I could understand having some content for triads, but I really hope that 6 man groups have a place in EQN. It's much easier to get the wives to play when we need them to fill the group.
"Grouping" in GW2 is literally nothing more than 5 people soloing in the same area. The only dependence you have on your groupmate is when they revive you after you die from failing to dodge out of a red circle in time. It is extremely poor combat.
Maybe the bad design of GW2 combat has jaded me, but I don't think EQN combat will be muchg different. Sure, the mob will behave a little differently, but in the end it will still be 3/5/6/12/24/40 players taking care of themselves making sure they keep themselves alive.
Grouping in a game like EQ1 is fun because the whole group is more powerful than the sum of its parts. A tank or a healer or a DPSer or a CCer isn't powerful on their own, but the 4 together are VERY powerful.
This dependency on each other will be missing from EQN, and I think it's the most crucial aspect of group combat.
"Grouping" in GW2 is literally nothing more than 5 people soloing in the same area. The only dependence you have on your groupmate is when they revive you after you die from failing to dodge out of a red circle in time. It is extremely poor combat.
Maybe the bad design of GW2 combat has jaded me, but I don't think EQN combat will be muchg different. Sure, the mob will behave a little differently, but in the end it will still be 3/5/6/12/24/40 players taking care of themselves making sure they keep themselves alive.
Grouping in a game like EQ1 is fun because the whole group is more powerful than the sum of its parts. A tank or a healer or a DPSer or a CCer isn't powerful on their own, but the 4 together are VERY powerful.
This dependency on each other will be missing from EQN, and I think it's the most crucial aspect of group combat.
I partially agree with your GW2 assessment, but played right and specced right there was a group dynamic. The problem I found was that they pretty much had to make every mob a titan compared to the player and the best groups relied too heavily on extra effects from combining skills. This is why I think if they go this route they need to reduce the group size so they don't have to do that to the extreme GW2 did. GW2 style is too difficult to manage in my opinion for many players, and made pickup groups totally useless.
I would like somewhere in between but what I don't want to see is hard timers (except global cooldown from any skill use). Everything should come from stamina/mana and you should be able to blow your wad if you choose. Rather than timers, penalties would be better. use a skill it turns yellow, you can use it again but it costs 1.5 times as much, and if you use it again while its yellow it turns red and costs 2 times as much. Its there in a pinch but it loses efficiency with use.
I think half the reason that GW2 combat turned a lot off is because of the timers.
Well defined rolls seems to be out the window so youll be in for a shock there. The "take care of yourself" mechanics doesn't work well when you scale up the groupsize.
How you interpret what they have said is very subjective as nothing is defined yet. Myself, I feel each class will still have a defined role. Instead of having a dps warrior build or a tanking warrior build, they will be different classes. There may be some overlap, but they will be unique overall.
"Take care of yourself" seems to mean that you can't just stand around and assume someone else will keep a mob off you or heal you while you spam dps. You'll have to be active and engaged in the fight. Not that you'll be able to dps, cc, heal, self-rez, tank, at once like GW2.
with a larger group youll end up with bosses that can kill you in 2 hits and have a million hp while you do 3 dmg per hit. It has to be this way because youll be having 6-8 times the dps of one player and thus the mob has to be stated accordingly to make it a fair fight.
It sounds like they are trying to get away from the uber named mob that takes an hour to kill aka a meat sack of a million hp. They have mentioned a few times of having encounters like the huge battles in LOTR. Hundreds of weak orcs and several much stronger ones mixed in. Not simply walking up to a big named mobs spawn and attacking.
Its already been confirmed that there will be no dedicated healers or tanks in EQN so I believe they have to not make the mistake that GW2 made and reduce the groupsize to make the encounters more fun.
Again, this is my version, but I believe there will still be healers and tanks. Instead of a tank spamming taunt, they will be using defensive/cc abilities to control a mob an a healer will be doing more then just staring at health bars. No reason they can't have a cleric with a few healing/preventative abilities on their weapons that aren't useable by other classes.
I hope they have content for all group sizes, but want it to be semi-realistic. Since there are no levels or vertical progression, you'll never become god-like. Instead of hitting 100 times harder, you'll instead learn more interesting attacks. You can do okay with just punches, adding kicks makes you better, add in spinning jump kicks, then grappling, then....you are still as strong as before, you just have a larger arsenal. Without vertical progression, they have to be more creative then just simply adding hps and more damage to mobs, hopefully this is the whole "emergent AI" deal.
