weren't intended for that purpose. They didn't expect people to sell ports/buffs for cash. It was just something to help people get around. They didn't expect people to use snare, fear, charm, and things of that nature for kiting mobs. Kiting wasn't intended. Those were all things to help when grouping with other people. Yes people were intended to trade with one another, but not to form up large bazaar like consortiums on their own. The holy trinity and solo classes weren't intended. They were created via the player base. All the descriptions that you see in modern EQ came from the players. They weren't there originally when picking a class. You were generally expected to group in the game period. Soloing was an unintended thing.
You are giving the players too much credit and the devs too little. It's like giving someone a bike and then being suprised that they person decided to ride the bike. Anyone with a grasp of economics would have predicted them forming of trading areas. People with special, in-demand skils traded their services for cash like has been done since barter was invented. Spells meant to stop a mob from doing damage to a player, were used to kil the mobs without them being able to do damage to the players. The simple fact that a solo player could kill a mob and gain xp made solo classes possible. Even the holy trinity was entirely predictable since the mechanics have been used in video and tabletop games long before EQ.
The devs would have to have been naive and/or incompetent to not have predicted most of what happened. They would not have known how it shape up in the long run but in the short run most of the stuff was easy to foresee.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think most of those things were actually intended.I have trouble believing any intelligent devwould not think that giving dungeons charm mez slow or fear would nut help them kill a mob. Same with pulling. That people would get together to sell wad intended. They just didn't know where it would happen our if it would be one or several places.
Obviously some of those things were intended for a use, but in the cases I listed they weren't intended for that purpose. They didn't expect people to sell ports/buffs for cash. It was just something to help people get around. They didn't expect people to use snare, fear, charm, and things of that nature for kiting mobs. Kiting wasn't intended. Those were all things to help when grouping with other people. Yes people were intended to trade with one another, but not to form up large bazaar like consortiums on their own. The holy trinity and solo classes weren't intended. They were created via the player base. All the descriptions that you see in modern EQ came from the players. They weren't there originally when picking a class. You were generally expected to group in the game period. Soloing was an unintended thing.
You are giving the players too much credit and the devs too little. It's like giving someone a bike and then being suprised that they person decided to ride the bike. Anyone with a grasp of economics would have predicted them forming of trading areas. People with special, in-demand skils traded their services for cash like has been done since barter was invented. Spells meant to stop a mob from doing damage to a player, were used to kil the mobs without them being able to do damage to the players. The simple fact that a solo player could kill a mob and gain xp made solo classes possible. Even the holy trinity was entirely predictable since the mechanics have been used in video and tabletop games long before EQ.
The devs would have to have been naive and/or incompetent to not have predicted most of what happened. They would not have known how it shape up in the long run but in the short run most of the stuff was easy to foresee.
Actually it's more like giving someone a bike and then they started doing all kinds of crazy tricks with the bike or taking a scooter, breaking the handle off, and started to do crazy tricks on it (skateboard).
Actually the devs didn't anticipate any of what happened. It was pretty obvious as they tried to put a stop to a lot of it as the game progressed and even implemented things like the auction house.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think the most likely explanation is the wetter working exactly ad they planned. Root kill. Sell services... really really obvious stuff
However they changed it because how it looked on party was one thing. It's actual effect was another.
I believe you and most people don't realize that when games like UO and EQ came out not many people were playing video games. Online games were something very new. The developers didn't really know much of anything. They were just attempting to translate PnP experiences to an online game. They had no roadmap to follow and surely didn't think about any of the things people may take for granted today. A lot of things people take for granted in MMOs today were created by the players and then poorly implemented by the developers.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think most of those things were actually intended.I have trouble believing any intelligent devwould not think that giving dungeons charm mez slow or fear would nut help them kill a mob. Same with pulling. That people would get together to sell wad intended. They just didn't know where it would happen our if it would be one or several places.
Obviously some of those things were intended for a use, but in the cases I listed they weren't intended for that purpose. They didn't expect people to sell ports/buffs for cash. It was just something to help people get around. They didn't expect people to use snare, fear, charm, and things of that nature for kiting mobs. Kiting wasn't intended. Those were all things to help when grouping with other people. Yes people were intended to trade with one another, but not to form up large bazaar like consortiums on their own. The holy trinity and solo classes weren't intended. They were created via the player base. All the descriptions that you see in modern EQ came from the players. They weren't there originally when picking a class. You were generally expected to group in the game period. Soloing was an unintended thing.
