EQ Never

popsicledeath · May 11, 2016

Kharza-kzad_sl said:
Defining 'failed' here is difficult as well.

That's why it's a position Quaid is being so willing to take. The definition of failure is so nebulous and subjective, especially when discussing the issue with fans of the product/genre, it's the easiest thing in the world to argue against anyone saying anything is a failure.

It's a fun position to take, really, as it works with just about every genre and you're able to argue whatever side the other person isn't taking. That blockbuster moving that sucked and was a box office bust in the US? Not a failure as it made money worldwide! Or it was an artistic hit! Or any number of ways you re-define the terms of success and failure.

Hitler? Not a failure, because... rocketry!

Quaid · May 11, 2016

etchazz_sl said:
Everything that you just described as stuff that "wouldn't fly anymore" is exactly the reason why most new MMO's don't last more than a month or so. The reason EQ was memorable was because it took time and the loot was hard to obtain. Games now hand you a new piece of loot every half hour and is the reason they're so hollow. You had to actually work for your stuff in EQ. Couple that with a death penalty that actually meant something, and you had a perfect blend of risk vs. reward. The rarer you make something, and the harder it is to obtain, the more value it holds. No one would covet gold if the entire world was covered in it.

This is the post that initiated the discussion. Etchazz asserts that 'most new MMO's don't last more than a month' because 'they lack xyz mechanic or philosophy from EverQuest'.

This isn't about semantics trying to decide what makes an MMORPG a 'failure' or not. His statement is totally ridiculous on it's face, since in reality, MOST new MMORPGs have reasonable populations and generate profit for years and years. I asked for a list of games that 'didn't last' in the post-WoW era of 'casual friendly' MMORPG mechanics, and am still waiting. The only AAA MMORPG I can remember that launched in the post-WoW era that was unpopular and unprofitable enough to 'not last' was the one that was closest to EverQuest in its philosophies and gameplay. Vanguard.

He claims these (non-existent) MMORPGs that 'didn't last' would have done better with mechanics similar to EQ, when all the evidence points to the exact opposite.

Feels data.

Rezz · May 11, 2016

People posting in the MMO forum don't know about etchazz?

EQ was memorable because it was "first" and not because it had amazing retention/success mechanics. Until WoW, its competitors were shitshows of varying degrees. DAOC was a PVP game and EQ was not, so different demographics. FFXI and EQ were PVE games, but one had substantially higher requirements than the other as well as being The Worst Console To PC Port Ever. God that UI was atrocious. Also a reasonable amount of backlash because it was Asian.

Retention in EQ lasted exactly up until EQ+1 came out (WoW) and that was it. Almost all current games are EQ+1, except unlike EQ during its heydey, they don't effectively exist in a vacuum. Actual competition these days.

But... these are facts that everyone knows. EQ's mechanics paved the way for better mechanics. Putting shitty mechanics back into games isn't going to increase retention; it will increase the rate at which people don't play the game. As has been shown uh, since forever.

Also, not to take any specific side, but Vanguard was -substantially- closer to WoW than it was EQ. Everything from combat to spells to being quest-based. The biggest differences were the instancing (wasn't a problem with the tiny ass VG pop!) and the art style. VG leaned way more towards the failed EQ2 models than towards the considerably more popular SoGa models. Otherwise VG was a direct descendant of WoW style gameplay.

Kharza-kzad_sl · May 11, 2016

I think the lasting a month comment was referring to the locals. It is true enough, I played most new stuff that came out as it was kind of part of the job. They were mostly one month experiences with a few exceptions.

I do go back and play stuff. I'll pop into lotro or elderscrolls or starwars (starwars new story stuff is bril), but I never stay more than a month.

With these new eq progression servers I had to leave. I didn't want to but I had to. I'd like to be playing right now but I've got stuff to do. And keep in mind it is a shell of it's former self.

EQ upon release tore through the austin game industry like a wrecking ball. Countless people fired, wasting away or sneaking time at work. It was on a different level.

And at the same time, my casual friends that I go to dragoncon with made no connection to EQ at all, but played quite a bit of warcraft. They didn't fiend on it like a junkie, but they'd play a couple times a week for a few months. They also play clash of clans on their phones.

Financially the crack fiends vs the 4 hours a week player were exactly the same to the game's bottom line, but do we really care about financials?

