EQ Never

Creslin · Feb 28, 2013

mkopec_sl said:
Yeah, I dont buy this entire Vanguard failed because it was EQlike. It failed because at the time, it had shitty performance on even the best hardware, it was buggy, and had an unfinished end game. You are arguing that Vanguard failed because it was an EQ clone rather than the reality of the game being a buggy unfinished mess. EQ, today, has hundreds of thousands of players still. If its such a shitty idea, why are people still playing it?

I could name another game that went the same path from the PvP perspective, remember Shadowbane? Yeah, lots of cool ideas and lots of people which bought the box, but in the end people dont want to play buggy, laggy, unfinished messes. Its frustration that wins out in the end.

EQ today is not comparable to EQ in 2002. People play it and it still has some good things about it but most of the reasons that people here site as why EQ was good are actually gone from modern EQ.

PoP was a shit expansion, it was a major break from what the game had been before PoP. Raiders loved it tho because it was an orgasm of loot and the power scaling was off the charts. Same reason players loved TBC in WoW, until you realize that while one gear reset and massive power increase is fun, its not a winning idea for what to do every expansion. Also PoP had about 0 good dungeons, it was all open world farming.

And yes Vanguard failed because of performance issues, maybe it would have failed because of all its other issues eventually but it didn't get the chance to. Had vanguard cut way down on the graphics to something more like WoW/EQ that ran and looked decent it might have gotten the chance to fail at end game, but we will never really know. It was a game that forced grouping, but grouping caused so much lag it was hard to play. Also it launched against WoW at its pinacle so it was really easy to play for a week and get frustrated by the game and head right back to wow.

I do love reading these threads, especially when half the posts are from people who want a EQ rerelease but then go on to say they want it to be more like WoW in tons of aspects.

mkopec · Feb 28, 2013

Creslin_sl said:
EQ today is not comparable to EQ in 2002. People play it and it still has some good things about it but most of the reasons that people here site as why EQ was good are actually gone from modern EQ.

I have played the recent EQ. Me and a few close friends visit Norrath every couple of years to check it out. And while its not the same game, obviously, its still EQ at heart just with modern improvements. Im not an EQ purist though and I quite like the EQ of today.

Creslin · Feb 28, 2013

mkopec_sl said:
I have played the recent EQ. Me and a few close friends visit Norrath every couple of years to check it out. And while its not the same game, obviously, its still EQ at heart just with modern improvements. Im not an EQ purist though and I quite like the EQ of today.

I still play too but on the progression server. And ya it is still a good game. But I just don't think you can use the fact that EQ still has a healthy pop today as evidence that people want a game with forced grouping as you level, corpse runs, non-instanced content, gear that lasts years instead of months, and long travel times. Cause all those things are gone from modern EQ.. heck even on Prog server (DoDh atm) all those things except the gear and kinda the forced grouping one are gone.

Rhuobhe · Feb 28, 2013

I cashed in my uber shadow knight right before PoP. One of the smartest decisions i ever made.

Modern EQ is nothing like old EQ. The core rules are completely different (easier). The only real EQ left is on the EQ Mac server.

Deisun_sl · Feb 28, 2013

I posted this in the FFXIV thread but I feel like it applies even moreso here so I'm going to post it again. It's in regards to people arguing that you can't do it without having all the collect bear quests and basically filler quests:

Why do you need filler quests? What is so important about having some mundane mini-task to collect/kill all the way to max level? Why do you feel you need that?

I don't feel like it's necessary. I would rather have a single large quest that requires me to gear up, get stronger, craft better, group in places and over a span of multiple levels, solve puzzles, discover areas, etc etc. to finally be able to complete that quest. The quest reward would have to be much nicer and MUCH more meaningful than what MMOs are doing today (quest rewards every 5 minutes that add a few more stats). Make the item actually MEAN something to the player as far as value and time spent to achieve it, the places you explored and the people you met while trying to complete the quest over a span of a longer period of time (perhaps a week). Meanwhile you aren't busy collecting bear asses, instead you are preparing your character in various ways to be able to get that ONE quest item. When you get it, it should be very cool, very exciting, last at LEAST 10-15 levels and offer some really cool functionality (not just +main stats).

I don't need kill X mobs and collect Y bear asses every step of the way to max level.

Really you just need multiple long EPIC quests to max level. These quests should take you around the world on a long journey where you meet new people, have chances to veer off and explore other areas and find other meaningful loot and just simply play the game. That's all you need! Not this stupid collect x and kill y shit every step.

