My gut tells me that EQ Next might lean towards being "console" compatiable then retro original EQ1..
Nope, they said on Fan Faire that EQNext would lean towards EQ1.
I hope that is true, which would explain the shut down of Vanguard.. It just may be that EQ1 could be getting a Vanguard upgrade with some tweaks.. It would make sense..
I want new combat mechanics, the old ones are somewhat old. New mob AI as well.
And personally would I prefer if they besides all classes had a build your own class system that is point based. You would have to balance all skills against eachother, or possibly have A, B and C skills that are balanced against eachother and the player get a certain to put out. It is actually not that complicated.
Besides that do I agree with OP (but lets only instance half of the dungeons, a few open dungeons are fun).
I was in Beta 2 and the game was anything but smooth. In fact, I found it difficult to want to stay logged in for more than 5 or 10 minutes at a time.
The problem I saw was the game had no sense of geographic idenitty. Hard to explain, but anyplace in VG sort of felt like anyplace else in that world. I did not get the feeling in that game that I had in EQ where the Commonlands felt distinctly different from Nektulos, for example.
VG had some good design elements, but the execution was very unpolished. Sadly, the downfall of VG served to make players think that free range open worlds do not succeed, when the reality is unpolished games do not succeed.
I just hope SOE gets EQ Next right this time. I have my doubts and almost wish the developers of EVE Online were designing this game; at least they know how a hardcore free range game can be done with quality.
while i think Vanguard's world design is 2nd only to Darkfall's, there is a certain similarity to almost all the terrain. there is a certain roundness of the landscape almost everywhere you go. like some 'roundness' paintbrush that the whole world was 'painted' with to rough it out, and then they just never got around to more precisely handcrafting the more unusual peaks and sharp landscape contrasts you normally see in most handcrafted terrain.
I dont think the new EQ or really ANY MMO should focus on one aspect of the game only.
A good MMO, in my mind, is a game you can play for years.
For that to happen, you need it to offer all kinds of ways of progression - solo adventuring, group adventuring, raids, crafting, harvesting, fishing, diplomacy, whatever.
I agree with this post 100%. MMO's need to be geared towards everyone the hard core, and casual guy/gal and the only way to pull in the casual guy/gal is to give them a great MMO exp even if they can play a few hours a day or week. You also have to appeal to everyone else and you will never pull someone from a game they have years invested in for more of the same old same old. I personally hope the go old school EQ1 with upgrades. I think there are alot of ppl that want a AAA old school style game, but thats just me.
I would also like to SOE allow third party UI's like drox. And i would also like to see them get away from charging ppl to look up info on there toons. I like how WoWs website allows you to look up info on your toon or someone elses and does not to to squeeze another dime out of you for it. I mean we already paid 50 dollars for the game and are paying you 15 dollars a month for a sub how much more greedy can you be. And no downloadable content no ty. I played EQ2 and i didnt buy the DLC but when they released there first exp for it they added all that DLC into the exp so ppl bascially paid twice for the same content if you but that DLC and the exp.
if anyone thinks SoE or any AAA company is going to spend time and money to remake EQ vanilla then you don't even belong in any mmorpg discussion and need a reality check.
EQ next will be a quest driven instanced based game, ( quest question marks over npcs heads ) with a match making system for groups like you have in WoW. Smed already said 15mins is to long to wait for a group. so i bet we will see henchmen type system like you have in EQ.
if anyone thinks SoE or any AAA company is going to spend time and money to remake EQ vanilla then you don't even belong in any mmorpg discussion and need a reality check.
EQ next will be a quest driven instanced based game, ( quest question marks over npcs heads ) with a match making system for groups like you have in WoW. Smed already said 15mins is to long to wait for a group. so i bet we will see henchmen type system like you have in EQ.
I bet you are right and I hope you are wrong.
yah, me too .
but the industry is what it is now. as much as i would like to see it happen. no AAA company is going to take a lose for some nerds that want to relive their past mmorpg experience. takes to time and money make these AAA mmogs now-a-days for them to gamble on a long shot.