Going with the realistic, if you and 2 buddies roll up on Crushbone with hundreds/thousands of Orcs, you should only be able to pull a few from the entrance. Bring a few more friends and make it inside a bit. Bring an army and storm the place. By army, I mean hundreds, not some pre-determined 20/40 raid number that magically makes you able to handle the situation. Everyone is participates and pulls their own weight.
Along with this, no class should be able to solo large groups through kiting/aoeing like most games allow. Mobs shouldn't chase people in a circle until dots/aoe damage kills them, they should go "hey wait a second" and make a beeline to you or heal themselves or run away, or CC you, etc.
Overall, I like all group sizes and think limiting encounters to a set number is a bad idea. The better skilled players should be able to handle more/harder content, but not where they can replace 40 unskilled players. There needs to be a balance and some sense of a challenge.
I think that is really the devs challenge. How to have a game without vertical progression that doesn't solely rely on zerg combat. If 3 people can handle the fight, 6 will do even better, why not bring 6? Without a lot of instancing, I don't know how they will do this well. Unless they have a lot of midfight mob spawning. 10 people attack 5 Orcs and all of a sudden 10 more run out from the trees. Would be interesting. Or like some games, the more people, the less reward. So 20 attacking 1 would net nothing, everyone had one swing and didn't progress.
So many possibilities. But hopefully the game doesn't revolve around cut and dry mechanics.
Originally posted by rungard I mean in regards to the GW2 like combat which seems to be a feature of EQN.
A better comparison would be MOBA when talking about the class/combat features of EQN. Dave personally went on Reddit when someone posted as much to confirm it. This ties into what your original OP was about. Each class can have a defined role it's just not nailed down to one role for the whole time you play that character...
Thank goodness!
I agree that a three man group could work very well since each will be DPS plus tank (control) type, healer type or support type. With the combinations that are available you can go in with what works and if an encounter is difficult you'll probably end up with standard roles. I think the comparison to GW2 is a stretch from the info we've been given. Dave said they were working on something to better clarify but I think it's still in the oven .
also a three man unit does not prevent 6 or more players doing content. Its just organized around three to keep it simple and easy.
like above everyone does damage, and other roles as well, whether it be tanking, control, healing, support.
the key aspect is this:
when in an encounter of any kind there are expectations based on how the players set themselves up. If we use the 6 model and say we have a single mob, well that mob now has to have at least 6 times the armor, defence and offense of any singe player to account for the number of players the mob faces to make it a fair fight. At 6 times the output against one player armor will mean nothing.
no single player can stand up to anything with 6 times their raw power without specialized roles for tanking and healing, unless we split up the mob into 3 lesser ones or 6 player like ones.
when we move down to three though for our basic unit we see that this effect is a lot less as our single mob is tuned for 3 times a single player. Still more, but not a titan. Here our armor still means something and you can go toe to toe without a dedicated healer for a short duration.
in GW2 in dungeons it seemed more like you were chopping down trees than killing mobs. Something wasn't right about it. Even the trash were titans compared to a player. In many cases you were dead in 2 hits regardless of armor. I would prefer EQN not make that mistake.
I believe there is a fine line between fun and challenge, and in the age of soloing I think its time to meet players half way. People solo because there are too many problems with larger groups. Its not worth their time. To put the proverbial head in the sand and ignore the basic problems with large groups is neither innovative nor useful.
like everything else in eqn, I believe its time for change. As a note I believe that some testing of this magnitude was done by sony regarding three man content in EQ2 and from what I hear it was a success though I would like to see something that was designed from the ground up with that in mind.
Supposedly the amount of people you would need would depend on what you are trying to do... so I'm not exactly sure there is going to be a "standard" in EQN. Altho if you always attempt the same type of thing.. I guess you could create a standard.
Of course that's just based on some vague comment with an example of Crushbone.. that I saw in one video. Where they said you won't go into a place like that with just a couple of friends...
Supposedly the amount of people you would need would depend on what you are trying to do... so I'm not exactly sure there is going to be a "standard" in EQN. Altho if you always attempt the same type of thing.. I guess you could create a standard.