Quaid · May 11, 2016

Rezz_sl said:
Also, not to take any specific side, but Vanguard was -substantially- closer to WoW than it was EQ. Everything from combat to spells to being quest-based. The biggest differences were the instancing (wasn't a problem with the tiny ass VG pop!) and the art style. VG leaned way more towards the failed EQ2 models than towards the considerably more popular SoGa models. Otherwise VG was a direct descendant of WoW style gameplay.

I agree that Vanguard was closer to WoW than it was to (vanilla) EverQuest. However, it was still the closest AAA MMORPG on the market to vanilla EQ, which was my point. Etchazz was arguing that time investment in vertical and horizontal progression 'kept people playing' more than a month. Well, Vanguard certainly held that philosophy, even near the end. Didn't prevent it from getting shut down.

Japanfour_sl · May 11, 2016

the biggest thing that mmos of today have abandoned is designing classes to function in groups and raids. Its like every damn game is a theme park, or a pseudo open world theme park with no focus on how your class co operates with other classes. This is why I dont enjoy bdo. Its a single player game masquerading as a half ass mmo. You need a group to do tough things, but there is no support strategy. And all the quests are pretty much making you feel like a cyber janitor. Pick up X shit, kill X shit.

Also another thing is that most games dont really have good AI, so PVE sucks. Some games are getting better, but the AI really hasnt evolved, raiding and grouping is still the equivalent of a complex squaredance that everyone ends up understanding after a few attempts.

My favorite thing about eq was being able to play a role with other people. Like having an importane buff that facilitated leveling, or a buff that improved mana regeneration. The way classes were made ended up giving everyone some form of value, whether it be social value, value that helped soloers solo, or value that made a person very desirable for a group. Its not even some archaic thing that we like that is out of date. Its just a simple bottle neck that shows what your value is to others. Another great thing is that alot of classes had pseudo roles that could temporarily fit pure roles in the group. Everything kind of related to playing together, or at the least communicating with someone else in the game to do things.

Games nowadays do none of this. We all play together, but we really are just playing alone in most of the latest MMOS. Its something that hasnt really been successfully recreated since eq ( eq2 kinda did it for a while, then fucked it up). And the truth is people making these games ( or funding them) dont want you to play together, they want you to stay in an addicted, proven successful habit loop. They dont want you to communicate with others that might not like the game to the extent that you do, so that it prolongs the duration in which you play. They want you to get sucked in, and to not think. They really dont want you to objectively examine what you are actually doing in the game, because you would realize how little effort is needed to make you addicted to a stupid habit of get x and kill x.

2002User · May 11, 2016

Really interesting discussion on both sides.

Does anyone else think that some of the old mechanics from EverQuest could simply be made better? I like the idea Pantheon is going for, I really hope it succeeds. Take the style/feel/some mechanics of old school EverQuest and make it more tolerable for the current generation of MMOs.

I loved World of WarCraft, I played it at a high level for years and think it's the superior title and still is the best MMO on the market. But it's missing some of the life EverQuest had back in the good old days, with open world stuff, dungeon crawls, CC actually being needed and used, and other fun stuff.

I feel there is some kind of compromise that can be made here, but developers are missing a good healthy center point.

Kharza-kzad_sl · May 11, 2016

I'm snagging bits of it for a simple rpg. Like the concept of rare stuff in a "camp". In an instance game you clear the instance and have a chance at the mob you want being up, and then a chance at getting the drop you want. If neither are, you have to start over and reclear. With EQ style % chances you could be clearing alot.

With EQ you killed your way in, then 26 minutes later the beasties began repopping in the order in which they were killed. You had to stay on top of things and a runner or afkers or any number of mishaps could mean you'd get behind, and maybe overwhelmed. Sometimes the spawned rare can turn the tables. Level appropriate camps at the shin lord have gone from easily handled to dead when the lord spawns with a ghoulbane and procs everyone to death.

I'm thinking of trying a hybrid of the two. An instance with camps, where parking there will be seen as a challenge to the owners who attempt to retake the spot in force. Instead of single mobs respawning every 26 minutes, a pack of 3 for starters will path back in from inaccessible parts of the dungeon to try to retake it as a team. The longer you stay the bigger these packs get and the higher the chances for a rare spawn/item.

This makes camping more like the fun of breaking in, where you deal with multiples and your cc class isn't bored.

I'm hoping to test it and see how fun it is soon, but my real job is taking my m-f time.

