I actually hate how quickly MMOs are beaten now. Every new MMO out there can have you reach max level in 80 to 100 hours played time. Vanilla WoW, which was easy mode compared to EQ even required around 250 to 300 hours to reach lvl 60 and EQ1 was far more.
When you can reach max level in two weeks time and still have a full time job, there is a problem. If you play 40 hours a week (something I consider the bottom rung of hardcore) it should still take you at least 4 months to reach maximum level. That does not include crafting or time wasting, I am talking about the fastest way to XP.
The other problem is that people outlevel eachother so quickly that they can no longer play with friends. If your friend played an extra 10 hours without you one week, in today's MMOs they are 8 levels ahead of you and too high to group with. to fix this, they introduced mentoring and other ways to group together, but it is not the same. If it took 4 hours early game to gain a level and 12 hours late game to gain a level, then even if your friends played twice as much as you, you could still play together for quite a while.
I am a person who want to be able to solo at least 75% of a game, even if it is a bit harder, but not if it is meant for three people on hard a mode, and if reward is crap? then I am gone never to look back.
I agree, dungeons should be a group play, but,! also as a scaled system, because you can't find a group all the time for a dungeon, or have to wait a realy long time for cross server players.
If games become group oriented? I am not the one, I'll go back to single and multiplayer games.
Games did not become easy, you simply level-up to fast because of realy high xp reward, this happened because people cried that games where too grindish, and not enough content, because developers are too lazy to implement crafting, housing, farms..., they just give you gear which you get from killing animals, I just can't picture a steel armor in the belly of an animal.
Please, no. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks a system like that completely kills class individuality in an MMO.
Finding a balance between solo and group play is the key element. Solo play should be available, but dangerous and not trivial.
The players should be individuals. SWG allowed you to take bits and pieces from 32 different classes. You could only take a maximum of 3 Expert classes and only master 1 and maybe 2 if you worked hard to balance your skills, the classes were still very unique.
I have to agree, and many pen and paper systems makes this even better, like Shadowrun for example.
It is true that many MMOs have handled classless systems badly, mainly because you get few choices. Good classless systems lets you customize your character from a huge variety of choices, with a point cost to balance things out (or something similar).
The downside is that making a character and re-speccing it takes a lot longer time than in levelbased systems but some templates for people who hates stuff like that works well and those templates can be rather similar to regular classes.
I actually hate how quickly MMOs are beaten now. Every new MMO out there can have you reach max level in 80 to 100 hours played time. Vanilla WoW, which was easy mode compared to EQ even required around 250 to 300 hours to reach lvl 60 and EQ1 was far more.
When you can reach max level in two weeks time and still have a full time job, there is a problem. If you play 40 hours a week (something I consider the bottom rung of hardcore) it should still take you at least 4 months to reach maximum level. That does not include crafting or time wasting, I am talking about the fastest way to XP.
The other problem is that people outlevel eachother so quickly that they can no longer play with friends. If your friend played an extra 10 hours without you one week, in today's MMOs they are 8 levels ahead of you and too high to group with. to fix this, they introduced mentoring and other ways to group together, but it is not the same. If it took 4 hours early game to gain a level and 12 hours late game to gain a level, then even if your friends played twice as much as you, you could still play together for quite a while.
The levelthing is really due to the large gap in power between each level, not how fast it takes to level or anything else. Makes less difference between each level and it wont be such a big problem. You could also skip levels altogether (but not character progression of course) or you can do like GW2...
The time it takes to level is indeed silly, I wish they had casual servers with 5 times as fast to level for people who like that thing and normal for us old timers.
I don't particularly care for OPs idea with 3 player groups unless the game actually is classless (maybe it is, I have not logged in much lately and could have missed that information). Trinity combat is best with 6 players but acceptable with 5. Less just isn't fun and with more like in some larger raids I kinda feel that a new combat mechanic would be more fun, maybe something closer to GW2 or something completely new.
They have released no information about the game except that it is a huge sandbox. What that means is up to anyone's guess. It is probably just a marketing gimic. However a true sandbox game allows you to go where you want and do what you want. This includes designing your own class. I would love to have a system similar to original SWG where you can add things from different classes to your own. However, I do not think they should include crafting in this. Crafting should be seperate.
As far as 2 or 3 player groups: You can design content that can be defeated by 2 or 3 players but does not require a tank or healer. The holy trinity actaully makes the game very simple and easy. Think about it. you never have to coordinate skills. The tank is responsible for holding aggro only. The healer is responsible for keeping the tank alive. The DPS is responsible for doing as high of damage as possible without stealing agrro.
Where is the skill in this? It is so mindless you can watch TV while doing it and most do. However, what if you had an enchanter/monk combo. The enchanter could mez adds and do damage to the one you are fighting, and the monk could do damage, and pull mobs. There would be no way a monk could tank 2 mobs at the same time without a healer, but he could tank 1. The enchanter makes sure only one attacks, and the monk makes sure you don't get more than 2 or 3 max by feigning death. This would require more skill and coordination than a trinity and be doable by 2 people. There are many other combos as well, I just used that as an example.
i'm a solo player but i don't expect or want the game to revolve around me as a soloist, all i ask for is to be included in things.
the best solo experience ever in any mmo was at the beginning of final fantasy 11 (when it first launched and was extremely difficult) with the beastmaster, i solo'd about 80% of it and even solo'd a piece of artifact armor which all of that took an insane amount of effort and time.
this game was mainly about grouping but it gave you the option to solo in a creative way that made it a unique experience.
i don't mind if people love getting into guilds and raiding together and taking down epic bosses, my only complaint would be that as a soloist i'd also like something to do in my own way that's comparable, maybe not taking down an epic boss that requires a group but perhaps an exploring puzzle that unlocks a great treasure or something like this.
in my opinion, mmo's should be all about options and variety.
there should be paths for the guilds, the soloists and everyone in between.
that's what i think the solution is, like what final fantasy 11 offered.