Jairus you are right but I h o p e you are wrong. Soe failed so many times catering to the EZ mode market this would be their chance showing that they can still produce a game like EQ Vanilla. It wouldn't be such risky as going for the dumbed down masses cause ya know there are tons of dumbed down masses game rolling out (GW 2 and SWTOR obviously the biggest hyped ones), why not cater to a more loyal oldschool base again?
I can guarantee you the first company who does this right will have great success with it. Speaking of realistic numbers there are still enough people to make an oldschool game really and I mean really successful.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I dont think the new EQ or really ANY MMO should focus on one aspect of the game only.
A good MMO, in my mind, is a game you can play for years.
For that to happen, you need it to offer all kinds of ways of progression - solo adventuring, group adventuring, raids, crafting, harvesting, fishing, diplomacy, whatever.
that's the primary problem with existing crop of MMO's on the market. everyone going for the jack of all trades and master of none approach. it's almost like saying lets make a FPS that caters to the casual and the blind:D EQ is the indisputed king of raid content and if they can do that right then that is a market worth persuing.
saying one aspect of the game is nort worth persuing is like saying all FPS games are failures... they focus on only ONE aspect of the game and they do it extreamly well. as a result there is a large following in that market. IF EQ can chop away all the time sink crap that block people from enjoying raids, there would be more people interested in raids because there is an intrensic sense of accomplishment tied to beating complex raids.
there were plenty of people in EQ1 that would have loved to raid if there wasn't so many layers of barriers preventing them from raiding. oh you need to have 2000AA's before you stop being a liabilty in the raid. you need 25 keys and 34 flags to enter the zone and you need to have your epic done before you can even do your job in the raid...
raiding guild constantly lose members to attrition and they have to constantly lower their standards to replenish the ranks, eventually their requirements are so low that they are no longer able to raid the content they once raided... if the barriers to raid didnt prevent people from raiding, the raiding guilds can easily replenish their members and raiding continues.
take away the stupid flags/keys and re work the AA system so that it wasnt such a HUGE wall to overcome and they will attract all the people who enjoys a challange when playing MMO. they would have a very successful product if they are able to make a game that focus more on player skill as determining factor of success then random timesinks they must overcome to achieve greatness. as a guild recruiter, you should only need to worry about raid attendence and ability to listen, not how many flags/keys your recruit has and how many AA's they have... because anyone can grind out AA's, but not everyone can learn to listen to raid instructions...
When Sid Meier designs the sequel to his award winning Civilization game. Does he "improve" the game play to Real Time Strategy knowing that his game is known for being Turn Base Strategy? No, he doesn't. You know why? Because that's the "branding" and "flavor" of Civilization. Once you make it Real Time Strategy is it no longer Civilization and then you would completely lose the IP and the Fans.
SOE did the mistake with EQ2 and this is their last chance to contain the fans and the flavor of real EQ.
EverQuest was not a Quest Driven MMORPG and should never be.
EverQuest was First Person View.
EverQuest was harsh.
EverQuest had faction system and should always have that too.
EverQuest had Diety System.
EverQuest had Skill + Leveling system.
EverQuest had slow paced combat.
EverQuest had Tanks, Healers, CC, Pullers and so forth. Diverse Class Roles (Specific from level 1).
That is EverQuest, why change it? it had it's glory it has it's fans. If SOE got any clue they would recreate the EverQuest experience, anything else would be a stupid call. You don't see the guys behind the Elder Scroll releasing a 3rd person restricting game with thousands of cut scene just because it was the trend. They stick to their genre and stick to their fans. They will always win them and their game will always be The Elder Scroll. As for EverQuest Next... we'll see. But I'm not holding my breath and I know for a fact I will be disappointed, since SOE is behind it.
I agree with all your points except one... EverQUEST had a very good and wel developed quest system. At ALL times while playing it you had at least some quest on the go. These quests often were massive and had many complicated steps and NON of these steps had a here I am flag. You had to figure out what to do from te clues given and make your own notes.
ingame maps are not a bad thing, they are a must have, actually. they should show the landscape in detail with all towns and other places of importance (perhaps not the very hidden ones).
but, there is no need for autodirection. a map should not show NPCs or mobs. the same counts for the minimap of course.
EQ1 had no maps at the beginning. that was wrong. the later maps then had not much details, that was wrong again. a good map should contain all places with their names (forest of xyz, temple of abc, ...). this way the description of NPCs, where to go, could be precise enough, so that we dont need the destination point marked on the map.
