Rtugok saying they are figuring out the vision for EQN with this new team. Maybe Dave and Jeff had a stranglehold on the game with all that denial of service shit. Or maybe I'm reading too much into his Twitter comments? Definitely trying to not have only one or two people be the face of EQN anymore.
EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,766
- 617
Ugh. I can only imagine the mess. This sucks the way they fucked this game up. Just all over the place.
I want eq3 so bad I posted this from a strip joint
Honestly I don't know if levels are a good idea these days. Usually what happens after a few years is your newbie zones are empty, and new players are left with no one to play with.
I'm okay with no levels, but it depends on how they do it I guess.
More tweets where he's basically outright saying nobody but a few people had a say in the current vision. Not that way anymore, according to him.Ugh. I can only imagine the mess. This sucks the way they fucked this game up. Just all over the place.
I want eq3 so bad I posted this from a strip joint
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 595
Yes, levels are a good idea for an MMORPG.
1. Feeling advancement. Better and clearer with levels.
2. Designing appropriate content for your players. Significantly easier with levels.
2b. Designing new expansions. Significantly easier with levels.
3. Knowing your place in the world. Better and clearer with levels.
4. Getting to feel like a hero by killing a high-level mob. Only possible with levels.
5. Basically everything is easier and better with levels.
And the nice thing? With levels you can still add skill systems like AA, language skills, crafting skills and etc - and reap the benefits of skill systems (options for the players).
No levels are a bad idea for an MMORPG.
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,766
- 617
Thad really not an issue. Just gotta be creative. I have a solution to that and really any Dev team should too
I don't know. All I know is that with levels, you always end up with the whole player base at max level doing the same shit they've done in every MMO, and empty low level zones where the game is basically a REALLY shitty single player game for new players until they hit max level.
I think it's time someone try something different, to be honest.
I think it's time someone try something different, to be honest.
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,766
- 617
No live live this year
My interest has dropped bc I'm dubious about what has actually been done. That and this game seems so far out. EQL is really what these guys cared about. They gambled on it and it's a fail at this point. Eq crowd had been neglected long enough.
My interest has dropped bc I'm dubious about what has actually been done. That and this game seems so far out. EQL is really what these guys cared about. They gambled on it and it's a fail at this point. Eq crowd had been neglected long enough.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 595
Nah, it's just time for someone to make an EQ I/Vanilla WoW like MMO that tries to avoid all the stupid mistakes those MMOs made while adding something new (like semi-dynamic mobs).
If your main concern over levels are empty low level zones then for the record there is a an interesting fix for that any company could do, but AFAIK, has only ever been done half-assed.
.
My concern is mostly a dead world because the world itself is just a means to getting max level. That's the big problem.
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,766
- 617
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 595
As I said, there's a theoretical fix for ensuring new players are always directed to worlds that are alive at the low level. But, yes, since it is theoretical it's pointless for me to argue for it since unless or until it is put into practice I can't assert it will work. -_-
So in addition to the points above as to why level-based games work I'd add that I don't like purely skill based RPG games because I don't get a real feeling of advancement. So I'll take an empty world with level based advancement over busy skill based world. YMMV of course just laying out my bias.
Flipmode
EQOA Refugee
- 2,093
- 312
No levels may be fine. I've just never seen a game pull it off and not alienate the people that play a lot. I do like EQ2's mentoring system. That at least allowed you to go back and help your new friends out. Those system will do a lot to help longevity in the game.
Low level raids, outdoor bosses of various ranges all help that too. Most designers don't get the fact that a lot of people like the carrot to chase.
Low level raids, outdoor bosses of various ranges all help that too. Most designers don't get the fact that a lot of people like the carrot to chase.
KCXIV
Molten Core Raider
- 1,456
- 180
yeah, what happend to overland raid bosses. I thought that shit was cool. too much brown had overland raid bosses they were nice to have in game. Everything went all dungeon. wtf?
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 8,309
- 10,282
We have that discussion about twice a year, if I remember right.
Levels are a terrific and efficient way of measuring your progress ("you're ready for Dreadlands now") and communicating your progress to other people ("we need a level 45 for LGuk"). It breaks down at level cap because you usually encourage progression even though you didn't allow new levels, and people try to substitute new "levels" to the capped level. Those we call "ilvl" these days. You don't hear "need level 104 tank", you hear "need tank for HM, ilvl 660 req".
My pet design does away with the concept of level as a basic newbie scale. You don't have a level, you have an apparent level which is computed from your gear, ability ranks, unlocked AA, whatever is in your game. So you're a "level 56 warrior" not because you've accumulated 56 bars of XP, but because you've accumulated 34 levels worth of gear, 15 ranks of abilities and 7 ranks of AA. Or maybe it's 29 in gear and more AA because you've grinded achievements and not done dungeons as much. It's open-ended, and allows an universal scale of measure (if you've done your design work carefully). It tells you what is easy, ok or hard for you, but does not dictate what might be useful for you. Of course, there are builds that are OP for their apparent level, but whose OP fades after a while (because the item power doesn't scale as fast, or because the other AA you skipped in favor of those that were OP aren't as OP compared to their stated contribution).
The biggest problem of that design is the catch-up mechanics when a new expansion arrives. If the lower level of the expansion is too high, people have a difficulty fording from previous to current expansion; if the lower level is too low, a lot of it is wasted on people. WoW has two progression scales (level, then ilvl) but resets completely both because you cap the first easily, and you get handed "free stuff" to cap the second when the expansion launches.
But actually, the biggest problem isn't the game, it's the players. The players "know" levels. Remove levels, and they go "uh?" on you.
That's a different problem, and one which has actually nothing to do with levels per se. You need
1) Stuff to do in "lower level zones"
2) Reasons to group with any character that has stuff to do in that zone
(meaning what you do in those zones is also useful to lower levels - it's just that you didn't do it or have reasons to redo it)
GW2, for instance, has stuff to do in lower level zones (WBosses). It's just that it has no reasons to group.
Holy shit! I spent alot of time in City of Mist but i never ran into that thing.Lets take a moment out of our busy days to remember...
The fucking Tangrin