Rezz · May 11, 2016

Japanfour_sl said:
We all play together, but we really are just playing alone in most of the latest MMOS

Often repeated and still not exactly correct. Unlike EQ where it was "group or don't play" modern games let you progress to a point by not having a group. However, in every MMO released ever, the most effective way to do anything is to group. The best rewards aren't earned by soloing in any game; they are either group or raid endeavors. The majority of content in most games is also focused on group gameplay. People talk and socialize and meet up to do things in just every game (except maybe GW2) and often have needed abilities (recently more related to tradeskill choice, which is many games goes hand in hand with class selection) and it certainly isn't a thing that only EQ/EQ2 did. It's a weird version of history where mmos no longer focused on the group aspect, because that has simply never been true.

And the tidbit about modern games not having roles in groups... outside of GW2 and some other asian stuff, dedicated roles are still a thing in basically every game. You still have tanks, and support (though I will say that support-specific classes have been reduced in favor of dps/healer/tank trinities) and healers and dps. Pulling is now more about "which pack do I pull?" in many, as FD simply hasn't existed since EQ, and even then it was supplanted at points by lulls, and I do sort of miss that specific role. Classes have definitely been reduced over time, and the little one shot utility abilities (Ranger/Paladin hp buffs, SK's voice, etc) have in some cases gone away. WoW has a -shitload- of secondary buff effects etc while playing certain specs that can make groups more effective, but there's been bloat to where similar effects are added by more than one class/specs and you aren't going "Man I really need a ranger for whatever the fuck it was that they did" much anymore. So that aspect is kind of correct.

2002User: Games have been hybridizing EQ's and WoW's gameplay forever. Camps, however, are a stupid mechanic, and even Brad ye olde saviour of yon mmorpgs said it wasn't good during EQ. Which is why effectively every game has ditched it for the most part. CC -is- important in many games, there just isn't a class designed entirely around it anymore. WoW was most definitely a CC-required game for a long time, before the mudflation and ability bloat got ridiculous. SWTOR has a world of difference in ease if you have a class with a CC, and some dungeons are incredibly difficult if you don't have a class that can (or like most games, heavily overgear it).

I like overland bosses with timed respawns and stuff, but it's very easy to get those mobs on a farm cycle in a shitty time slot that prevents others from access to it entirely by virtue of when they log on during the day. EQ was notorious for having issues with this, especially during Velious. Having timed stuff like Statue/AoW spawning at 3am pst for the local asian/euro guild to kill statue and waste the AoW was a major pain for many a server. The weekly restart stuff -sort- of helped with things like Kazak and Azuregos and the nightmare dragons during vanilla to keep them randomish, but it still caters to an always online userbase far more than it does a skilled userbase. Which is fine, as long as there are no "best item in the game" type drops from those types of mobs. Content denial based entirely upon timezone is something that never needs to be brought back, ever.

zzeris · May 11, 2016

Japanfour_sl said:
Like having an importane buff that facilitated leveling, or a buff that improved mana regeneration. The way classes were made ended up giving everyone some form of value, whether it be social value, value that helped soloers solo, or value that made a person very desirable for a group. Itsjust a simple bottle neckthat shows what your value is to others. Another great thing is that alot of classes had pseudo roles that could temporarily fit pure roles in the group. Everything kind of related to playing together, or at the least communicating with someone else in the game to do things.

Games nowadays do none of this. We all play together, but we really are just playing alone in most of the latest MMOS. Its something that hasnt really been successfully recreated since eq ( eq2 kinda did it for a while, then fucked it up). And the truth is people making these games ( or funding them) dont want you to play together, they want you to stay in an addicted, proven successful habit loop. They dont want you to communicate with others that might not like the game to the extent that you do, so that it prolongs the duration in which you play. They want you to get sucked in, and to not think.

Much like the regurgitated feels data from Etchazz that is never right but always repeated...this isn't quite right. First, remind me of the value of Rangers? Maybe tell me how good Wizards were compared to mages? Pallies? Druids in larger groups. Necros in raids past the first couple? This is just one problem with a poorly made game that wasn't ever fixed properly. That's why healing, tanking, dps were given to all classes to a point in WoW. No one wants to be the shit stain in the raid. No one wants to waste 50 levels as a Ranger...just to find out you were getting even more worthless. We don't play to be special in just one small aspect in a game.

You mention stupid habits. What exactly was camping? Is that not the origin of WoWs rep grinds? Did you raid in EQ? Talk about not thinking unless you were part of the core healing, tanking, control group. It was very simple programming. EQ had bi-yearly expansions just to keep you in the loop. Not to fix shit, just to keep you playing. Their leveling grind wasn't because they wanted something special. It's because the game was never finished on time. They built artificial bottlenecks all over the place...because they were shitty programmers.