You are giving the players too much credit and the devs too little. It's like giving someone a bike and then being suprised that they person decided to ride the bike. Anyone with a grasp of economics would have predicted them forming of trading areas. People with special, in-demand skils traded their services for cash like has been done since barter was invented. Spells meant to stop a mob from doing damage to a player, were used to kil the mobs without them being able to do damage to the players. The simple fact that a solo player could kill a mob and gain xp made solo classes possible. Even the holy trinity was entirely predictable since the mechanics have been used in video and tabletop games long before EQ.
The devs would have to have been naive and/or incompetent to not have predicted most of what happened. They would not have known how it shape up in the long run but in the short run most of the stuff was easy to foresee.
Actually it's more like giving someone a bike and then they started doing all kinds of crazy tricks with the bike or taking a scooter, breaking the handle off, and started to do crazy tricks on it (skateboard).
Actually the devs didn't anticipate any of what happened. It was pretty obvious as they tried to put a stop to a lot of it as the game progressed and even implemented things like the auction house.
In a themepark there is no creativity, there is merely exploitation... thus your skater analogy ends with this:
In a properly build sandbox there's a chance of averting such a fate but even so the amount of fizzled out sandboxes (too much control from the devs) or that pretty much derpxploded (too little control, EVE for whatever is worth manages a balance here) is great... it takes a right mix of developer intuition, player creativity and gameplay flexibility to get the spark required for a game to come alive.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I think most of those things were actually intended.I have trouble believing any intelligent devwould not think that giving dungeons charm mez slow or fear would nut help them kill a mob. Same with pulling. That people would get together to sell wad intended. They just didn't know where it would happen our if it would be one or several places.
Obviously some of those things were intended for a use, but in the cases I listed they weren't intended for that purpose. They didn't expect people to sell ports/buffs for cash. It was just something to help people get around. They didn't expect people to use snare, fear, charm, and things of that nature for kiting mobs. Kiting wasn't intended. Those were all things to help when grouping with other people. Yes people were intended to trade with one another, but not to form up large bazaar like consortiums on their own. The holy trinity and solo classes weren't intended. They were created via the player base. All the descriptions that you see in modern EQ came from the players. They weren't there originally when picking a class. You were generally expected to group in the game period. Soloing was an unintended thing.
You are giving the players too much credit and the devs too little. It's like giving someone a bike and then being suprised that they person decided to ride the bike. Anyone with a grasp of economics would have predicted them forming of trading areas. People with special, in-demand skils traded their services for cash like has been done since barter was invented. Spells meant to stop a mob from doing damage to a player, were used to kil the mobs without them being able to do damage to the players. The simple fact that a solo player could kill a mob and gain xp made solo classes possible. Even the holy trinity was entirely predictable since the mechanics have been used in video and tabletop games long before EQ.
The devs would have to have been naive and/or incompetent to not have predicted most of what happened. They would not have known how it shape up in the long run but in the short run most of the stuff was easy to foresee.
Actually it's more like giving someone a bike and then they started doing all kinds of crazy tricks with the bike or taking a scooter, breaking the handle off, and started to do crazy tricks on it (skateboard).
Actually the devs didn't anticipate any of what happened. It was pretty obvious as they tried to put a stop to a lot of it as the game progressed and even implemented things like the auction house.
In a themepark there is no creativity, there is merely exploitation... thus your skater analogy ends with this:
In a properly build sandbox there's a chance of averting such a fate but even so the amount of fizzled out sandboxes (too much control from the devs) or that pretty much derpxploded (too little control, EVE for whatever is worth manages a balance here) is great... it takes a right mix of developer intuition, player creativity and gameplay flexibility to get the spark required for a game to come alive.
That video makes no sense. A skateboard crashing into something? There are always bumps and bruises when trying something of that nature, but it's not really relevant to what I was talking about. I already listed many of the ways that the players were creative in EQ. I guess it is not a themepark in that case. Maybe it's not a sandbox, but it had lots of tools for being creative. For instance players came up with the idea in EQ of rolling for loot. That was not an intended mechanic. This was again stolen by the developers and made into a non interactive experience.
Comments
Again, as im trying to seperate simple speculation from fact here; theres no way you can prove that EQ2 did poorly in sales because of forced grouping. Theres simply no evidence to prove that alone or even mixed with harsh death penaltys were the reason for its failings. As a typical phrase in Research methods states: Correlation does not prove causation.
What about the extremely high system specs? WoW's main capital was gained from lower end PC's being able to run the game without hinderance from latency issues. EQ2 was made for a much more specified gaming computer, you couldnt just load it up on your moms laptop like WoW.