I actually hate how quickly MMOs are beaten now. Every new MMO out there can have you reach max level in 80 to 100 hours played time. Vanilla WoW, which was easy mode compared to EQ even required around 250 to 300 hours to reach lvl 60 and EQ1 was far more.
When you can reach max level in two weeks time and still have a full time job, there is a problem. If you play 40 hours a week (something I consider the bottom rung of hardcore) it should still take you at least 4 months to reach maximum level. That does not include crafting or time wasting, I am talking about the fastest way to XP.
The other problem is that people outlevel eachother so quickly that they can no longer play with friends. If your friend played an extra 10 hours without you one week, in today's MMOs they are 8 levels ahead of you and too high to group with. to fix this, they introduced mentoring and other ways to group together, but it is not the same. If it took 4 hours early game to gain a level and 12 hours late game to gain a level, then even if your friends played twice as much as you, you could still play together for quite a while.
The levelthing is really due to the large gap in power between each level, not how fast it takes to level or anything else. Makes less difference between each level and it wont be such a big problem. You could also skip levels altogether (but not character progression of course) or you can do like GW2...
The time it takes to level is indeed silly, I wish they had casual servers with 5 times as fast to level for people who like that thing and normal for us old timers.
It'f funny how people say they like these games and yet they have systematically turned them into completely different games. I didn't mind taking a long time to level back in vanilla... or having to find groups to do things... it's what made the gaming experience different. Now its all about gear score, achievements, being able to queue up with anyone in the world... at what point in time did we lose the actual game in the process?
No point in even creating a world if you're only going to be in it 2 weeks max. People seem happy to squeeze themselves into smaller raid dungeons endlessly for 6 months... same mobs... same loot... same scenery... same outcome.
I much prefer grouping with other players. If I solo, it is because I do not have enough time to devote to finding a group only to leave 5 minutes after joining it. I believe the creation of content for small groups would be a great solution. Anyone can find 1 or 2 others to group with. Finding a full group of 5 or 6 that includes a single healer and a single tank is just harder.
Just have the game structured like most games are now, split between solo and group, however, replace solo with duo/trio. If you want to solo, you can craft or complete diplomacy quests.
And, IMHO, the best way to handle the tank/healer/dps looking for group, is to have a skill base leveling system, much like SWG or maybe even Rift. Where a role can be filled by any class. The roles are still there, the holy trinity is still in effect, but there are many options on how to achieve the trinity. I would imagine a SWG type skill based leveling system put into a game like EQNext would allow more the ultimate in specializing a character and furthering immersion to a new level.
Please, no. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks a system like that completely kills class individuality in an MMO.
Finding a balance between solo and group play is the key element. Solo play should be available, but dangerous and not trivial.
The players should be individuals. SWG allowed you to take bits and pieces from 32 different classes. You could only take a maximum of 3 Expert classes and only master 1 and maybe 2 if you worked hard to balance your skills, the classes were still very unique.
You are literally suggesting to implement a system from a game that died. Its gone, you can no longer play it... and yet, somehow you think it would be a perfect system for a brand new game. I understand your concept, and I hope that you understand my position against it.
Players are individuals, very astute. What I am specifically talking about is class individuality, if people can take parts of your class and make it a sub class of theirs... you are losing class individuality. This has been an ongoing debate since the first hybrid class was created. You are suggesting a game full of hybrid classes, yikes.
You also imply that people get bored when things take too long and it causes them to quit. I find that to be an extremely interesting point of view, after all, there is probably nothing else you can do in an MMO besides group for a dungeon or get bored and quit. Is this all stemming from personal experience or extensive research on the matter, I wonder.
Sandbox is a subjective term to describe MMOs, it does not mean one certain thing, or one specific way.. which in this case you interpreted as; class freedom and necessity to form groups of any size(2-6) with random classes. I think when EQNext uses the term Sandbox, they are trying to bring back a sense of adventure to MMOs that has been severely lacking. That's what the term means to me as a long time EQ player.
A game needs both solo and group atmospheres to survive. You need balance; to seek a fine line where one is not superior to the other, more or less rewarding, and more or less fun.
I honestly believe that if EQNext goes the solo-unfriendly route and forces grouping then it will fail without a robust cross-server LFG tool. You really cannot expect gamers in today's gaming environment to be forced to sit around and spam chat for groups for hours before they can experience the game. It would be beyond simply poor design to do so.
I would absolutely love to return to Norath but if it is going to be loaded with features designed specifically to waste my time and ration my fun, there is no way I am playing. It's that simple.
Lol, cross server LFG tool.
This game is open world, not instanced. I'm sure there will be LFG tools, but if you want to log in and have a dialog that immediately groups you and teleports you around the world, you should probably just download Neverwinter. Its free to play.
Lol, you expect people to wait around for hours spamming LFG channel just to play, 1999 called it wants it player punishing out-dated ridiculously unrealistic and unfun game design paradigms back.
With that out of the way, can we dispense with the condescension or did you want to lament more about how normal people, with normal time commitments ruined your un-inclusive "social" experience.
I understand that instancing is one of the unspeakable 7 deadly vices of game design to you but it solves more than it harms and can be done right. Plus we have no info as to how EQN will do dungeons or instancing. For all we know the reason they EQN is more "sandboxy" is because of instancing.
What I think a lot of people are having a tough time understanding is that the reason the industry moved on from a lot of the game designs present in EQ is because they had huge downsides. You can't simply go back without fixing those issues. You want a more Group centered play? Great, but what is the fix for putting groups togeather if you only have a little bit of time to play.
What I think a lot of people are having a tough time understanding is that the reason the industry moved on from a lot of the game designs present in EQ is because they had huge downsides. You can't simply go back without fixing those issues. You want a more Group centered play? Great, but what is the fix for putting groups togeather if you only have a little bit of time to play.
There is no fix for this. That's like asking what's the fix for someone who wants to run a 20 mile marathon but only has time to do 5 miles of it. You're outta luck. Sorry. MMOs aren't for you. Have a nice day. The door is that way. Peace. Don't call us, we'll call you. Bai.