When you don't have all these mini-rails to guide you around doing collect X and kill Y quests, the whole world becomes your playground. You make grouping slightly more efficient than soloing and put some emphasis on socializing and multiplayer of ALL aspects MMO - from grouping to crafting to trading to pvping to whatever. You want players to be inclined to interact with each other and get to know each other in good or bad ways, create that community that we all yearn for. This is just BASIC shit that I can't believe developers don't understand, what now, 13 years into the MMORPG genre?

Kharza-kzad_sl · Feb 28, 2013

I quite liked Crypt of Decay in pop as dungeons go. I could throw together any old group and make it work with my fancy pants new enchanterlike abilities (on the deadites)

Merlin_sl · Feb 28, 2013

mkopec_sl said:
Yeah, I dont buy this entire Vanguard failed because it was EQlike. It failed because at the time, it had shitty performance on even the best hardware, it was buggy, and had an unfinished end game. You are arguing that Vanguard failed because it was an EQ clone rather than the reality of the game being a buggy unfinished mess. EQ, today, has hundreds of thousands of players still. If its such a shitty idea, why are people still playing it?

I could name another game that went the same path from the PvP perspective, remember Shadowbane? Yeah, lots of cool ideas and lots of people which bought the box, but in the end people dont want to play buggy, laggy, unfinished messes. Its frustration that wins out in the end.

I'm glad you mentioned that. I was there from nearly the very beginning. I was there before Sigil even had forums. I was in beta and I was there through launch. And what I remember is Vanguard had a HUGE following, and not just following out of curiosity, everyone on the forums was insanely loyal. Everyone loved nearly everything there was about the game..........that was, BEFORE the ill fated relationship with Microsoft and the neutering of our beloved game. There was a point there where Brad was on nearly twice a week telling us yet another thing they had to remove to make the game more "user friendly", aka, WOW like. That's when the shock set in and there were violent reactions to this news. It was at that point the mass exodus began.
I can say with complete confidence that Vanguard would have easily reached and maintained near a million subs had the original "vision" been employed and supported. Stating that the love for an EQ type of game can never be replicated is bullocks. It nearly was.

Agraza · Feb 28, 2013

They teamed up with Microsoft before they even began coding the game.

Denaut · Feb 28, 2013

Zeus_sl said:
I'm glad you mentioned that. I was there from nearly the very beginning. I was there before Sigil even had forums. I was in beta and I was there through launch. And what I remember is Vanguard had a HUGE following, and not just following out of curiosity, everyone on the forums was insanely loyal. Everyone loved nearly everything there was about the game..........that was, BEFORE the ill fated relationship with Microsoft and the neutering of our beloved game. There was a point there where Brad was on nearly twice a week telling us yet another thing they had to remove to make the game more "user friendly", aka, WOW like. That's when the shock set in and there were violent reactions to this news. It was at that point the mass exodus began.
I can say with complete confidence that Vanguard would have easily reached and maintained near a million subs had the original "vision" been employed and supported. Stating that the love for an EQ type of game can never be replicated is bullocks. It nearly was.

Umm... no.

Firstly, your timeline is wrong. MGS was the original publisher, when that fell through SOE finally ended up publishing the game. Secondly, that first beta was an unmitigated disaster. No one played. I can't remember the %s off the top of my head after all these years but they were abysmal. The drop-off rate was catastrophic, and even after tens of thousands of invites the Beta server was a ghost town. Without debating the specific merits of theadded featuresthat were introduced (not removed), they objectively and dramatically improved the amount of people that played and also the length of time in which they played.

I am seriously not sure if you are trolling/being sarcastic.

Bocephus · Feb 28, 2013

I do not really blame MS for Vanguard. It was simply mismanaged from the beginning and that abortion of a game engine that lacked proper tools for the dev's from everything I read put several nails in the coffin before they even hit beta.

The hitching.... I have played games that made the hard drive work with hitching here and there but holy fuck the hitching in VG was legendary. Unless you had a raptor or raid you were in trouble.

Merlin_sl · Feb 28, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
Umm... no.

Firstly, your timeline is wrong. MGS was the original publisher, when that fell through SOE finally ended up publishing the game. Secondly, that first beta was an unmitigated disaster. No one played. I can't remember the %s off the top of my head after all these years but they were abysmal. The drop-off rate was catastrophic, and even after tens of thousands of invites the Beta server was a ghost town. Without debating the specific merits of theadded featuresthat were introduced (not removed), they objectively and dramatically improved the amount of people that played and also the length of time in which they played.

I am seriously not sure if you are trolling/being sarcastic.

Actually, your incorrect regarding my remarks about the Microsoft involvement:

McQuaid said that he will be addressing topics in chronological order, and part one deals with what he calls the first big mistake that Sigil made: get everything in writing.