UsualDaNeriak. You are an avid EQ defender and someone who enjoys the depth of gaming. I find it shocking reading that YOU think "no maps" is wrong. I am not saying having no map is the only way to go but claiming it is "wrong" is unjustified. Having no maps (and specially GPS maps) in a game would add a lot of benefits that I've listed them in one of the posts in my blog. The problem is not with "no maps" but the mentality thinking that every game is going to be Quest Driven and without maps people will take hours to find the NPC for their quest or these 10 rats. Well, there is NO Quest Driven content in EQ you are free to do whatever you want. Nothing is pointing you towards a specific spot.
A Carefully designed Content Driven System will prove that you don't need a map for an MMORPG. If at all you can have a drawn map the player can purchase from the city to give clues of where to go if they wish to join their friends in another city. But generally the world should be filled with content that makes players know their surroundings by exploring and trying different areas. Early dungeons and tackling these dungeons will be the Conten that Drives the players most of the time. Add different variety of areas/dungeons for Solo Play, Duo, 3-4 or a 6 player group.
ingame maps are not a bad thing, they are a must have, actually. they should show the landscape in detail with all towns and other places of importance (perhaps not the very hidden ones).
but, there is no need for autodirection. a map should not show NPCs or mobs. the same counts for the minimap of course.
EQ1 had no maps at the beginning. that was wrong. the later maps then had not much details, that was wrong again. a good map should contain all places with their names (forest of xyz, temple of abc, ...). this way the description of NPCs, where to go, could be precise enough, so that we dont need the destination point marked on the map.
UsualDaNeriak. You are an avid EQ defender and someone who enjoys the depth of gaming. I find it shocking reading that YOU think "no maps" is wrong. I am not saying having no map is the only way to go but claiming it is "wrong" is unjustified. Having no maps (and specially GPS maps) in a game would add a lot of benefits that I've listed them in one of the posts in my blog. The problem is not with "no maps" but the mentality thinking that every game is going to be Quest Driven and without maps people will take hours to find the NPC for their quest or these 10 rats. Well, there is NO Quest Driven content in EQ you are free to do whatever you want. Nothing is pointing you towards a specific spot.
A Carefully designed Content Driven System will prove that you don't need a map for an MMORPG. If at all you can have a drawn map the player can purchase from the city to give clues of where to go if they wish to join their friends in another city. But generally the world should be filled with content that makes players know their surroundings by exploring and trying different areas. Early dungeons and tackling these dungeons will be the Conten that Drives the players most of the time. Add different variety of areas/dungeons for Solo Play, Duo, 3-4 or a 6 player group.
People made maps in real life thousands of years ago,so why is mapping in games so unheralded?
I would agree that just handing over a map,for no reason is a little cheap,but eventually the players should end up with some form of earned map or design the game to have skills like Cartography.
As to various dungeons,you know and i know ALL that matters is the loot,people don't play these games for Fun.So if the game has avarious dungeons,the soloers WIL Lcry that the ycan't access the best loot,because it is in the 12 man dungeon.
Basically we need to get away from this EQ/Wow design,it has so many holes in it ,it is just bad.People need to forget this nostalgic thing and move on,heck i don't listen to the beatles anymore ,
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
UsualDaNeriak. You are an avid EQ defender and someone who enjoys the depth of gaming. I find it shocking reading that YOU think "no maps" is wrong. I am not saying having no map is the only way to go but claiming it is "wrong" is unjustified. Having no maps (and specially GPS maps) in a game would add a lot of benefits that I've listed them in one of the posts in my blog. The problem is not with "no maps" but the mentality thinking that every game is going to be Quest Driven and without maps people will take hours to find the NPC for their quest or these 10 rats. Well, there is NO Quest Driven content in EQ you are free to do whatever you want. Nothing is pointing you towards a specific spot.
A Carefully designed Content Driven System will prove that you don't need a map for an MMORPG. If at all you can have a drawn map the player can purchase from the city to give clues of where to go if they wish to join their friends in another city. But generally the world should be filled with content that makes players know their surroundings by exploring and trying different areas. Early dungeons and tackling these dungeons will be the Conten that Drives the players most of the time. Add different variety of areas/dungeons for Solo Play, Duo, 3-4 or a 6 player group.