Of course that's just based on some vague comment with an example of Crushbone.. that I saw in one video. Where they said you won't go into a place like that with just a couple of friends...
I certainly agree with that but I also think that you do need a small fighting unit that makes sense so players can organize themselves.
im not saying that if you make the fighting unit 3 that everything will necessarily be made for three, but rather players would organize themselves in multiple of three, and the most basic multiperson adventures would begin with three, not 5 or 6 or 8. Remember than standard content for three, is challenging content for two and very challenging content for one.
I would hope that going into crushbone would require an army but getting them out of your house might not require that many.
three sounds good for me for an adventuring group out in the wilds.
six sounds good for a dungeon run.
nine/twelve/fifteen sounds good for real hard and complex content, like raids.
I can see how a 3 member group can work smoother then a 5 man group for your regular stuff. For dungeons you met another group, and like mentiont this can add new stuff to dungeons that you normaly only saw in big sized raids(splitting to do different tasks).
i agree w your commentary
I loved EQ1 groupsize of 6
GuildWars1 / COH had a group limit of 8
I never liked WOW group limit of 5 (in fairness, WOW had simpler roles than EQ)
The Trinity was created as an excuse for shallow and simplified game mechanics and bad enemy AI.
Its time to move forward.
Let it die already.
Who said "trinity"?
I actually prefer a bigger group with more than 3 defined roles........5, 6, or even 7 defined roles seems to be better to me than 3.
Me too.. I loved fights that various players had to pay attention to the entire fight on who , or what was happening and when.. One my my most favorite fights in WoW for example was Moroes in Kara.. and I think if you really tweaked class roles you can make even more dynamic battles..
3 base armor classes: Heavy/Plate, Medium/Leather, Light/Cloth - you forgot the Chain-armor
3 base fighting styles: Melee, Ranged, Magic - can be reduced to just magic/physical or ranged/melee (as magic is ranged or melee as well)
3 base classes that appears in many games: Warrior, Rogue(mixed with ranger sometimes), Mage(mixed with priest sometimes) - a lot people will disagree on mixing mage with priest
3 base allaingments: good, neutral, evil
even the holy trinity of tank, heal, DPS! - not the holy trinity, only a bad trinity and its missing the support if you speak of fantasy in general(and there is almost always a bard)
Originally posted by solarbear88 Everyone says they want to group then they solo 99% of the time.
Exactly. Its because something is wrong and no one can seem to admit it.
Don't think so. A lot people admit that something is wrong but they don't think your idea is a valid solution. Reducing group size isn't even touching the real problem.
I'm in that group as well but for me this something that is wrong is the design of the games. If the content is 99% solo than my intentions to group are realy low. If the content doesn't fit to grouping there is no need for it and in that cases grouping has more issues(lack of freedom, not your own pace, need to adjust real life things to the group) than benefits.
3 base armor classes: Heavy/Plate, Medium/Leather, Light/Cloth - you forgot the Chain-armor-would fit into heavy armor,because chain armor is damn heavy
3 base fighting styles: Melee, Ranged, Magic - can be reduced to just magic/physical or ranged/melee (as magic is ranged or melee as well)-melee and ranged are different, magic gives access to things like healing and slows that dont counts as melee or ranged
3 base classes that appears in many games: Warrior, Rogue(mixed with ranger sometimes), Mage(mixed with priest sometimes) - a lot people will disagree on mixing mage with priest-in many games were are only 3 classes exist the mage is the one with the healing skills in 85% of the time
3 base allaingments: good, neutral, evil
even the holy trinity of tank, heal, DPS! - not the holy trinity, only a bad trinity and its missing the support if you speak of fantasy in general(and there is almost always a bard)-didnt said the trinity is good, a bard sings for entertainment not fighting and with that they are very rarly prominent in fantasy games.
Originally posted by solarbear88 Everyone says they want to group then they solo 99% of the time.
Exactly. Its because something is wrong and no one can seem to admit it.
Don't think so. A lot people admit that something is wrong but they don't think your idea is a valid solution. Reducing group size isn't even touching the real problem.