"The first mistake that would have a serious impact later in development was the verbal agreement with Microsoft that Vanguard was to be a first rate, AAA title."

It sounds like a change at Microsoft led to a completely different level of support for Vanguard; less funding, less time, and overall a different outlook on what Vanguard was to become.

"So the moral of the story is one that should have occurred to us: get everything in writing, get it into the contract, because even a company like Microsoft can suddenly undergo significant changes to its management and teams. And when those changes do happen, you might as well be dealing with a new company - anything and everything can change, and change quickly."

http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/06...d-post-mortem/

I will find Brads actual quote, but he goes into detail about the management change at Microsoft which led to the neutering of the game. Not being a jerk, but I'm not sure you were there at the time. I remember everything quite well.

Merlin_sl · Feb 28, 2013

Brad McQuaid:: As I've posted a number of times, there was a regime change at Microsoft where they reorganized a lot of their game studios. The people who were in charge of the Vanguard project on the Microsoft side went elsewhere and a completely new group of people were put in place. In that new group of people, the upper management side were also in charge of getting the Xbox 360 out the door. So, the PC games at the time were not receiving a lot of support and I don't blame Microsoft for this at all. When you've got billions of dollars spent trying to launch a new console and millions on the PC titles, you're gonna make sure that the Xbox 360 kicks ass - I think they did a good job of that. The lower level people were put in charge of our project were people who didn't have any MMO experience. They had done Zoo Tycoon 1 & 2. We tried very hard to bring them up to speed and with open arms to show them the differences and similarities between developing an MMO and a single player game - the scale and things like that. That just didn't seem to work. Previously, the people who were dealing with us committed to us - verbally - that they, Microsoft, wanted and were determined to launch a AAA Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game - and to do whatever it took to make sure that happened. While that's not down on paper - as no company ever would put down on paper - that was our understanding. Under the new regime, that commitment, nobody remembered it.

http://www.f13.net/?itemid=562

LennyLenard_sl · Feb 28, 2013

Denaut's timeline correction still stands man. Vanguard started with Microsoft slated as publisher, and when that deal ended, SOE published it. It's either correct or it isn't. Your quote from Brad doesn't change that.

Why that deal ended with Microsoft wasn't even part of the discussion.

Merlin_sl · Feb 28, 2013

LennyLenard_sl said:
Denaut's timeline correction still stands man. Vanguard started with Microsoft slated as publisher, and when that deal ended, SOE published it. It's either correct or it isn't. Your quote from Brad doesn't change that.

Why that deal ended with Microsoft wasn't even part of the discussion.

Sigh........reading comprehension is critical here:

BEFORE the ill fated relationship with Microsoft

The original relationship with Microsoft was working and mutual. When they changed management is when things started to go downhill initially. Now this isn't giving Brad a free pass for his moronic decisions, it does however point to the first change in how Vanguard was being developed, which led to players leaving. And why Vanguard wasn't successful at launch WAS the original discussion.

Rezz · Feb 28, 2013

Zeus_sl said:
Sigh........reading comprehension is critical here:

The original relationship with Microsoft was working and mutual. When they changed management is when things started to go downhill initially. Now this isn't giving Brad a free pass for his moronic decisions, it does however point to the first change in how Vanguard was being developed, which led to players leaving. And why Vanguard wasn't successful at launch WAS the original discussion.

VG failed for far more reasons than just being buggy. It shipped with effectively zero 40+ content minus bugged tradeskill stuff and insta-respawning "rare" resource nodes that people exploited to make the best gear in the game at the time. Like the content wasn't itemized and wasn't there. The hitching was not it being buggy, it was a design feature from the "chunk" loading that ran terribly on modern systems at the time. The ease of entry stuff that was added would have only helped people stay involved in the game; it was the fact that it simply wasn't even finished when it released or months later that people left in droves.

Also, to the crackhead up there who thinks that -anyone- wants the shitty collect 10 bear asses quests: I am positive nobody likes those or wants those in future games. Be they EQ:N or WoW2:The WoWening. It's the simple idea that having -any- quest content in a game immediately rustles the shit out of the EQ hipsters' jimmies that most of the sane people are disagreeing with and saying that you can have both quest and grind friendly content. I mean every modern MMO out there has grind friendly content, it just isn't the only content available in the game.

The majority of sane people in the thread want a middle ground that takes from the new while respecting the old. The nutjobs want EQ reskinned and go absolutely bonkers when anyone says that instancing/questing/any modern advance can be done in a way that isn't a direct copy of WoW. *shrug* The gap in ideologies isn't really apparent when you look at the sane people. It's the hardcore extreme outliers that claim all of us have no idea what made EQ fun and that we all want super dumbed down WoW-clones that really bring up the difference in sanity.