I'm kinda divided here. I think that you should be able to get in game maps when playing the game.
If you been in an area long enough it actually makes sense of getting that map. It makes no sense that you already have one for places you never been in.
So let people lock up the map eventually. And no dungeon maps please.
I played games without maps before, Meridian 59 and Lineage to mention 2. Exploring is more exiting without maps but suddenly getting lost because the place look more or less the same everywhere when you already been there a thousand times is just boring and silly.
The alternative is to have a map that doesn't show where you are.
People made maps in real life thousands of years ago,so why is mapping in games so unheralded?
I would agree that just handing over a map,for no reason is a little cheap,but eventually the players should end up with some form of earned map or design the game to have skills like Cartography.
As to various dungeons,you know and i know ALL that matters is the loot,people don't play these games for Fun.So if the game has avarious dungeons,the soloers WIL Lcry that the ycan't access the best loot,because it is in the 12 man dungeon.
Basically we need to get away from this EQ/Wow design,it has so many holes in it ,it is just bad.People need to forget this nostalgic thing and move on,heck i don't listen to the beatles anymore ,
Yes, people had map but not GPS map with an arrow showing where you are exactly in the map. They also didn't have mini maps. I'm against GPS maps and Mini Maps in a Fantasy Setting. Works great for a Sci Fi game, but not for a Fantasy Setting.
The maps purchased will not be extremely accurate either and again no GPS system. You shouldn't see where you are in the map when you view it. You should see major land marks like "Here's the mountain, here's the city." and based on that you should know where you are in the world.
You guys are really setting yourselves up for disappointment here.
Exactly.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
I'm not holding my breath or expecting anything from EQ Next or any new MMORPGs. I lost hope long time ago. But we try to speak our opinion for a hope maybe just maybe someone with the authority to make what we demand come true. But my expectation is a big round ZERO. Specially when SOE is behind it.
I'm kinda divided here. I think that you should be able to get in game maps when playing the game.
If you been in an area long enough it actually makes sense of getting that map. It makes no sense that you already have one for places you never been in.
So let people lock up the map eventually. And no dungeon maps please.
I played games without maps before, Meridian 59 and Lineage to mention 2. Exploring is more exiting without maps but suddenly getting lost because the place look more or less the same everywhere when you already been there a thousand times is just boring and silly.
The alternative is to have a map that doesn't show where you are.
I can compromise to give the players an option to get a map but no GPS system.
One reason why "no map" is a good thing is that because you have no map now you're - surprisingly - looking at the world. You see this rock? you see this Tree? the world the developers created. I remember when I went to Crushbone the way I do it is follow trails. Like when I see tihs tree I take a right then after a few hundred feets I will see a cave. If I had a map, I wouldn't even care about the detal put in the world.
The "the place look familiar" problem can be avoided if the team spend more time on making the world than making million of quest texts that no one reads. The world can be made where no spot can look exactly the same as the other one and because you have no map you are going to freaking pay attention to your surrounding. No more easy way out by looking at your GPS map and following that arrow. Instead you have to look at the road and be in the world.
One of the major problems with new MMO's these days it that it doesn't really matter what form it is designed in, it could be launched as the most hardcore old school MMO ever, but within a year it could be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator if the player numbers aren't there.
The best hope for the old school players is with an indie developer, a niche game selling a few tens of thousands copies would be viable that way, whereas a company like SOE is understandably looking at a much more substantial market and will aim the level of the game accordingly.
Wanted to give my 2 cents on the map topic.. I dont' mind having a map feature that can be used to show you areas that you have discovered first hand.. I do have a problem with maps having GPS numbers and the ability to waypoint those locations.. Really? a glowing trial or arrow showing you the way to the spot!.. Can we make games anymore hand holding then that?.. Even EQ1 caved in.. gps numbers were there, but they were far from being the main source of guiding people.. People back then still gave directions like we do in life.. "We are at Orc Camp 1, Head west, and when you get to the 2nd set of NPC buildings turn north, we are on the north wall"..... We didn't so much tell people that we are at 110, 35.. Yes some did, but that was not the norm, atleast back in my day of playing..
