Mules permitted?

Amathe

When I played EQ, you could not mail an item to one of your own alts to store. No such feature existed.

Instead, you had several options. One was to give the item to someone you really trusted, log off and log back on as an alt, and have the trusted person give it to your alt.  Another (and this one really sucked) was to put the item on the ground in some out of the way place, say some prayers, then log back in with your alt and pick it up. A third way, which unfortunately I can't remember, might involve the use of your guild bank? 

Since EQ I have become used to being able to mail items to my mule accounts and alts for storage when my main's bank started getting full. 

I wonder though, is Pantheon going to go full old school and take us back to the days before that convenience? 

I have to admit that storage of one's stuff was practically a mini-game back then. 

Anyone heard anything on this issue? 

Amathe

Adding to the above, I got to thinking. We talk a lot about the big picture challenges posed by games like original EQ - no maps, no gps, no quest exclamations, death penalties, meaningful travel, limited fast travel, etc. 

But there are also maybe a 100+ other small things that were hard or harder than anything you see today. And though they be small, they all add up to quite a lot of additional challenge. Ever since WoW most of those smaller challenges have all been smoothed over. You don't even think about them anymore really.

I wonder how many of EQ's smaller challenges (like transferals to alts) will reappear?

Wellspring

EQ now has shared bank slots, which allow you to transfer items between alts. Vanguard had the same thing IIRC.

Kyleran

Say no to modern storage convenience features, what's wrong with you @Amathe, you some sort of easy mode carebear?

Amathe

Until you have put your stuff on the ground in the farthest corner of some forest, tried to log back on with your alt for retrieval and have your shitty dial up dc, and then find someone ganked your stuff, you haven't entirely lived "old school" lol. 

Mendel

The ultimate solution to this problem is a character per account, 1 account per customer restriction.  Easy enough to do, technically, but such a thing would never fly.  I played EQ1 for over 2 years before I caught 'altitis'.

svann

I disagree with the ideal that you shouldnt be able to transfer stuff to characters on the same account.  Havent heard a valid reason yet for that.

Mensur

Amathe said:

When I played EQ, you could not mail an item to one of your own alts to store. No such feature existed.

Instead, you had several options. One was to give the item to someone you really trusted, log off and log back on as an alt, and have the trusted person give it to your alt.  Another (and this one really sucked) was to put the item on the ground in some out of the way place, say some prayers, then log back in with your alt and pick it up. A third way, which unfortunately I can't remember, might involve the use of your guild bank? 

Since EQ I have become used to being able to mail items to my mule accounts and alts for storage when my main's bank started getting full. 

I wonder though, is Pantheon going to go full old school and take us back to the days before that convenience? 

I have to admit that storage of one's stuff was practically a mini-game back then. 

Anyone heard anything on this issue? 

Well they were talking about the multiboxing would be allowed. however he said it would be hard...so i am guessing that you can have a "mule"

Amathe

svann said:

I disagree with the ideal that you shouldnt be able to transfer stuff to characters on the same account.  Havent heard a valid reason yet for that.

I'm not saying it should be disallowed. But I am noting that this is one of many possible examples of lesser things about original EQ (as opposed to what EQ is today) that collectively contributed to the overall challenge of playing the game. If you get rid of enough of that kind of thing, the game may start to feel more like EQ2 than EQ.  

Nightbringe1

There is little reason to restrict item transfers between alts.

Baring it won't do anything except grant an additional convenience to people with multiple accounts. Be those bot accounts or family members, it makes no difference.

Nightbringe1

Mendel said:

The ultimate solution to this problem is a character per account, 1 account per customer restriction. 

How would they differentiate between one person with multiple accounts and a family with one account per person? My daughter, for example, loves MMO's, but is too young to have her own credit card.

Sovrath

Amathe said:

svann said:

I disagree with the ideal that you shouldnt be able to transfer stuff to characters on the same account.  Havent heard a valid reason yet for that.

I'm not saying it should be disallowed. But I am noting that this is one of many possible examples of lesser things about original EQ (as opposed to what EQ is today) that collectively contributed to the overall challenge of playing the game. If you get rid of enough of that kind of thing, the game may start to feel more like EQ2 than EQ.  

I don't think having awkward mechanics or ways to bypass game limitations and have them be "features" is a goal of game development.