What I think a lot of people are having a tough time understanding is that the reason the industry moved on from a lot of the game designs present in EQ is because they had huge downsides. You can't simply go back without fixing those issues. You want a more Group centered play? Great, but what is the fix for putting groups togeather if you only have a little bit of time to play.
The problem with your thinking across the board is that the outcome is always, with no exceptions, a game void of any sense of accomplishment that becomes boring after one, maybe two months max.
The industry didn't just "move on", one game came along - WoW, with a system very much like EQ at launch, which proceeded to streamline and trivialize every aspect of the MMORPG in order to accomodate the lowest common denominator. It became nothing more than fantasy sims online. Then, blinded by the almighty dollar, every other producer for the next decade followed suit in an attempt to make a grab at part of their subscriber base, forgetting everything that made games like EQ, AC, UO and other first gen MMOs such amazing games.
The idea that "normal people, with normal time commitments" should be able to accomplish everything the guy who is able to play 8 hours a day is folly. Its not about whether theres a LFG tool, its about everyone wanting something for nothing. In the end, you just end up with everyone having everything, and nobody feels any sense of accomplishment, so the game dies.
What I think a lot of people are having a tough time understanding is that the reason the industry moved on from a lot of the game designs present in EQ is because they had huge downsides. You can't simply go back without fixing those issues. You want a more Group centered play? Great, but what is the fix for putting groups togeather if you only have a little bit of time to play.
There is no fix for this. That's like asking what's the fix for someone who wants to run a 20 mile marathon but only has time to do 5 miles of it. You're outta luck. Sorry. MMOs aren't for you. Have a nice day. The door is that way. Peace. Don't call us, we'll call you. Bai.
Actually I think you have it reversed. I have been happily playing MMOs for years, and will continue to do so. I love the current generation of MMOs and will continue to play them. But unlike you I wouldn't begrudge you a game-play experience that will make you happy. I am almost positive there are multiple Korean Grinders out there that will fullfill your need for a marathon. I just won't be playing with you in those worlds. I also don't think this is SOE target for EQN either.
The solution is what Smeds already hinted at, different server rules. A hardcore server that promotes heavy grouping, quite a simple solution. If you don't like that type of game play then stay away from that server, Smed and co have always been very good with different server rules.
Not even worth arguing about, play on that server or you don't.
I'm more interested in EQN having a robust weather system like Age Of Wushu has just shown us at E3.
What I think a lot of people are having a tough time understanding is that the reason the industry moved on from a lot of the game designs present in EQ is because they had huge downsides. You can't simply go back without fixing those issues. You want a more Group centered play? Great, but what is the fix for putting groups together if you only have a little bit of time to play.
The problem with your thinking across the board is that the outcome is always, with no exceptions, a game void of any sense of accomplishment that becomes boring after one, maybe two months max.
The industry didn't just "move on", one game came along - WoW, with a system very much like EQ at launch, which proceeded to streamline and trivialize every aspect of the MMORPG in order to accommodate the lowest common denominator. It became nothing more than fantasy sims online. Then, blinded by the almighty dollar, every other producer for the next decade followed suit in an attempt to make a grab at part of their subscriber base, forgetting everything that made games like EQ, AC, UO and other first gen MMOs such amazing games.
The idea that "normal people, with normal time commitments" should be able to accomplish everything the guy who is able to play 8 hours a day is folly. Its not about whether theres a LFG tool, its about everyone wanting something for nothing. In the end, you just end up with everyone having everything, and nobody feels any sense of accomplishment, so the game dies.
Blizzard's developers played EQ, loved it and pulled out everything that was "wrong" with the design. And more people enjoyed their version than McQuaids. Vanguard was released well after WoW so the Brad McQuaid MMO design paradigm had it's shot at capturing the public. It was panned and for good reason. It doesn't work.
The problem with your thinking is that it is at it's root predatory. Your "sense of accomplishment" is a relative scale that absolutely needs the other 99% to provide any sort of intrinsic value. In fact that is the very definition of "accomplishment" for you, something is only rare and meaningful if very few others have done it. You long for the gaming equivalent of a pyramid scheme where only you have the time for anything meaningful, defined strictly on the basis that others do not have that time. This isn't about fair gaming, its about you feeling better about yourself. Ultimately it is destructive to the community as it isn't inclusive. You aren't interested in playing with other people only being taller and shinier when standing next to them.
The reason MMORPG gaming has never been the same since WoW is because all of those other "common denominators" had something that was more entertaining to play than a pointlessly grindy and masochistic world. Since comparative accomplishment was the only value those worlds had for you, they lost their value as you now didn't have a set of "fail" players to measure yourself against.
Your welcome to advocate building yet another world based on a McQuaid design paradigm but don't be surprised if it is about as successful as Vangard was.
What I think a lot of people are having a tough time understanding is that the reason the industry moved on from a lot of the game designs present in EQ is because they had huge downsides. You can't simply go back without fixing those issues. You want a more Group centered play? Great, but what is the fix for putting groups together if you only have a little bit of time to play.
The problem with your thinking across the board is that the outcome is always, with no exceptions, a game void of any sense of accomplishment that becomes boring after one, maybe two months max.
The industry didn't just "move on", one game came along - WoW, with a system very much like EQ at launch, which proceeded to streamline and trivialize every aspect of the MMORPG in order to accommodate the lowest common denominator. It became nothing more than fantasy sims online. Then, blinded by the almighty dollar, every other producer for the next decade followed suit in an attempt to make a grab at part of their subscriber base, forgetting everything that made games like EQ, AC, UO and other first gen MMOs such amazing games.
The idea that "normal people, with normal time commitments" should be able to accomplish everything the guy who is able to play 8 hours a day is folly. Its not about whether theres a LFG tool, its about everyone wanting something for nothing. In the end, you just end up with everyone having everything, and nobody feels any sense of accomplishment, so the game dies.
Blizzard's developers played EQ, loved it and pulled out everything that was "wrong" with the design. And more people enjoyed their version than McQuaids. Vanguard was released well after WoW so the Brad McQuaid MMO design paradigm had it's shot at capturing the public. It was panned and for good reason. It doesn't work.