Especially in 3D dungeons.. Ya'll remember being in EQ1's KC.. When people said they were in the "Hand room" having the cords wasnt' much help if you didnt' know how to get there.. or other dungeons like Sol A and B or Guk.. Many of those old time dungeons were like mazes.. I loved it.. I do find it funny tho how so many can preach "immersion" when talking about lore, but quickly ignore immerison when GPS numbers are brought up.. I dont' think Frodo and Sam used TomTom..
Here is my take on the map issue. I think we should have them but have them more like lotro. You had a map but it didnt show you anything until you found it. If you just entered a area for the first time you didnt know what was around the corner until you peeked and then you knew. As far as putting cord on a map ( 101n, 32w) im not for all that but, after finding a place and you bring up your map of that area i do think there should be some kind of marker there telling you what that place is( village, camp site, keep) etc etc .
I think maps are inevitable, because if a game doesn't include them then the internet will assuredly provide them!
However, I prefer them not to show areas you haven't yet visited, or too much detail. I like the ability to annotate them, and my pet hate is maps that need to be redrawn every time you enter the area. Once visited, a map should always show the places you have been.
My own preference is for maps not to show detailed quest locations although approximate areas as with WAR's maps are fine, as long as the ability is there to disable all forms of quest helper for those who don't want that degree of assistance.
I'd prefer a map drawn by your own, such as in Everquest 1 (the first ones) you character is moving and painting a line plus the ability to adds notes. As time is moving on you're getting a real good feeling for the campspots and can draw mark them which is great and immersive.
As for grouping though, well we did it per /loc and campspots worked great with some tweaks. EQ next could be a make or break for Soe though I think it'll be another break
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I'm kinda divided here. I think that you should be able to get in game maps when playing the game.
If you been in an area long enough it actually makes sense of getting that map. It makes no sense that you already have one for places you never been in.
So let people lock up the map eventually. And no dungeon maps please.
I played games without maps before, Meridian 59 and Lineage to mention 2. Exploring is more exiting without maps but suddenly getting lost because the place look more or less the same everywhere when you already been there a thousand times is just boring and silly.
The alternative is to have a map that doesn't show where you are.
also a good thing about not having maps is a dungeon get to feel so much bigger, alone for the fact you cant see yourself inch away on a mini map...have for a long time liked the idea of having unlockable maps in MMOs, but then I love to unlock area´s, dungeons and instances...hidden cities whatever you can think of, inbetween the "day to day" gameplay.
and for the guy who say people in this thread is up for a huge disappointment, hope you wrong but know you are right :P SOE cater to "what people want" so taking a look at EQ2s Vellious will properbly be a good pointer at what they want to do with EQnext.....am tho still abit excited to see what they mean with "looking more at EQ1 than EQ2 when designing EQnext"
Heh... It's SOE, and Smed is not noted for taking into account any of the paying customers views. Smed knows what is best, thats why it will be a nice safe and shinier, dumbed down bore fest. Soloable in a fortnight.
MMO's need interaction to be succesful or you may as well be playing Oblivion (great game). Most players like to group, it just needs to be made easier and necessary .
Now heres a nasty... scrap guilds. Why? thought we wanted social interaction...
Some players will only group with guildies
Some guilds think they own the game
Powerful guilds warp the feedback to devs to suit them
Have been guilded for most of my time, but have always had an alt when I want to do my own thing. It just seems to be a game mechanic that sometimes does more damage than good.
Comments
I hope that is true, which would explain the shut down of Vanguard.. It just may be that EQ1 could be getting a Vanguard upgrade with some tweaks.. It would make sense..
while i think Vanguard's world design is 2nd only to Darkfall's, there is a certain similarity to almost all the terrain. there is a certain roundness of the landscape almost everywhere you go. like some 'roundness' paintbrush that the whole world was 'painted' with to rough it out, and then they just never got around to more precisely handcrafting the more unusual peaks and sharp landscape contrasts you normally see in most handcrafted terrain.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
I agree with this post 100%. MMO's need to be geared towards everyone the hard core, and casual guy/gal and the only way to pull in the casual guy/gal is to give them a great MMO exp even if they can play a few hours a day or week. You also have to appeal to everyone else and you will never pull someone from a game they have years invested in for more of the same old same old. I personally hope the go old school EQ1 with upgrades. I think there are alot of ppl that want a AAA old school style game, but thats just me.