I love the talk about community and grouping with EQ. Then I look at grouping and conversations in the P99 and EQ threads. Chock full of people boxing. "I 3-box but I really wish another EQ came out where I could group with others for meaningful experiences"...yeah. Uh huh. "I've camped the same spot for days but I'm all about that grouping." BDO has lots of options. Superior options to EQ. Just because nostalgia is hitting all the right spots doesn't make BDO any less of a game.

Elidroth_sl · May 12, 2016

The biggest problem with MMOs is there's no class inter-dependency anymore outside of the high-end raid/group game. When you don't need anyone to do 90% of the stuff in the game, most MMO players won't bother to try and group up.. So people just play by themselves in a world full of people they never talk to, never interact with, etc.. IMO this gets old in a hurry, and people quit rapidly.

etchazz · May 12, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
This is the post that initiated the discussion. Etchazz asserts that 'most new MMO's don't last more than a month' because 'they lack xyz mechanic or philosophy from EverQuest'.

This isn't about semantics trying to decide what makes an MMORPG a 'failure' or not. His statement is totally ridiculous on it's face, since in reality, MOST new MMORPGs have reasonable populations and generate profit for years and years. I asked for a list of games that 'didn't last' in the post-WoW era of 'casual friendly' MMORPG mechanics, and am still waiting. The only AAA MMORPG I can remember that launched in the post-WoW era that was unpopular and unprofitable enough to 'not last' was the one that was closest to EverQuest in its philosophies and gameplay. Vanguard.

He claims these (non-existent) MMORPGs that 'didn't last' would have done better with mechanics similar to EQ, when all the evidence points to the exact opposite.

Feels data.

Reasonable populations and generating a small profit isn't success, you fucking simpleton. Go ask Electronic Arts if they think Star Wars was a success. Just because it made money, doesn't mean it made was it was supposed to. I bet the shareholders would love your "but it's moderately successful" bullshit. While you're there, you can ask them if Warhammer Online was successful, or go ask Funcom how successful Age of Conan was for them. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is, since all these companies are so god damn successful from their great MMO's. I think Funcom stock is around $2.50 a share right now (was around $50.00 a share when Age of Conan released, because, you know, it was so successful).

Quaid · May 12, 2016

etchazz_sl said:
Reasonable populations and generating a small profit isn't success, you fucking simpleton. Go ask Electronic Arts if they think Star Wars was a success. Just because it made money, doesn't mean it made was it was supposed to. I bet the shareholders would love your "but it's moderately successful" bullshit. While you're there, you can ask them if Warhammer Online was successful, or go ask Funcom how successful Age of Conan was for them. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is, since all these companies are so god damn successful from their great MMO's. I think Funcom stock is around $2.50 a share right now (was around $50.00 a share when Age of Conan released, because, you know, it was so successful).

lol

Quaid · May 12, 2016

Sylas · May 12, 2016

um not sure what you were getting at? If you are trying to rebuke what Etchazz posted, none of those links show what you think they show, other than drastic drop offs in year to year revenue. In 2013 SWTOR made 139mil in revenue from the cash shop alone (not counting subscription revenue). And in 2014 it's total revenue (cash shop + subscriptions) had dropped to 109 million. None of those figures are profits, simply revenue.

EA invested the money to dominate the market. It was a carbon copy of WoW with an even better IP, Star Wars. They absolutely were expecting vastly greater success than they got. I'm not even sure if SWTOR ever got into the black. It's definitely one of the most expensive MMOs ever made and it never came close to the billions a year in revenue they were expecting.

Rezz · May 12, 2016

SWTOR has been in the black for 3 years. It's one of the most profitable mmos on the market these days. The expected returns were retarded, and everyone who praises the game here has said so. You don't take a PC presence of sub 10m players for buy and play games and then expect the pay-to-play mmorpg to do similar numbers. But regardless, SWTOR has been incredibly successful overall, even if it didn't hit 10m subs.

Arcaus_sl · May 12, 2016

Man, you guys are taking a lot of time discussing one man's exaggeration. There are lots of shit MMO's that are in maintenance mode. Fuck man, Pathfinder never even made it to retail and neither did EQ Next. His point was a massive exaggeration but a solid point. There are lot's of MMO's that die.