The problem with your thinking is that it is at it's root predatory. Your "sense of accomplishment" is a relative scale that absolutely needs the other 99% to provide any sort of intrinsic value. In fact that is the very definition of "accomplishment" for you, something is only rare and meaningful if very few others have done it. You long for the gaming equivalent of a pyramid scheme where only you have the time for anything meaningful, defined strictly on the basis that others do not have that time. This isn't about fair gaming, its about you feeling better about yourself. Ultimately it is destructive to the community as it isn't inclusive. You aren't interested in playing with other people only being taller and shinier when standing next to them.
The reason MMORPG gaming has never been the same since WoW is because all of those other "common denominators" had something that was more entertaining to play than a pointlessly grindy and masochistic world. Since comparative accomplishment was the only value those worlds had for you, they lost their value as you now didn't have a set of "fail" players to measure yourself against.
Your welcome to advocate building yet another world based on a McQuaid design paradigm but don't be surprised if it is about as successful as Vangard was.
And here you have another huge post, based on the faulty assumption that I am the guy with time to be the tallest and shiniest. Faulty assumption, faulty conclusion.
I simply want a game where theres something meaningful at all levels of time dedication. Whether I play 2 hours a day, or 10 hours a day, I want to know that theres still something to accomplish. I don't want something for nothing, like the playerbase of World of Warcraft. The idea that when I log in (WoW), a dialog comes up and points me where to go, instantly teleports me into a group of people I don't know, from servers I don't even play on, and I coast through a dungeon with my cat sitting on my keyboard while I watch tv... it just sickens me.
This is an Everquest forum, with people who played Everquest and know better. Your perspective is a complete joke to me, and somehow you think that because Blizzard has made more money or more people played their forever compromising game, its somehow a better game?! Its the equivalent of saying because more people drink water than eat steak, water is obviously better. The 100s of thousands of players who played Everquest classic, still want to play a game like Everquest classic. We don't want a game that trivializes our accomplishments. We don't want a game where every expansion the first quest replaces items we spent 100s of hours obtaining.
Just to expand on my water and steak analogy, yes steak is expensive. Everquest cost players more time to progress to the end, both in levels and item progression, but it was high class. It doesn't mean it was somehow inferior or they were wrong in their approach because they were different and catered to a smaller crowd. Thats the thinking that has gotten the MMO genre into such a rut. Both players, and developers need to understand that its okay to aspire to have a 100k, 500k or maybe if your lucky, a million subscriber player base. Instead of being like these last 20 major mmos that came out, your player base will actually grow as a niche, than be cut in half after the first month when people realize its just another clone failing at providing instant gratification as well as WoW.
And, IMHO, the best way to handle the tank/healer/dps looking for group, is to have a skill base leveling system, much like SWG or maybe even Rift. Where a role can be filled by any class. The roles are still there, the holy trinity is still in effect, but there are many options on how to achieve the trinity. I would imagine a SWG type skill based leveling system put into a game like EQNext would allow more the ultimate in specializing a character and furthering immersion to a new level.
Please, no. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks a system like that completely kills class individuality in an MMO.
Finding a balance between solo and group play is the key element. Solo play should be available, but dangerous and not trivial.
The players should be individuals. SWG allowed you to take bits and pieces from 32 different classes. You could only take a maximum of 3 Expert classes and only master 1 and maybe 2 if you worked hard to balance your skills, the classes were still very unique.
You are literally suggesting to implement a system from a game that died. Its gone, you can no longer play it... and yet, somehow you think it would be a perfect system for a brand new game. I understand your concept, and I hope that you understand my position against it.
Players are individuals, very astute. What I am specifically talking about is class individuality, if people can take parts of your class and make it a sub class of theirs... you are losing class individuality. This has been an ongoing debate since the first hybrid class was created. You are suggesting a game full of hybrid classes, yikes.
You also imply that people get bored when things take too long and it causes them to quit. I find that to be an extremely interesting point of view, after all, there is probably nothing else you can do in an MMO besides group for a dungeon or get bored and quit. Is this all stemming from personal experience or extensive research on the matter, I wonder.
Sandbox is a subjective term to describe MMOs, it does not mean one certain thing, or one specific way.. which in this case you interpreted as; class freedom and necessity to form groups of any size(2-6) with random classes. I think when EQNext uses the term Sandbox, they are trying to bring back a sense of adventure to MMOs that has been severely lacking. That's what the term means to me as a long time EQ player.
A game needs both solo and group atmospheres to survive. You need balance; to seek a fine line where one is not superior to the other, more or less rewarding, and more or less fun.
For starters, I'm not implying anything. If you think I am, well, sorry.
On the class discussion, we as gamers, those as developers and basically anyone involved with an MMO, need to begin thinking outside of the box. This method of thinking about the ways games have been and will forever be, needs to go. It's when we limit ourselves that we begin to lose imagination. We need imagination and new methods of thinking to drive new concepts. I'm not saying that my suggested ways are correct, far from that. What we need to do, is break away from the 'tried and true' systems we have had in MMO's for too long, because quite honestly, they just are not working anymore.
Oh, and SOE has already acknowledged that switching SWG was a mistake.
Blizzard's developers played EQ, loved it and pulled out everything that was "wrong" with the design. And more people enjoyed their version than McQuaids. Vanguard was released well after WoW so the Brad McQuaid MMO design paradigm had it's shot at capturing the public. It was panned and for good reason. It doesn't work.
The problem with your thinking is that it is at it's root predatory. Your "sense of accomplishment" is a relative scale that absolutely needs the other 99% to provide any sort of intrinsic value. In fact that is the very definition of "accomplishment" for you, something is only rare and meaningful if very few others have done it. You long for the gaming equivalent of a pyramid scheme where only you have the time for anything meaningful, defined strictly on the basis that others do not have that time. This isn't about fair gaming, its about you feeling better about yourself. Ultimately it is destructive to the community as it isn't inclusive. You aren't interested in playing with other people only being taller and shinier when standing next to them.