all instanced dungeons or even %50 instanced dungeons will not feel like an EverQuest experience for me.
almost all my best memories from MMORPGs are from public dungeon experiences in EQ1.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
I would also like to SOE allow third party UI's like drox. And i would also like to see them get away from charging ppl to look up info on there toons. I like how WoWs website allows you to look up info on your toon or someone elses and does not to to squeeze another dime out of you for it. I mean we already paid 50 dollars for the game and are paying you 15 dollars a month for a sub how much more greedy can you be. And no downloadable content no ty. I played EQ2 and i didnt buy the DLC but when they released there first exp for it they added all that DLC into the exp so ppl bascially paid twice for the same content if you but that DLC and the exp.
if anyone thinks SoE or any AAA company is going to spend time and money to remake EQ vanilla then you don't even belong in any mmorpg discussion and need a reality check.
EQ next will be a quest driven instanced based game, ( quest question marks over npcs heads ) with a match making system for groups like you have in WoW. Smed already said 15mins is to long to wait for a group. so i bet we will see henchmen type system like you have in EQ.
yah, me too .
but the industry is what it is now. as much as i would like to see it happen. no AAA company is going to take a lose for some nerds that want to relive their past mmorpg experience. takes to time and money make these AAA mmogs now-a-days for them to gamble on a long shot.
Jairus you are right but I h o p e you are wrong. Soe failed so many times catering to the EZ mode market this would be their chance showing that they can still produce a game like EQ Vanilla. It wouldn't be such risky as going for the dumbed down masses cause ya know there are tons of dumbed down masses game rolling out (GW 2 and SWTOR obviously the biggest hyped ones), why not cater to a more loyal oldschool base again?
I can guarantee you the first company who does this right will have great success with it. Speaking of realistic numbers there are still enough people to make an oldschool game really and I mean really successful.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
that's the primary problem with existing crop of MMO's on the market. everyone going for the jack of all trades and master of none approach. it's almost like saying lets make a FPS that caters to the casual and the blind:D EQ is the indisputed king of raid content and if they can do that right then that is a market worth persuing.
saying one aspect of the game is nort worth persuing is like saying all FPS games are failures... they focus on only ONE aspect of the game and they do it extreamly well. as a result there is a large following in that market. IF EQ can chop away all the time sink crap that block people from enjoying raids, there would be more people interested in raids because there is an intrensic sense of accomplishment tied to beating complex raids.
there were plenty of people in EQ1 that would have loved to raid if there wasn't so many layers of barriers preventing them from raiding. oh you need to have 2000AA's before you stop being a liabilty in the raid. you need 25 keys and 34 flags to enter the zone and you need to have your epic done before you can even do your job in the raid...
raiding guild constantly lose members to attrition and they have to constantly lower their standards to replenish the ranks, eventually their requirements are so low that they are no longer able to raid the content they once raided... if the barriers to raid didnt prevent people from raiding, the raiding guilds can easily replenish their members and raiding continues.
take away the stupid flags/keys and re work the AA system so that it wasnt such a HUGE wall to overcome and they will attract all the people who enjoys a challange when playing MMO. they would have a very successful product if they are able to make a game that focus more on player skill as determining factor of success then random timesinks they must overcome to achieve greatness. as a guild recruiter, you should only need to worry about raid attendence and ability to listen, not how many flags/keys your recruit has and how many AA's they have... because anyone can grind out AA's, but not everyone can learn to listen to raid instructions...
When Sid Meier designs the sequel to his award winning Civilization game. Does he "improve" the game play to Real Time Strategy knowing that his game is known for being Turn Base Strategy? No, he doesn't. You know why? Because that's the "branding" and "flavor" of Civilization. Once you make it Real Time Strategy is it no longer Civilization and then you would completely lose the IP and the Fans.
SOE did the mistake with EQ2 and this is their last chance to contain the fans and the flavor of real EQ.
EverQuest was not a Quest Driven MMORPG and should never be.
EverQuest was First Person View.
EverQuest was harsh.
EverQuest had faction system and should always have that too.