I also love how Etchazz was talking about general MMO's and Quaid changed it to AAA MMO's good job bro. You're the smartest!

Rezz · May 12, 2016

Nobody is talking about the shit mmos. Which MMOs are you talking about when you say "shit mmos" in the first place? We're talking about games that people actually play here, that aren't rang-rang bad translation nonsense.

etchazz isn't commenting on how 9 Rings would have been so much better had it -only- followed EQ's clearly divine footsteps. He's talking about big name triple A shit that people actually play and their (subjective failures) in his eyes. He's not referencing random shit like Gaia Online. Nobody with any intelligence whatsoever in this thread is. I have etchazz on ignore, and even I will say he's nowhere near that retarded.

Quaid didn't change the narrative; he stated it emphatically. Games that weren't shit to begin with are not failing en masse because they didn't suckle directly upon the nipple of EQ's "greatness." They're profitable. Otherwise companies wouldn't produce/maintain them. Failure is always subjective, but when it comes to financials, the hard truth is that a lot of "bad" triple A games have outpaced EQ and then some, entirely by accident. Pretty sure SWTOR has absolutely curbstomped any retention/sales/income numbers EQ did.

Rezz · May 12, 2016

Elidroth_sl said:
The biggest problem with MMOs is there's no class inter-dependency anymore outside of the high-end raid/group game. When you don't need anyone to do 90% of the stuff in the game, most MMO players won't bother to try and group up.. So people just play by themselves in a world full of people they never talk to, never interact with, etc.. IMO this gets old in a hurry, and people quit rapidly.

This goes back to ye olde "If you aren't forced to do it, you won't do it" mentality that is fairly wrong when it comes to mmorpgs in general. People have no reason to talk in chat/general/trade/whatever flavor the game you play has. Yet they do. Nonstop, all the time, and socialize the shit out of things. They form groups entirely from chat (WoW/War/FFXIV/Lotro, for examples) and then go about doing stuff. The shut-ins aren't forced to deal with people, so they don't. However, the people that talk to others naturally will continue to do so in every mmo ever.

edit: I'm not sure if you've actually played/grouped with other people doing stuff in modern mmos, but the class inter-dependency is alive and well. But instead of "You cannot progress period without being in a group" there's now the option to progress sub-optimally without one, up until a very hard-capped point. Hint: all the hardcore guys from EQ days grouped in every game that followed it, because it was/is always the best way to progress.

It sort of sounds like you are saying that when not grouped you don't have a dependence on other classes, yet when grouped you do. Unless we are talking rang-rang nonsense or specifically GW2, you most definitely do require other classes of specific specs to do a lot of stuff in most games.

zzeris · May 12, 2016

Rezz_sl said:
This goes back to ye olde "If you aren't forced to do it, you won't do it" mentality that is fairly wrong when it comes to mmorpgs in general. People have no reason to talk in chat/general/trade/whatever flavor the game you play has. Yet they do. Nonstop, all the time, and socialize the shit out of things. They form groups entirely from chat (WoW/War/FFXIV/Lotro, for examples) and then go about doing stuff. The shut-ins aren't forced to deal with people, so they don't. However, the people that talk to others naturally will continue to do so in every mmo ever.

edit: I'm not sure if you've actually played/grouped with other people doing stuff in modern mmos, but the class inter-dependency is alive and well. But instead of "You cannot progress period without being in a group" there's now the option to progress sub-optimally without one, up until a very hard-capped point. Hint: all the hardcore guys from EQ days grouped in every game that followed it, because it was/is always the best way to progress.

It sort of sounds like you are saying that when not grouped you don't have a dependence on other classes, yet when grouped you do. Unless we are talking rang-rang nonsense or specifically GW2, you most definitely do require other classes of specific specs to do a lot of stuff in most games.

Great post. Might as well archive for the next time this topic comes up. Being wrong never changes how often it does. I still enjoy how many interdependence people play P99 where 3 boxing, etc. is actively endorsed. What dependence does that actually push? Do their other voices make good friends?

EQ Never

Potato del Grande

Trump's Staff

Mr. Poopybutthole

shitlord

Trump's Staff

shitlord

Bronze Knight of the Realm

shitlord

Mr. Poopybutthole

King Turd of Shit Hill

shitlord

Trakanon Raider

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Mr. Poopybutthole

shitlord

Mr. Poopybutthole

Mr. Poopybutthole

King Turd of Shit Hill