While it might have been a challenge I don't think it was a done on purpose.

Dullahan

The plan for Pantheon is local banking. If there was to be a way to transfer items between alts on an account, it would mean that the item you transfer goes into the bank at the same location.

I wouldn't really have a problem with that. Alternatively there could just be a mail system. I just don't think mail should be instantaneous. I think it should take a few hours (couple in game days).

Amathe

Sovrath said:

While it might have been a challenge I don't think it was a done on purpose.

I don't picture Verant laughing maniacally (Muhahahahahahah) saying "this will teach them to play EQ. Let's make storage and transfer hard." Nor would I expect that from VR.

My point, which I seem not be making very well, is that these types of things were once found throughout EQ and, for good or for ill, intentional or not, contributed to its overall difficulty. I fully expect they will be removed, and I don't at all oppose that, but dealing with these sorts of aggravations was once part of the game. 

svann

Amathe said:

Sovrath said:

While it might have been a challenge I don't think it was a done on purpose.

I don't picture Verant laughing maniacally (Muhahahahahahah) saying "this will teach them to play EQ. Let's make storage and transfer hard." Nor would I expect that from VR.

My point, which I seem not be making very well, is that these types of things were once found throughout EQ and, for good or for ill, intentional or not, contributed to its overall difficulty. I fully expect they will be removed, and I don't at all oppose that, but dealing with these sorts of aggravations was once part of the game. 

The bad part of the game.

Dullahan

Obviously it shouldn't be hard to trade an item to an alt. At the same time, I considered inventory management to be a good part of the game. Increasing how much you can hold both on your person, as well as in your bank should matter. If additional character serve to circumvent those limitations, then there should also be drawbacks for additional characters.

Dullahan

DMKano said:

Dullahan said:

Obviously it shouldn't be hard to trade an item to an alt. At the same time, I considered inventory management to be a good part of the game. Increasing how much you can hold both on your person, as well as in your bank should matter. If additional character serve to circumvent those limitations, then there should also be drawbacks for additional characters.

I don't see why there should be drawbacks for additional characters - to me that makes no sense.

The limitations on carry capacity on characters - makes sense and is usually a good gameplay mechanic.

Limited bank space - this should obviously be limited but not overly IMO - as otherwise it becomes tedious to manage and if there is a "pay to increase space" mechanic as it exists in many games than a big - please don't do that - for me.

So make inventory management something that adds to gameplay not something that becomes such a tedium where it takes away from the game and is a source of frustration.

I guess I should clarify. Drawbacks for how you can access items on additional characters. If you can swap back and forth items in real time with 8 different characters, you have nearly unlimited space. That means any sort of progression of storage on your character becomes moot. This is, of course, assuming that they want such an advancement system tied into character progression (I think they should).

My suggestion would be that swapping items across characters should be limited by time, just like I think trading or transferring through mail. Otherwise, you may as well just give characters unlimited space in their bank. On top of that, I think how much bank space your character is entitled to in a city should be merit based for those with things like higher faction, higher levels in a trade, etc. That way, even if you can transfer items to an alt, a level 1 based on things like level, trade, faction and so forth will only have a little storage space.

Don't think those things are going to happen, considering they've already said they intend to have localized banking. For those who don't know what that is, it means what you put in the bank in one city, does not appear at your bank in another. Location and transportation matters.

rojoArcueid

going old school should never equate to removing quality of life improvements. Older mmos were not good because they were limited, they were good because there was nothing better.

My opinion.

Utinni

Amathe said:

Adding to the above, I got to thinking. We talk a lot about the big picture challenges posed by games like original EQ - no maps, no gps, no quest exclamations, death penalties, meaningful travel, limited fast travel, etc. 

These features were all timesinks , never challenges. Not sure why people always refer to a game requiring more time as being more challenging. It's really not the same thing.

MadFrenchie

Utinni said:

Amathe said:

Adding to the above, I got to thinking. We talk a lot about the big picture challenges posed by games like original EQ - no maps, no gps, no quest exclamations, death penalties, meaningful travel, limited fast travel, etc. 

These features were all timesinks , never challenges. Not sure why people always refer to a game requiring more time as being more challenging. It's really not the same thing.