I'm in that group as well but for me this something that is wrong is the design of the games. If the content is 99% solo than my intentions to group are realy low. If the content doesn't fit to grouping there is no need for it and in that cases grouping has more issues(lack of freedom, not your own pace, need to adjust real life things to the group) than benefits.
the truth is simple. people prefer to solo over grouping because of the issues associated with large groups of players. 6 players means youll always be waiting for something. Some guy is always afk, some guy cant find the place, some guy sucks, cant find the right class, cant fill the 6th spot, or 5th spot for that matter.
Ive played all the games and the analysis is simple. The larger the group size the larger the requirement for specialist classes, more downtime, and less personal participation. For years ive played these games as a healer. I see the patterns and they are always the same. Everyone wants to be a killer and no one wants to be a healer, tank or crowd controller. You've screwed yourselves with your own behavior. That's the truth.
nothing else will ever solve it. you have to meet players half way and half way from 6 is 3. Everyone has to have a role in addition to dps.
and lets ask this: whats the benefit of a 6 man group over a 3 man group?
Let us make group sizes as large as we want like in SWG which you could have a group with up to 20 people in it. Even dungeons and raid content should scale based off of group size and average tier of the group.
Sure if you do a raid dungeon with only 5 people you will not get as good a reward as you would if you had 20 people, but with 20 people you may not be lucky enough to get anything.
The three person group has worked in many places before like Charlie's Angels, the Three Musketeers and the Three Stooges. It hasn't been tapped in the MMO market as much mainly because of the need for more than one damage dealer. If a monster has a small enough health pool to let one tank and one damage dealer kill it, there's really no reason to need the damage dealer since the tank could probably outlast the boss anyway w/ a healer. The higher health pools are why more DD are usually needed. EQN can probably get away with 3 person groups since tanking is dead in their game (right from the devs mouth). Players will just all go DD and burn them down.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Originally posted by Roxtarr The three person group has worked in many places before like Charlie's Angels, the Three Musketeers and the Three Stooges. It hasn't been tapped in the MMO market as much mainly because of the need for more than one damage dealer. If a monster has a small enough health pool to let one tank and one damage dealer kill it, there's really no reason to need the damage dealer since the tank could probably outlast the boss anyway w/ a healer. The higher health pools are why more DD are usually needed. EQN can probably get away with 3 person groups since tanking is dead in their game (right from the devs mouth). Players will just all go DD and burn them down.
The "Three" Musketeers were actually four. Porthos, Aramas, Athos and d'Artagnan. Even the Three Stooges had a fourth member though I don't know if they were ever all together at once.
Let us make group sizes as large as we want like in SWG which you could have a group with up to 20 people in it. Even dungeons and raid content should scale based off of group size and average tier of the group.
Sure if you do a raid dungeon with only 5 people you will not get as good a reward as you would if you had 20 people, but with 20 people you may not be lucky enough to get anything.
I have to say it should works the other way. Cause, in normal life you take more people to make things easier, not harder.
Say you hav a Dragon Boss encounter. With 20 People the responsebility of one is only 1/20th worth of the effort, But with 3 People every one is responsible for1/3rd of the effort. So they have to do more. Besides a Dragon is harder to kill with less people.
Or like the example from the Devs about Crushbone. Many Orcs. Without an Army you dont have a chance. But it could also mean high risky for high value. The more people are helping the less everyone gets. I think that makes more sense, then the more the mighiter stuff.
Let us make group sizes as large as we want like in SWG which you could have a group with up to 20 people in it. Even dungeons and raid content should scale based off of group size and average tier of the group.
Sure if you do a raid dungeon with only 5 people you will not get as good a reward as you would if you had 20 people, but with 20 people you may not be lucky enough to get anything.
I have to say it should works the other way. Cause, in normal life you take more people to make things easier, not harder.
Say you hav a Dragon Boss encounter. With 20 People the responsebility of one is only 1/20th worth of the effort, But with 3 People every one is responsible for1/3rd of the effort. So they have to do more. Besides a Dragon is harder to kill with less people.
Or like the example from the Devs about Crushbone. Many Orcs. Without an Army you dont have a chance. But it could also mean high risky for high value. The more people are helping the less everyone gets. I think that makes more sense, then the more the mighiter stuff.
The problem with that in a game is that more people would make the content trivial and the rewards easier to get. If it didn't scale, then they would have to put a minimum and maximum group size on the content.