Again its merely speculation, its very difficult to damn an entire system of gameplay the existed in an entire phase of gaming history from one failed game that had multiple other issues.
The high system specs were only if you wanted to run everything on Max settings.
On medium settings the game ran just fine on the average system and still looked absolutely fantastic for it's time back then.
I was on a tight budget back then and definitely didn't have a high end system, but had no trouble running EQ2 with tweaked settings.
The harshness of EverQuest 2 at launch was ofcourse not the only thing that drove People away, but it was a major contribution to it.
The "Shared Debt XP" was one of the first things they got rid off and thank goodness for that. As the individual debt XP and corpse runs (forgot about that last one) was already harsh enough.
I absolutely loved the game and EverQuest 2 is still one of my all time favorite MMO's I keep coming back too. I have played it on and off for years since launch. I am just a year behind the maximum veteran reward. From which I played almost 2 to 3 years straight during EverQuest 2's peak days around the "Echoes of Faydwer" and "Rise of Kunark" expansions. Which really turned the game around and brought back a lot of players, boosting subscriptions beyond the 350k again.
It's a fantastic game and if, with EverQuest Next, they can find a good middle ground between EQ1 and EQ2, putting the strength of both games in it, without harsh penalty systems. They might have a winner again.
Time will tell.
EQ2 had a horrible launch. EQ2 was not even close to what EQ1 was. Gameplay wise, it didn't have the freedom of the original. That hurt it. The performance issue you mention was a huge issue as well. The game literally ran like crap, and looked like crap when you did get it to run fairly well. And after watching all those incredible videos of how insane the game looked for that day and time, it hurt very bad to have to run it at such low settings. Combine that with the fact that this other new game just came out, WoW, and it was totally doomed.
Leading up to EQ2's release, I never even looked at WoW. I didn't care a thing for it. My excitement was ALL on EQ2. It was heartbreaking to see that it didn't live up to what I imagined when I finally did play the beta, and day 1 release. But having tried WoW's open beta for a couple days, it ran so smooth, and it was fun as hell. I was converted, entirely.
With all of that said, I get your point. You are trying to say, "look, we did get a sequel to EQ. It was EQ2, and it flopped by comparison." And you are right. The issue is, and I have stated this before in another thread, was that most people realized there was this new way to play these games. Quests. Minimaps. No xp debt. Freedom, but "guided" freedom. It was awesome for a while. It sucked in millions of newer mmo players. This is what EQ2 strived to become as well, and is to this day. That whole "sequel" thing never happened. Vanguard also went this route, as it was obvious that they had to compete with WoW.
But you know what? It has become old. Stale. Yes, I still find it fun to run around the latest theme-park, hold-your-hand mmo (like Wildstar that I'm currently playing). But is that what we really want? Do we really? I think the answer is "NO." I think that many who played the original EQ look back and realize that with all the pains that game had, the joy it gave totally outweighed it. I proved this to myself while playing P99. I realized full well that it isn't just "rose-colored glasses". The simple fact is the game just "had it". It had the true magic and wonder. A world, while dead and boring pretty much, that felt open to explore, and dangerous to cross.
It's almost like games recently have tried to do the complete opposite of what made EQ so great. Do any of you realize just how many spells EQ had?? They had to resort to using menus to traverse your spellbook because it was so huge. And these spells aren't just for combat either. They had TONS of utility as well. And now games are giving us 5 spells to play with (GW2 and what WoW has shamefully become). Our freedoms have been ripped away by these new mmos. They don't want to give you freedom, they want to have total and complete control over you and your choices, all while taking your money. It just sucks.
We didn't know that the new changes to mmos would cause them to suck forever. We didn't realize how good we had it back then with EQ1. Well, for me, I want it back. I was deceived into thinking that these new "features" would make the game more fun because it made things easier (quest markers, objective circles in maps, etc.). I'm not too stubborn to admit when I am wrong. And I was WRONG in thinking the "new mmo" was the answer to everything, that the "WoW-way" was how we all should be playing mmos. I was wrong, and I change my mind. I want another game like EQ1 with it's class interdependency and freedoms. It's unforgiving nature. I want the challenge, and rewards to go with it.
EQ2 seemed to have a lot of issues that plague modern day MMOs. It didn't have to do with difficulty so much as artificial restrictions IMO.
Most areas really forced you into grouping. I guess that is OK in a way, but to me it wasn't very enjoyable. I would walk out of a city and there were groups of 20 mobs sitting there. Even small groups were almost impossible to break apart.