Because it plays a part in creating a journey, instead of the leveling process being merely queue, clear, repeat until endgame.  That kind of system renders content prior to endgame pretty much meaningless, turning into simple filler that serves no other purpose (see WoW's leveling experience prior to today's patch for a good example).

The missing piece of that journey puzzle has always been enjoyable and interesting content prior to endgame.  Different genre, but see the Dark Souls series for an example of a game where you don't fast-travel, but that's fine because the entire world is filled to the brim with dangerous and interesting content.  Traveling is an adventure in and of itself.

Dullahan

Rule of thumb: when someone claims something in older games was a pointless timesink, chances are it was a form of gameplay that most people found rewarding and that is missing in new games that struggle to keep a playerbase.

Amathe

Utinni said: Not sure why people always refer to a game requiring more time as being more challenging. It's really not the same thing.

Because the meaning of "challenge" includes a difficulty of some type that must be overcome. It doesn't have to be solving a puzzle or slaying a dragon (although those are also challenges). The time needed to accomplish a goal is part of the difficulty presented by that goal. 

Take duck hunting for example. It's not just shooting the duck. You have to get your gear and gun ready. You have to find a place to put your blind, and then set it up. You have to set out the decoys. And then you have to sit quietly for hours and hours waiting on the opportunity to shoot. That waiting is part of the challenge. The same is true for fishing. If you took the waiting out of fishing it would eliminate 90% of the fishing trip. 

svann

Amathe said:

Utinni said: Not sure why people always refer to a game requiring more time as being more challenging. It's really not the same thing.

Because the meaning of "challenge" includes a difficulty of some type that must be overcome. It doesn't have to be solving a puzzle or slaying a dragon (although those are also challenges). The time needed to accomplish a goal is part of the difficulty presented by that goal. 

Take duck hunting for example. It's not just shooting the duck. You have to get your gear and gun ready. You have to find a place to put your blind, and then set it up. You have to set out the decoys. And then you have to sit quietly for hours and hours waiting on the opportunity to shoot. That waiting is part of the challenge. The same is true for fishing. If you took the waiting out of fishing it would eliminate 90% of the fishing trip. 

True but otoh no one would complain if you removed the 20 min wait to apply for your license, and no one would claim that it added to the experience.  Some things are "game" and some are just tedium.

Amathe

svann said:

True but otoh no one would complain if you removed the 20 min wait to apply for your license, and no one would claim that it added to the experience.  Some things are "game" and some are just tedium.

I get what you are saying. But it leads down a slippery slope. Suppose you start taking the "unfun" things out of fishing. Time spent putting new line in the reel. Getting up early to catch night crawlers for bait. Filling up the gas on the boat. Driving to the lake. Once you start removing all that, you end up with a fishing trip that looks a lot like modern day WoW, where you basically teleport to the lake and one shot a fish in the head with a Beretta. 

Fun can be assessed task by task, sure, but it can also be measured by the overall satisfaction that comes from completing a multi-step project - even the individually unfun parts. Epic quests in EQ were hugely satisfying, albeit there was a lot of crap you had to do as part of them that was not itself fun. 

Dullahan

It's a fairly simple concept. A big part of enjoying something is the work involved in obtaining it. That is a big part of what gives something its value. A gift is nice, but when we're given everything, we naturally appreciate it less.

One shouldn't need to be a philosopher to understand these things, but with western society so inundated with socialistic ideals, what used to be common sense has become uncommon sense.

Sovrath

Dullahan said:

It's a fairly simple concept. A big part of enjoying something is the work involved in obtaining it. That is a big part of what gives something its value. A gift is nice, but when we're given everything, we naturally appreciate it less.

One shouldn't need to be a philosopher to understand these things, but with western society so inundated with socialistic ideals, what used to be common sense has become uncommon sense.

hmmm, I wouldn't go that far (regarding your last paragraph).

As far as working for things, sure that is a large part of enjoyment. But I think there is "working for something" and "working for something that is just awkward when it could be intelligently organized/done/etc".

Having multiple warehouses with different product/mats, etc where you have to transfer items from one to another to market is fine.

Making it hard to store things so one has to resort to making additional characters because there aren't other storage options doesn't make sense.

Characters shouldn't be storage. Storage should be storage.