The reason MMORPG gaming has never been the same since WoW is because all of those other "common denominators" had something that was more entertaining to play than a pointlessly grindy and masochistic world. Since comparative accomplishment was the only value those worlds had for you, they lost their value as you now didn't have a set of "fail" players to measure yourself against.
Your welcome to advocate building yet another world based on a McQuaid design paradigm but don't be surprised if it is about as successful as Vangard was.
And here you have another huge post, based on the faulty assumption that I am the guy with time to be the tallest and shiniest. Faulty assumption, faulty conclusion.
I simply want a game where theres something meaningful at all levels of time dedication. Whether I play 2 hours a day, or 10 hours a day, I want to know that theres still something to accomplish. I don't want something for nothing, like the playerbase of World of Warcraft. The idea that when I log in (WoW), a dialog comes up and points me where to go, instantly teleports me into a group of people I don't know, from servers I don't even play on, and I coast through a dungeon with my cat sitting on my keyboard while I watch tv... it just sickens me.
This is an Everquest forum, with people who played Everquest and know better. Your perspective is a complete joke to me, and somehow you think that because Blizzard has made more money or more people played their forever compromising game, its somehow a better game?! Its the equivalent of saying because more people drink water than eat steak, water is obviously better. The 100s of thousands of players who played Everquest classic, still want to play a game like Everquest classic. We don't want a game that trivializes our accomplishments. We don't want a game where every expansion the first quest replaces items we spent 100s of hours obtaining.
Just to expand on my water and steak analogy, yes steak is expensive. Everquest cost players more time to progress to the end, both in levels and item progression, but it was high class. It doesn't mean it was somehow inferior or they were wrong in their approach because they were different and catered to a smaller crowd. Thats the thinking that has gotten the MMO genre into such a rut. Both players, and developers need to understand that its okay to aspire to have a 100k, 500k or maybe if your lucky, a million subscriber player base. Instead of being like these last 20 major mmos that came out, your player base will actually grow as a niche, than be cut in half after the first month when people realize its just another clone failing at providing instant gratification as well as WoW.
Its just that simple.
To each is his own, again I don't begrudge you a MMO home. I just don't believe that the act of clicking on 25 NPCs, all with same canned responses, to find the right one for the turn in is fun for anyone. I don't "think" this is about a meaningful experience because you had to do it the "hard" way. I really don't believe you get enjoyment from this. The Tedium is just that, I don't believe it actually adds value for you. I think the endurance of the tedium is what adds value for you. It "feels" like accomplishment based only the fact that not many people were willing to endure it. Perhaps not many people are willing to endure it because it isn't worth enduring.
It doesn't look like or taste like "steak" to me. It looks and tastes like excrement. It's boring and tedious and I truly don't understand how its the least bit fun.
That said, if you were to say that the current crop of MMOs are just too "sweet". This I can almost start to understand. Too much reward and not enough filler. I get this. I really do. I can understand why you would say this. I just don't want us to go back to using "excrement" as filler to soften the "sweetness".
Your welcome to advocate building yet another world based on a McQuaid design paradigm but don't be surprised if it is about as successful as Vangard was.
Vanguard did not fail because of its design, although it did/does have some design problems. It failed because of technical and business problems.
The biggest design problem with the game is that it required such a high end system that it excluded 80% of the MMO playerbase. I upgraded my system for Vanguard, and I had a super high end system. Even I had some chopiness problems at mid graphics levels. Not only did it require a high end machine to run, but it was full of bugs and still is to this day.
Normally, a company will fix the problems and smooth out the game in the first month or two. However, a couple of weeks after the game was release, SOE fired all of the employees of Sigil and took over the game. They hired some back sure, but the chaos of the next few months had very few fixes appearing, content that was promised never showed, and subscribers dropped like rocks. SOE saw the lack of interest and mostly gave up. They kept the game live, but had a dev team of a couple of people keeping the game alive.
I went back to the game a few months ago and played it for a few months. It is a very fun game that is very buggy and laggy. However, it is tough to find a mid level group. There just isn't the population for this.
If it was not for the above problems with the game, Vanguard would have been a huge success. Obviously it would not have had as many people as WoW, but what MMO has? Even WoW doesn't have 12 million subs any longer.
To each is his own, again I don't begrudge you a MMO home. I just don't believe that the act of clicking on 25 NPCs, all with same canned responses, to find the right one for the turn in is fun for anyone. I don't "think" this is about a meaningful experience because you had to do it the "hard" way. I really don't believe you get enjoyment from this. The Tedium is just that, I don't believe it actually adds value for you. I think the endurance of the tedium is what adds value for you. It "feels" like accomplishment based only the fact that not many people were willing to endure it. Perhaps not many people are willing to endure it because it isn't worth enduring.
It doesn't look like or taste like "steak" to me. It looks and tastes like excrement. It's boring and tedious and I truly don't understand how its the least bit fun.
What I believe you are talking about here is the hand holding modern MMOs do. Every quest NPC has a big yellow ! above their heads, and when your quest is ready to turn in, it turnes into a yellow ? The quest objective not only has a line on your compass pointing you to the area you can complete it, but it also has the area the mobs reside in on your map. You can literally complete every quest in the game with no reading, barely paying attention while watching a TV show, never having completed any of the quests before. I know you can do this because I have many times. This type of play can be nice occasionally as sometimes you just want to relax and enjoy yourself, but there is zero immersion, zero lore, and you get tired of the grind quickly. Yes, once all quests get boiled down to the above, they become a grind after a while. All are the same, as you aren't killing gnolls to spawn an event which will eventually allow you to kill their leader for his ancient relic an opposing faction wants you to get. You are killing mobs with ! above their nameplate while watching a TV show.
FFXIV is making it that Soloing takes a backseat to group play. It's also faster to level up in a group that it will be to solo. I doubt EQ will go this route because they will have a sandbox vs a themepark.
Your welcome to advocate building yet another world based on a McQuaid design paradigm but don't be surprised if it is about as successful as Vangard was.