Any useful combat buff seemed to have been nerfed and many of them dropped all together in combat like Spirit of the Wolf.
The linked experience loss has been mentioned and I forgot about that. It was pretty horrible.
To me this and WoW were the start of MMOs that didn't allow any player creativity. Actually EQ1 was the one that did that as they started nerfing a lot of the freedoms in that game as well. Things like kiting were starting to be heavily nerfed. Buffs were being nerfed. Being able to trade items was nerfed. Classes were being nerfed left and right. Instances were introduced in Lost Dungeons of Norrath. Part of this is because of how players abused the freedom and part is just overkill on the developers part. EQ had it's down sides like experience gain taking to long and there were a lot of static spawns. Camping was rampant as mentioned by others. I would like to see the freedoms EQ offered, but a game that more accurately implemented a sense of adventure for the players. I don't believe death penalties are big deal if items have less value and leveling/skilling up doesn't take so long.
I think it would be good to come up with a list of the freedoms that were offered by EQ to players and what they did with them. Those could then be taken into another game.
Diablo 3
Marvel Heroes
.. and if you play STO stories .. it is a one-time play, so you don't have to camp the SAME spawn spot again and again. You kill them once, and you are done.
Entertainment products should just entertain. Player "creativity"? I haven't seen any (except in games where there are tools to make player missions).
Don't tell me grouping and drama is creative.
I don't think you read any of my posts. I went through a lot of the things that were player invented in EQ. Some were good and some were bad depending on what you liked.
Kiting/Charm Kiting/Quad Kiting/Fear Kiting - It wasn't intended, but players were able to do it solo. (not intended)
Taxi Rides - People sold ports for in game money. (not intended)
Selling/Giving buffs - Players sold buffs for money and gave them away for free to low levels in order to help them out. (not intended)
Trading Areas - There were areas of the game where people grouped up spontaneously to form large trade bazaars. (not intended)
Holy Trinity - The holy trinity didn't exist. It was just found that this was the most effective means to group in most cases. (not intended)
Corpse pulling - Rogues would pull corpses for you if you died in a nasty place. (not intended)
Raiding - Raiding wasn't part of the original game. It was created by the players. (not intended)
Camping/Camp Checks - This was invented by the players. You could argue this is a bad thing for the game. Many seemed to enjoy it. I don't believe camping is the way to play an adventure game myself. Still it was something the players had the freedom to do. They didn't have to camp. They could have just kept on the move while killing, exploring dungeons, going to different areas, and never staying stationary. It was just the most effective way to level (found by the player base)(but wasn't intended).
Pulling - This was not an intended mechanic, but people found it a safe way to level up. You had to be good at lulling/feign death/mezz/snare to pull well. It was a difficult job as you could easily get adds. (not intended)
Areas weren't originally segregated off for solo/group/raid/pvp. There was just group, but it was setup in a such a that is was possible for some classes to solo, but not easily. It made the world feel less artificial to me.
I'm sure I'm missing some things, but to me it had a lot more freedom then any of the theme parks you see today. To me the freedom them offer is all artificial. There really isn't anything you can do that isn't intended by the developer.
Obviously some of those things were intended for a use, but in the cases I listed they weren't intended for that purpose. They didn't expect people to sell ports/buffs for cash. It was just something to help people get around. They didn't expect people to use snare, fear, charm, and things of that nature for kiting mobs. Kiting wasn't intended. Those were all things to help when grouping with other people. Yes people were intended to trade with one another, but not to form up large bazaar like consortiums on their own. The holy trinity and solo classes weren't intended. They were created via the player base. All the descriptions that you see in modern EQ came from the players. They weren't there originally when picking a class. You were generally expected to group in the game period. Soloing was an unintended thing.
And therein lies the bottom line of Everquest Original. The utility was given to the players, and the players made use of it through creativity. The terms "snare", "root", "fear" that we still use today stemmed from the spells given to certain classes in EQ, and the use of them was originally designed then.
But now, devs know the potential of people's imaginations, and they take GREAT measures to squash their creativity, in terms of "balance". Even in current EQ you can't do some of the things you use to, like bard swarm kiting. Was it overpowered? Yes it was. Was it risky? Yes, one tiny mistake, and there was no saving you, instant death. But whiners whine, and devs listen, and in come the nerfs.