EverQuest had Diety System.
EverQuest had Skill + Leveling system.
EverQuest had slow paced combat.
EverQuest had Tanks, Healers, CC, Pullers and so forth. Diverse Class Roles (Specific from level 1).
That is EverQuest, why change it? it had it's glory it has it's fans. If SOE got any clue they would recreate the EverQuest experience, anything else would be a stupid call. You don't see the guys behind the Elder Scroll releasing a 3rd person restricting game with thousands of cut scene just because it was the trend. They stick to their genre and stick to their fans. They will always win them and their game will always be The Elder Scroll. As for EverQuest Next... we'll see. But I'm not holding my breath and I know for a fact I will be disappointed, since SOE is behind it.
I agree with all your points except one... EverQUEST had a very good and wel developed quest system. At ALL times while playing it you had at least some quest on the go. These quests often were massive and had many complicated steps and NON of these steps had a here I am flag. You had to figure out what to do from te clues given and make your own notes.
But as for quests EQ1 was full of them.
UsualDaNeriak. You are an avid EQ defender and someone who enjoys the depth of gaming. I find it shocking reading that YOU think "no maps" is wrong. I am not saying having no map is the only way to go but claiming it is "wrong" is unjustified. Having no maps (and specially GPS maps) in a game would add a lot of benefits that I've listed them in one of the posts in my blog. The problem is not with "no maps" but the mentality thinking that every game is going to be Quest Driven and without maps people will take hours to find the NPC for their quest or these 10 rats. Well, there is NO Quest Driven content in EQ you are free to do whatever you want. Nothing is pointing you towards a specific spot.
A Carefully designed Content Driven System will prove that you don't need a map for an MMORPG. If at all you can have a drawn map the player can purchase from the city to give clues of where to go if they wish to join their friends in another city. But generally the world should be filled with content that makes players know their surroundings by exploring and trying different areas. Early dungeons and tackling these dungeons will be the Conten that Drives the players most of the time. Add different variety of areas/dungeons for Solo Play, Duo, 3-4 or a 6 player group.
People made maps in real life thousands of years ago,so why is mapping in games so unheralded?
I would agree that just handing over a map,for no reason is a little cheap,but eventually the players should end up with some form of earned map or design the game to have skills like Cartography.
As to various dungeons,you know and i know ALL that matters is the loot,people don't play these games for Fun.So if the game has avarious dungeons,the soloers WIL Lcry that the ycan't access the best loot,because it is in the 12 man dungeon.
Basically we need to get away from this EQ/Wow design,it has so many holes in it ,it is just bad.People need to forget this nostalgic thing and move on,heck i don't listen to the beatles anymore
,
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'm kinda divided here. I think that you should be able to get in game maps when playing the game.
If you been in an area long enough it actually makes sense of getting that map. It makes no sense that you already have one for places you never been in.
So let people lock up the map eventually. And no dungeon maps please.
I played games without maps before, Meridian 59 and Lineage to mention 2. Exploring is more exiting without maps but suddenly getting lost because the place look more or less the same everywhere when you already been there a thousand times is just boring and silly.
The alternative is to have a map that doesn't show where you are.
You guys are really setting yourselves up for disappointment here.
Yes, people had map but not GPS map with an arrow showing where you are exactly in the map. They also didn't have mini maps. I'm against GPS maps and Mini Maps in a Fantasy Setting. Works great for a Sci Fi game, but not for a Fantasy Setting.
The maps purchased will not be extremely accurate either and again no GPS system. You shouldn't see where you are in the map when you view it. You should see major land marks like "Here's the mountain, here's the city." and based on that you should know where you are in the world.
Exactly.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
I'm not holding my breath or expecting anything from EQ Next or any new MMORPGs. I lost hope long time ago. But we try to speak our opinion for a hope maybe just maybe someone with the authority to make what we demand come true. But my expectation is a big round ZERO. Specially when SOE is behind it.
I can compromise to give the players an option to get a map but no GPS system.
One reason why "no map" is a good thing is that because you have no map now you're - surprisingly - looking at the world. You see this rock? you see this Tree? the world the developers created. I remember when I went to Crushbone the way I do it is follow trails. Like when I see tihs tree I take a right then after a few hundred feets I will see a cave. If I had a map, I wouldn't even care about the detal put in the world.