Vanguard did not fail because of its design, although it did/does have some design problems. It failed because of technical and business problems.
The biggest design problem with the game is that it required such a high end system that it excluded 80% of the MMO playerbase. I upgraded my system for Vanguard, and I had a super high end system. Even I had some chopiness problems at mid graphics levels. Not only did it require a high end machine to run, but it was full of bugs and still is to this day.
Normally, a company will fix the problems and smooth out the game in the first month or two. However, a couple of weeks after the game was release, SOE fired all of the employees of Sigil and took over the game. They hired some back sure, but the chaos of the next few months had very few fixes appearing, content that was promised never showed, and subscribers dropped like rocks. SOE saw the lack of interest and mostly gave up. They kept the game live, but had a dev team of a couple of people keeping the game alive.
I went back to the game a few months ago and played it for a few months. It is a very fun game that is very buggy and laggy. However, it is tough to find a mid level group. There just isn't the population for this.
If it was not for the above problems with the game, Vanguard would have been a huge success. Obviously it would not have had as many people as WoW, but what MMO has? Even WoW doesn't have 12 million subs any longer.
Man Vanguard was a terrible launch. I remember i upgraded my system as well 2 (was it a 660?) GTS cards in SLI...come to find out Vanguard did NOT like SLI .... all on a AMDx2 6000+ (yea i know). The game crashed, glitched and was damn near unplayable. The wife and i still played it for about a year though because it was a good game despite the... difficulties. I wish they would have did that one right and invest more into it.
The problem with duo/ small group content is theres always the OP class that can solo it so too many people play that class. There's just too much micro management and fiddling to keep the classes fair when one can do stuff solo that another cant as opposed to a grey scale for non duo biased content. DDO did small groups well, but then they had years of class balancing before the game was even made.
Comments
I actually hate how quickly MMOs are beaten now. Every new MMO out there can have you reach max level in 80 to 100 hours played time. Vanilla WoW, which was easy mode compared to EQ even required around 250 to 300 hours to reach lvl 60 and EQ1 was far more.
When you can reach max level in two weeks time and still have a full time job, there is a problem. If you play 40 hours a week (something I consider the bottom rung of hardcore) it should still take you at least 4 months to reach maximum level. That does not include crafting or time wasting, I am talking about the fastest way to XP.
The other problem is that people outlevel eachother so quickly that they can no longer play with friends. If your friend played an extra 10 hours without you one week, in today's MMOs they are 8 levels ahead of you and too high to group with. to fix this, they introduced mentoring and other ways to group together, but it is not the same. If it took 4 hours early game to gain a level and 12 hours late game to gain a level, then even if your friends played twice as much as you, you could still play together for quite a while.
I am a person who want to be able to solo at least 75% of a game, even if it is a bit harder, but not if it is meant for three people on hard a mode, and if reward is crap? then I am gone never to look back.
I agree, dungeons should be a group play, but,! also as a scaled system, because you can't find a group all the time for a dungeon, or have to wait a realy long time for cross server players.
If games become group oriented? I am not the one, I'll go back to single and multiplayer games.
Games did not become easy, you simply level-up to fast because of realy high xp reward, this happened because people cried that games where too grindish, and not enough content, because developers are too lazy to implement crafting, housing, farms..., they just give you gear which you get from killing animals, I just can't picture a steel armor in the belly of an animal.
I have to agree, and many pen and paper systems makes this even better, like Shadowrun for example.
It is true that many MMOs have handled classless systems badly, mainly because you get few choices. Good classless systems lets you customize your character from a huge variety of choices, with a point cost to balance things out (or something similar).
The downside is that making a character and re-speccing it takes a lot longer time than in levelbased systems but some templates for people who hates stuff like that works well and those templates can be rather similar to regular classes.
The levelthing is really due to the large gap in power between each level, not how fast it takes to level or anything else. Makes less difference between each level and it wont be such a big problem. You could also skip levels altogether (but not character progression of course) or you can do like GW2...
The time it takes to level is indeed silly, I wish they had casual servers with 5 times as fast to level for people who like that thing and normal for us old timers.
They have released no information about the game except that it is a huge sandbox. What that means is up to anyone's guess. It is probably just a marketing gimic. However a true sandbox game allows you to go where you want and do what you want. This includes designing your own class. I would love to have a system similar to original SWG where you can add things from different classes to your own. However, I do not think they should include crafting in this. Crafting should be seperate.
As far as 2 or 3 player groups: You can design content that can be defeated by 2 or 3 players but does not require a tank or healer. The holy trinity actaully makes the game very simple and easy. Think about it. you never have to coordinate skills. The tank is responsible for holding aggro only. The healer is responsible for keeping the tank alive. The DPS is responsible for doing as high of damage as possible without stealing agrro.
Where is the skill in this? It is so mindless you can watch TV while doing it and most do. However, what if you had an enchanter/monk combo. The enchanter could mez adds and do damage to the one you are fighting, and the monk could do damage, and pull mobs. There would be no way a monk could tank 2 mobs at the same time without a healer, but he could tank 1. The enchanter makes sure only one attacks, and the monk makes sure you don't get more than 2 or 3 max by feigning death. This would require more skill and coordination than a trinity and be doable by 2 people. There are many other combos as well, I just used that as an example.
i'm a solo player but i don't expect or want the game to revolve around me as a soloist, all i ask for is to be included in things.
the best solo experience ever in any mmo was at the beginning of final fantasy 11 (when it first launched and was extremely difficult) with the beastmaster, i solo'd about 80% of it and even solo'd a piece of artifact armor which all of that took an insane amount of effort and time.
this game was mainly about grouping but it gave you the option to solo in a creative way that made it a unique experience.
i don't mind if people love getting into guilds and raiding together and taking down epic bosses, my only complaint would be that as a soloist i'd also like something to do in my own way that's comparable, maybe not taking down an epic boss that requires a group but perhaps an exploring puzzle that unlocks a great treasure or something like this.
in my opinion, mmo's should be all about options and variety.
there should be paths for the guilds, the soloists and everyone in between.
that's what i think the solution is, like what final fantasy 11 offered.