Comments
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
"Grouping" in GW2 is literally nothing more than 5 people soloing in the same area. The only dependence you have on your groupmate is when they revive you after you die from failing to dodge out of a red circle in time. It is extremely poor combat.
Maybe the bad design of GW2 combat has jaded me, but I don't think EQN combat will be muchg different. Sure, the mob will behave a little differently, but in the end it will still be 3/5/6/12/24/40 players taking care of themselves making sure they keep themselves alive.
Grouping in a game like EQ1 is fun because the whole group is more powerful than the sum of its parts. A tank or a healer or a DPSer or a CCer isn't powerful on their own, but the 4 together are VERY powerful.
This dependency on each other will be missing from EQN, and I think it's the most crucial aspect of group combat.
I partially agree with your GW2 assessment, but played right and specced right there was a group dynamic. The problem I found was that they pretty much had to make every mob a titan compared to the player and the best groups relied too heavily on extra effects from combining skills. This is why I think if they go this route they need to reduce the group size so they don't have to do that to the extreme GW2 did. GW2 style is too difficult to manage in my opinion for many players, and made pickup groups totally useless.
I would like somewhere in between but what I don't want to see is hard timers (except global cooldown from any skill use). Everything should come from stamina/mana and you should be able to blow your wad if you choose. Rather than timers, penalties would be better. use a skill it turns yellow, you can use it again but it costs 1.5 times as much, and if you use it again while its yellow it turns red and costs 2 times as much. Its there in a pinch but it loses efficiency with use.
I think half the reason that GW2 combat turned a lot off is because of the timers.
A better comparison would be MOBA when talking about the class/combat features of EQN. Dave personally went on Reddit when someone posted as much to confirm it. This ties into what your original OP was about. Each class can have a defined role it's just not nailed down to one role for the whole time you play that character...
Thank goodness!
I agree that a three man group could work very well since each will be DPS plus tank (control) type, healer type or support type. With the combinations that are available you can go in with what works and if an encounter is difficult you'll probably end up with standard roles. I think the comparison to GW2 is a stretch from the info we've been given. Dave said they were working on something to better clarify but I think it's still in the oven
.
also a three man unit does not prevent 6 or more players doing content. Its just organized around three to keep it simple and easy.
like above everyone does damage, and other roles as well, whether it be tanking, control, healing, support.
the key aspect is this:
when in an encounter of any kind there are expectations based on how the players set themselves up. If we use the 6 model and say we have a single mob, well that mob now has to have at least 6 times the armor, defence and offense of any singe player to account for the number of players the mob faces to make it a fair fight. At 6 times the output against one player armor will mean nothing.
no single player can stand up to anything with 6 times their raw power without specialized roles for tanking and healing, unless we split up the mob into 3 lesser ones or 6 player like ones.
when we move down to three though for our basic unit we see that this effect is a lot less as our single mob is tuned for 3 times a single player. Still more, but not a titan. Here our armor still means something and you can go toe to toe without a dedicated healer for a short duration.
in GW2 in dungeons it seemed more like you were chopping down trees than killing mobs. Something wasn't right about it. Even the trash were titans compared to a player. In many cases you were dead in 2 hits regardless of armor. I would prefer EQN not make that mistake.
I believe there is a fine line between fun and challenge, and in the age of soloing I think its time to meet players half way. People solo because there are too many problems with larger groups. Its not worth their time. To put the proverbial head in the sand and ignore the basic problems with large groups is neither innovative nor useful.
like everything else in eqn, I believe its time for change. As a note I believe that some testing of this magnitude was done by sony regarding three man content in EQ2 and from what I hear it was a success though I would like to see something that was designed from the ground up with that in mind.
Supposedly the amount of people you would need would depend on what you are trying to do... so I'm not exactly sure there is going to be a "standard" in EQN. Altho if you always attempt the same type of thing.. I guess you could create a standard.
Of course that's just based on some vague comment with an example of Crushbone.. that I saw in one video. Where they said you won't go into a place like that with just a couple of friends...
I certainly agree with that but I also think that you do need a small fighting unit that makes sense so players can organize themselves.
im not saying that if you make the fighting unit 3 that everything will necessarily be made for three, but rather players would organize themselves in multiple of three, and the most basic multiperson adventures would begin with three, not 5 or 6 or 8. Remember than standard content for three, is challenging content for two and very challenging content for one.