The "the place look familiar" problem can be avoided if the team spend more time on making the world than making million of quest texts that no one reads. The world can be made where no spot can look exactly the same as the other one and because you have no map you are going to freaking pay attention to your surrounding. No more easy way out by looking at your GPS map and following that arrow. Instead you have to look at the road and be in the world.
One of the major problems with new MMO's these days it that it doesn't really matter what form it is designed in, it could be launched as the most hardcore old school MMO ever, but within a year it could be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator if the player numbers aren't there.
The best hope for the old school players is with an indie developer, a niche game selling a few tens of thousands copies would be viable that way, whereas a company like SOE is understandably looking at a much more substantial market and will aim the level of the game accordingly.
Wanted to give my 2 cents on the map topic.. I dont' mind having a map feature that can be used to show you areas that you have discovered first hand.. I do have a problem with maps having GPS numbers and the ability to waypoint those locations.. Really? a glowing trial or arrow showing you the way to the spot!.. Can we make games anymore hand holding then that?.. Even EQ1 caved in.. gps numbers were there, but they were far from being the main source of guiding people.. People back then still gave directions like we do in life.. "We are at Orc Camp 1, Head west, and when you get to the 2nd set of NPC buildings turn north, we are on the north wall"..... We didn't so much tell people that we are at 110, 35.. Yes some did, but that was not the norm, atleast back in my day of playing..
Especially in 3D dungeons.. Ya'll remember being in EQ1's KC.. When people said they were in the "Hand room" having the cords wasnt' much help if you didnt' know how to get there.. or other dungeons like Sol A and B or Guk.. Many of those old time dungeons were like mazes.. I loved it.. I do find it funny tho how so many can preach "immersion" when talking about lore, but quickly ignore immerison when GPS numbers are brought up.. I dont' think Frodo and Sam used TomTom..
Here is my take on the map issue. I think we should have them but have them more like lotro. You had a map but it didnt show you anything until you found it. If you just entered a area for the first time you didnt know what was around the corner until you peeked and then you knew. As far as putting cord on a map ( 101n, 32w) im not for all that but, after finding a place and you bring up your map of that area i do think there should be some kind of marker there telling you what that place is( village, camp site, keep) etc etc .
I think maps are inevitable, because if a game doesn't include them then the internet will assuredly provide them!
However, I prefer them not to show areas you haven't yet visited, or too much detail. I like the ability to annotate them, and my pet hate is maps that need to be redrawn every time you enter the area. Once visited, a map should always show the places you have been.
My own preference is for maps not to show detailed quest locations although approximate areas as with WAR's maps are fine, as long as the ability is there to disable all forms of quest helper for those who don't want that degree of assistance.
As for grouping though, well we did it per /loc and campspots worked great with some tweaks. EQ next could be a make or break for Soe though I think it'll be another break
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
also a good thing about not having maps is a dungeon get to feel so much bigger, alone for the fact you cant see yourself inch away on a mini map...have for a long time liked the idea of having unlockable maps in MMOs, but then I love to unlock area´s, dungeons and instances...hidden cities whatever you can think of, inbetween the "day to day" gameplay.
and for the guy who say people in this thread is up for a huge disappointment, hope you wrong but know you are right :P SOE cater to "what people want" so taking a look at EQ2s Vellious will properbly be a good pointer at what they want to do with EQnext.....am tho still abit excited to see what they mean with "looking more at EQ1 than EQ2 when designing EQnext"
Heh... It's SOE, and Smed is not noted for taking into account any of the paying customers views. Smed knows what is best, thats why it will be a nice safe and shinier, dumbed down bore fest. Soloable in a fortnight.
MMO's need interaction to be succesful or you may as well be playing Oblivion (great game). Most players like to group, it just needs to be made easier and necessary .
Now heres a nasty... scrap guilds. Why? thought we wanted social interaction...
Some players will only group with guildies
Some guilds think they own the game
Powerful guilds warp the feedback to devs to suit them
Have been guilded for most of my time, but have always had an alt when I want to do my own thing. It just seems to be a game mechanic that sometimes does more damage than good.
Just my two pence worth.