It'f funny how people say they like these games and yet they have systematically turned them into completely different games. I didn't mind taking a long time to level back in vanilla... or having to find groups to do things... it's what made the gaming experience different. Now its all about gear score, achievements, being able to queue up with anyone in the world... at what point in time did we lose the actual game in the process?
No point in even creating a world if you're only going to be in it 2 weeks max. People seem happy to squeeze themselves into smaller raid dungeons endlessly for 6 months... same mobs... same loot... same scenery... same outcome.
I much prefer grouping with other players. If I solo, it is because I do not have enough time to devote to finding a group only to leave 5 minutes after joining it. I believe the creation of content for small groups would be a great solution. Anyone can find 1 or 2 others to group with. Finding a full group of 5 or 6 that includes a single healer and a single tank is just harder.
Just have the game structured like most games are now, split between solo and group, however, replace solo with duo/trio. If you want to solo, you can craft or complete diplomacy quests.
You are literally suggesting to implement a system from a game that died. Its gone, you can no longer play it... and yet, somehow you think it would be a perfect system for a brand new game. I understand your concept, and I hope that you understand my position against it.
Players are individuals, very astute. What I am specifically talking about is class individuality, if people can take parts of your class and make it a sub class of theirs... you are losing class individuality. This has been an ongoing debate since the first hybrid class was created. You are suggesting a game full of hybrid classes, yikes.
You also imply that people get bored when things take too long and it causes them to quit. I find that to be an extremely interesting point of view, after all, there is probably nothing else you can do in an MMO besides group for a dungeon or get bored and quit. Is this all stemming from personal experience or extensive research on the matter, I wonder.
Sandbox is a subjective term to describe MMOs, it does not mean one certain thing, or one specific way.. which in this case you interpreted as; class freedom and necessity to form groups of any size(2-6) with random classes. I think when EQNext uses the term Sandbox, they are trying to bring back a sense of adventure to MMOs that has been severely lacking. That's what the term means to me as a long time EQ player.
A game needs both solo and group atmospheres to survive. You need balance; to seek a fine line where one is not superior to the other, more or less rewarding, and more or less fun.
Lol, you expect people to wait around for hours spamming LFG channel just to play, 1999 called it wants it player punishing out-dated ridiculously unrealistic and unfun game design paradigms back.
With that out of the way, can we dispense with the condescension or did you want to lament more about how normal people, with normal time commitments ruined your un-inclusive "social" experience.
I understand that instancing is one of the unspeakable 7 deadly vices of game design to you but it solves more than it harms and can be done right. Plus we have no info as to how EQN will do dungeons or instancing. For all we know the reason they EQN is more "sandboxy" is because of instancing.
What I think a lot of people are having a tough time understanding is that the reason the industry moved on from a lot of the game designs present in EQ is because they had huge downsides. You can't simply go back without fixing those issues. You want a more Group centered play? Great, but what is the fix for putting groups togeather if you only have a little bit of time to play.
This is the nice question.
What will help to encurage people to group? is a good reward system, not dice-roll or high xp but individual proper reward.
All that crap about harder content is just crap.
Tera, how many players can group-up to take down BAMs? some will form a full group and strugle, while some other's, can take a risk and solo them.
Dose that make BAMs easy content?
The problems with BAMs, they have crap for reward, and even more crapy reward when grouping, for BAMs or anything else.
There is no fix for this. That's like asking what's the fix for someone who wants to run a 20 mile marathon but only has time to do 5 miles of it. You're outta luck. Sorry. MMOs aren't for you. Have a nice day. The door is that way. Peace. Don't call us, we'll call you. Bai.
The problem with your thinking across the board is that the outcome is always, with no exceptions, a game void of any sense of accomplishment that becomes boring after one, maybe two months max.
The industry didn't just "move on", one game came along - WoW, with a system very much like EQ at launch, which proceeded to streamline and trivialize every aspect of the MMORPG in order to accomodate the lowest common denominator. It became nothing more than fantasy sims online. Then, blinded by the almighty dollar, every other producer for the next decade followed suit in an attempt to make a grab at part of their subscriber base, forgetting everything that made games like EQ, AC, UO and other first gen MMOs such amazing games.
The idea that "normal people, with normal time commitments" should be able to accomplish everything the guy who is able to play 8 hours a day is folly. Its not about whether theres a LFG tool, its about everyone wanting something for nothing. In the end, you just end up with everyone having everything, and nobody feels any sense of accomplishment, so the game dies.
Actually I think you have it reversed. I have been happily playing MMOs for years, and will continue to do so. I love the current generation of MMOs and will continue to play them. But unlike you I wouldn't begrudge you a game-play experience that will make you happy. I am almost positive there are multiple Korean Grinders out there that will fullfill your need for a marathon. I just won't be playing with you in those worlds. I also don't think this is SOE target for EQN either.
The solution is what Smeds already hinted at, different server rules. A hardcore server that promotes heavy grouping, quite a simple solution. If you don't like that type of game play then stay away from that server, Smed and co have always been very good with different server rules.
Not even worth arguing about, play on that server or you don't.
I'm more interested in EQN having a robust weather system like Age Of Wushu has just shown us at E3.
Check this for a storm. http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/06/12/age-of-wushu-forecasts-weather-system/#continued
Blizzard's developers played EQ, loved it and pulled out everything that was "wrong" with the design. And more people enjoyed their version than McQuaids. Vanguard was released well after WoW so the Brad McQuaid MMO design paradigm had it's shot at capturing the public. It was panned and for good reason. It doesn't work.
The problem with your thinking is that it is at it's root predatory. Your "sense of accomplishment" is a relative scale that absolutely needs the other 99% to provide any sort of intrinsic value. In fact that is the very definition of "accomplishment" for you, something is only rare and meaningful if very few others have done it. You long for the gaming equivalent of a pyramid scheme where only you have the time for anything meaningful, defined strictly on the basis that others do not have that time. This isn't about fair gaming, its about you feeling better about yourself. Ultimately it is destructive to the community as it isn't inclusive. You aren't interested in playing with other people only being taller and shinier when standing next to them.