I would hope that going into crushbone would require an army but getting them out of your house might not require that many.
3 is in fantasy setting always a magical number.
3 base armor classes: Heavy/Plate, Medium/Leather, Light/Cloth
3 base fighting styles: Melee, Ranged, Magic
3 base classes that appears in many games: Warrior, Rogue(mixed with ranger sometimes), Mage(mixed with priest sometimes)
3 base allaingments: good, neutral, evil
even the holy trinity of tank, heal, DPS!
3 the number of minutes it takes to get your adventure going without having to use lame LFG cross server crap.
0 the number of dead weight players you need to tow across the game that contribute nothing but "dps".
i agree w your commentary
I loved EQ1 groupsize of 6
GuildWars1 / COH had a group limit of 8
I never liked WOW group limit of 5 (in fairness, WOW had simpler roles than EQ)
the fact that EQN supports the combat skill slow
source, Pax prime http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/395373/Everquest-Next-PAX-personal-QA.html
makes me curious if slow will be essential for party combat
clarifier:
the original holy trinity was Tank, Cleric (rezzing priest), Enchanter (cc)
in vanilla EQ, other healers, Druid / Shaman were not able to rez
EQ2 fan sites
Exactly. Its because something is wrong and no one can seem to admit it.
Me too.. I loved fights that various players had to pay attention to the entire fight on who , or what was happening and when.. One my my most favorite fights in WoW for example was Moroes in Kara.. and I think if you really tweaked class roles you can make even more dynamic battles..
Don't think so. A lot people admit that something is wrong but they don't think your idea is a valid solution. Reducing group size isn't even touching the real problem.
I'm in that group as well but for me this something that is wrong is the design of the games. If the content is 99% solo than my intentions to group are realy low. If the content doesn't fit to grouping there is no need for it and in that cases grouping has more issues(lack of freedom, not your own pace, need to adjust real life things to the group) than benefits.
the truth is simple. people prefer to solo over grouping because of the issues associated with large groups of players. 6 players means youll always be waiting for something. Some guy is always afk, some guy cant find the place, some guy sucks, cant find the right class, cant fill the 6th spot, or 5th spot for that matter.
Ive played all the games and the analysis is simple. The larger the group size the larger the requirement for specialist classes, more downtime, and less personal participation. For years ive played these games as a healer. I see the patterns and they are always the same. Everyone wants to be a killer and no one wants to be a healer, tank or crowd controller. You've screwed yourselves with your own behavior. That's the truth.
nothing else will ever solve it. you have to meet players half way and half way from 6 is 3. Everyone has to have a role in addition to dps.
and lets ask this: whats the benefit of a 6 man group over a 3 man group?
Let us make group sizes as large as we want like in SWG which you could have a group with up to 20 people in it. Even dungeons and raid content should scale based off of group size and average tier of the group.
Sure if you do a raid dungeon with only 5 people you will not get as good a reward as you would if you had 20 people, but with 20 people you may not be lucky enough to get anything.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
The "Three" Musketeers were actually four. Porthos, Aramas, Athos and d'Artagnan. Even the Three Stooges had a fourth member though I don't know if they were ever all together at once.
I have to say it should works the other way. Cause, in normal life you take more people to make things easier, not harder.
Say you hav a Dragon Boss encounter. With 20 People the responsebility of one is only 1/20th worth of the effort, But with 3 People every one is responsible for1/3rd of the effort. So they have to do more. Besides a Dragon is harder to kill with less people.
Or like the example from the Devs about Crushbone. Many Orcs. Without an Army you dont have a chance. But it could also mean high risky for high value. The more people are helping the less everyone gets. I think that makes more sense, then the more the mighiter stuff.
The problem with that in a game is that more people would make the content trivial and the rewards easier to get. If it didn't scale, then they would have to put a minimum and maximum group size on the content.
there is no taunt
EQN will have roles but no dedicated classes
EQN will support the skill slow -- a combat mechanic lacking in both EQ2 / WOW
EQ2 fan sites
for me? socialization
I've always preferred larger groups
it wasnt about the content, it was about the people
EQ2 fan sites