WoW is the perfect example of stifled creativity. Remember the open world pvp in Southshore? How much fun it was? Devs had to put a stop to it because it ruined the questing that they intended players to participate in for that area. I remember being a rogue in Scarlet Monestary, and was able to stealth through the entire zone and loot chests. The way I understood it, it was a perk of the class. It was creative on my part to discover/learn how to accomplish such a task, for it still had risk. Get caught, and you were going to die, period. But yeah, the devs put a stop to that as well.
Developers, now, want FULL control of their games and the people playing their games. If it wasn't designed for, or intended, they will destroy it. They want to be the Gods of their created world. And you are the servants, the worshipers. Ever listen to some of the WoW devs? Case in point. Arrogant, selfish, unappreciative, dicks.
Well at least someone gets what I'm saying. I think you had to play some of the first few MMOs to a lot to really get it. Even then I guess some people might not get it. They may not have seen those things as things that were invented by the player base. Personally I can't really play today's MMOs because I can't stand being pigeon holed into a certain way of playing. I do remember vanilla WoW having some unintended freedom of choice. I played a Paladin and it wasn't intended that they could take down elite group mobs solo by healing/mitigating damage almost indefinitely. That is long gone.
Seriously dude.. You're comparing Diablo 3 to EQ? STO is just instance joke wanting to be a real MMORPG.. I'ts lobby based mostly, just like CS sourse or CoD..
Played early WoW... do not really get the stuff you guys are on about... the game was intended as a themepark and they made it thus, same with EQ granted back then things weren't so clear but even in the absence of WoW EQ would've become what it is today because that is what it is supposed to be like.
If you want creativity, if you want to bend the rules, if you want to see the lines and decide to walk outside them then games like EVE are where you go and every other type of game (from the PVP-centric to the PVE-centric ones) will inevitably degrade into certain predictable patterns but if you get a game which is equal parts PVE and PVP, neither side favored nor neglected and you get a wee bit lucky you will get a game where progression stops where you want it to and the stories (good, bad, loltastic, whatever) never stop. Never made a long term friend in WoW, GW1, GW2 or any other MMO... with EVE I have a group I run with and whom transcend the game (I've played DayZ with some of them, Fallen Earth with others, Hell we even used to do World of Tanks platoons back in the day). That is a game worth playing, not EQ, not WoW, not DFUW or MO but one that has a spot for all and a fuck to give about none of them, you make your game and you play it.
You are giving the players too much credit and the devs too little. It's like giving someone a bike and then being suprised that they person decided to ride the bike. Anyone with a grasp of economics would have predicted them forming of trading areas. People with special, in-demand skils traded their services for cash like has been done since barter was invented. Spells meant to stop a mob from doing damage to a player, were used to kil the mobs without them being able to do damage to the players. The simple fact that a solo player could kill a mob and gain xp made solo classes possible. Even the holy trinity was entirely predictable since the mechanics have been used in video and tabletop games long before EQ.
The devs would have to have been naive and/or incompetent to not have predicted most of what happened. They would not have known how it shape up in the long run but in the short run most of the stuff was easy to foresee.
Actually it's more like giving someone a bike and then they started doing all kinds of crazy tricks with the bike or taking a scooter, breaking the handle off, and started to do crazy tricks on it (skateboard).
Actually the devs didn't anticipate any of what happened. It was pretty obvious as they tried to put a stop to a lot of it as the game progressed and even implemented things like the auction house.
However they changed it because how it looked on party was one thing. It's actual effect was another.
I believe you and most people don't realize that when games like UO and EQ came out not many people were playing video games. Online games were something very new. The developers didn't really know much of anything. They were just attempting to translate PnP experiences to an online game. They had no roadmap to follow and surely didn't think about any of the things people may take for granted today. A lot of things people take for granted in MMOs today were created by the players and then poorly implemented by the developers.
In a themepark there is no creativity, there is merely exploitation... thus your skater analogy ends with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhPe5l8V_04
In a properly build sandbox there's a chance of averting such a fate but even so the amount of fizzled out sandboxes (too much control from the devs) or that pretty much derpxploded (too little control, EVE for whatever is worth manages a balance here) is great... it takes a right mix of developer intuition, player creativity and gameplay flexibility to get the spark required for a game to come alive.
That video makes no sense. A skateboard crashing into something? There are always bumps and bruises when trying something of that nature, but it's not really relevant to what I was talking about. I already listed many of the ways that the players were creative in EQ. I guess it is not a themepark in that case. Maybe it's not a sandbox, but it had lots of tools for being creative. For instance players came up with the idea in EQ of rolling for loot. That was not an intended mechanic. This was again stolen by the developers and made into a non interactive experience.