The reason MMORPG gaming has never been the same since WoW is because all of those other "common denominators" had something that was more entertaining to play than a pointlessly grindy and masochistic world. Since comparative accomplishment was the only value those worlds had for you, they lost their value as you now didn't have a set of "fail" players to measure yourself against.
Your welcome to advocate building yet another world based on a McQuaid design paradigm but don't be surprised if it is about as successful as Vangard was.
And here you have another huge post, based on the faulty assumption that I am the guy with time to be the tallest and shiniest. Faulty assumption, faulty conclusion.
I simply want a game where theres something meaningful at all levels of time dedication. Whether I play 2 hours a day, or 10 hours a day, I want to know that theres still something to accomplish. I don't want something for nothing, like the playerbase of World of Warcraft. The idea that when I log in (WoW), a dialog comes up and points me where to go, instantly teleports me into a group of people I don't know, from servers I don't even play on, and I coast through a dungeon with my cat sitting on my keyboard while I watch tv... it just sickens me.
This is an Everquest forum, with people who played Everquest and know better. Your perspective is a complete joke to me, and somehow you think that because Blizzard has made more money or more people played their forever compromising game, its somehow a better game?! Its the equivalent of saying because more people drink water than eat steak, water is obviously better. The 100s of thousands of players who played Everquest classic, still want to play a game like Everquest classic. We don't want a game that trivializes our accomplishments. We don't want a game where every expansion the first quest replaces items we spent 100s of hours obtaining.
Just to expand on my water and steak analogy, yes steak is expensive. Everquest cost players more time to progress to the end, both in levels and item progression, but it was high class. It doesn't mean it was somehow inferior or they were wrong in their approach because they were different and catered to a smaller crowd. Thats the thinking that has gotten the MMO genre into such a rut. Both players, and developers need to understand that its okay to aspire to have a 100k, 500k or maybe if your lucky, a million subscriber player base. Instead of being like these last 20 major mmos that came out, your player base will actually grow as a niche, than be cut in half after the first month when people realize its just another clone failing at providing instant gratification as well as WoW.
Its just that simple.
For starters, I'm not implying anything. If you think I am, well, sorry.
On the class discussion, we as gamers, those as developers and basically anyone involved with an MMO, need to begin thinking outside of the box. This method of thinking about the ways games have been and will forever be, needs to go. It's when we limit ourselves that we begin to lose imagination. We need imagination and new methods of thinking to drive new concepts. I'm not saying that my suggested ways are correct, far from that. What we need to do, is break away from the 'tried and true' systems we have had in MMO's for too long, because quite honestly, they just are not working anymore.
Oh, and SOE has already acknowledged that switching SWG was a mistake.
To each is his own, again I don't begrudge you a MMO home. I just don't believe that the act of clicking on 25 NPCs, all with same canned responses, to find the right one for the turn in is fun for anyone. I don't "think" this is about a meaningful experience because you had to do it the "hard" way. I really don't believe you get enjoyment from this. The Tedium is just that, I don't believe it actually adds value for you. I think the endurance of the tedium is what adds value for you. It "feels" like accomplishment based only the fact that not many people were willing to endure it. Perhaps not many people are willing to endure it because it isn't worth enduring.
It doesn't look like or taste like "steak" to me. It looks and tastes like excrement. It's boring and tedious and I truly don't understand how its the least bit fun.
That said, if you were to say that the current crop of MMOs are just too "sweet". This I can almost start to understand. Too much reward and not enough filler. I get this. I really do. I can understand why you would say this. I just don't want us to go back to using "excrement" as filler to soften the "sweetness".
Vanguard did not fail because of its design, although it did/does have some design problems. It failed because of technical and business problems.
The biggest design problem with the game is that it required such a high end system that it excluded 80% of the MMO playerbase. I upgraded my system for Vanguard, and I had a super high end system. Even I had some chopiness problems at mid graphics levels. Not only did it require a high end machine to run, but it was full of bugs and still is to this day.
Normally, a company will fix the problems and smooth out the game in the first month or two. However, a couple of weeks after the game was release, SOE fired all of the employees of Sigil and took over the game. They hired some back sure, but the chaos of the next few months had very few fixes appearing, content that was promised never showed, and subscribers dropped like rocks. SOE saw the lack of interest and mostly gave up. They kept the game live, but had a dev team of a couple of people keeping the game alive.
I went back to the game a few months ago and played it for a few months. It is a very fun game that is very buggy and laggy. However, it is tough to find a mid level group. There just isn't the population for this.
If it was not for the above problems with the game, Vanguard would have been a huge success. Obviously it would not have had as many people as WoW, but what MMO has? Even WoW doesn't have 12 million subs any longer.
What I believe you are talking about here is the hand holding modern MMOs do. Every quest NPC has a big yellow ! above their heads, and when your quest is ready to turn in, it turnes into a yellow ? The quest objective not only has a line on your compass pointing you to the area you can complete it, but it also has the area the mobs reside in on your map. You can literally complete every quest in the game with no reading, barely paying attention while watching a TV show, never having completed any of the quests before. I know you can do this because I have many times. This type of play can be nice occasionally as sometimes you just want to relax and enjoy yourself, but there is zero immersion, zero lore, and you get tired of the grind quickly. Yes, once all quests get boiled down to the above, they become a grind after a while. All are the same, as you aren't killing gnolls to spawn an event which will eventually allow you to kill their leader for his ancient relic an opposing faction wants you to get. You are killing mobs with ! above their nameplate while watching a TV show.
Man Vanguard was a terrible launch. I remember i upgraded my system as well 2 (was it a 660?) GTS cards in SLI...come to find out Vanguard did NOT like SLI .... all on a AMDx2 6000+ (yea i know). The game crashed, glitched and was damn near unplayable. The wife and i still played it for about a year though because it was a good game despite the... difficulties. I wish they would have did that one right and invest more into it.