Draegan_sl · Feb 28, 2013

Zeus_sl said:
Draegan,
Give me a short bullet list of reasons why EQ today will NOT work. This isn't the political thread so please take this seriously because I believe strongly that an EQ type game will work with a few tweaks here and there. I just want to see what your opinion is so I can see if I'm wrong or right in certain areas.

Let me first say that I have no idea what EQ is like today, I'm assuming you mean EQ like 10 years ago or so. I'm also going to admit there is an audience for almost any form of game. I am assuming that if you want to create a new EQ you are attempting to go after a decent portion of the current market and not make some small scale niche game. So with that being said, here are my bullet points:

Static spawn mobs along with dungeon design based on static or rare spawns is not enough in today's market. You have a million shitty games out there that do this. It's not enough to compete. You need some form of dynamic content whether GW2 Style, Rift Style or even on the low end, WOW phasing.

This is a broad generalized statement, but you can not make a game with harsh death penalties where your recovery is based on hours of grinding boring mobs to get xp back. Gear loss is fine as long as gear is plentiful and not the sole way of progression. You can have harsh death penalties as long as the penalty does not submit to you hours of boredom. Risk vs Reward vs Challenge is extremely important in a game, but lag/real life/accidents can not take your character from powerful to useless (losing all your rare gear you spent months farming).

Experience curves can not be long in today's market trend. People see levels, they want to go through them fast as possible. If you want a slower progression game, then you have to invent a different power scale that is not "leveling".

TL

R - 1) More inventive content delivery/type. 2) Don't punish a player into boredom. 3) Don't make a player "grind" just to get Fireball Level 2

Illuziun · Feb 28, 2013

Draegan_sl said:
TL

R - 1) More inventive content delivery/type. 2) Don't punish a player into boredom. 3) Don't make a player "grind" just to get Fireball Level 2

The million dollar question is how can you do these things without making content too easy, and as far as I can tell no one has figured this question out. Either you supply content that doesn't require large investments of time and dedication, which people burn through in a month and quit, or you add demanding content that is time consuming and requires actual devotion, which people won't burn through, but the lesser players will complain.

They complain, but do they really quit? I've sort of come to a realization when it comes to gaming, and I think it's the prime factor into why MMO after MMO keeps failing, and it's the fact that they're targeting the wrong audiences. "Casual" gamers, or whatever you wanna call them, aren't trend setters, they just follow the trends of the dedicated or "hardcore" players base. The way I see it is that the dedicated or hardcore players are the ones to do it first, and in turn, they generate word of mouth, the most powerful form of advertisement on the internet. Once word is out that something is good or bad, the masses flock and they eat it alive, or they leave in masses if it's bad.

The way I see it is developers are completely ignoring the dedicated players in these new MMO's, so in turn the word of mouth is nothing but negativity, and the MMO playerbase is about as unforgiving as it gets. Once word is out that end game is shit or that everything just turns into a repetitive nothing, people will quit and sales will plummet. We all know the routine these days, first month of a launch decides whether it fails or succeeds, and the only people that are experiencing the majority of the game in the first month are the dedicated players. The casuals just follow the dedicated players around like puppets into the next fad, and the dedicated players are the ones who create the fads. Once the casuals take over and become obsessed with the new fad, THEN you cater to them.

Draegan_sl · Feb 28, 2013

Oh it's hard, but not impossible, and we're seeing it become iterated in games right now. Look at Rift and GW2. What they have is dynamic content in it's infancy. Rift has the ability to create overlay textures and structures based on simple scripts. GW2 spent a lot of type scripting content in their world. I think if you can combine those elements, you'll get a game.

The rest of your post is elitist bullshit that really doesn't exist. I really don't want to have the casual vs. hardcore debate of 2007 again. You know who are trend setters? The people who buy rainbow unicorns in WOW or the people who spend $50 is diamonds on GW2 to buy dye packs. Those people are trend setters because there are more of them that are making companies money than these hardcore players who poopsock games.

You're mistaken if you think casual players follow hardcore players around like a dog because they saw the end game first and said it sucked. Most of these players play the game for 3-4 weeks, finish out a character and leave. Yes there is no end game and that's what makes them leave, because a lot of developers suck at making a game stick.

Randin · Feb 28, 2013

It's also part of the reason Smedley's been talking about emergent content in interviews. Yeah, it's practically impossible to keep people from running out of content without making progression feel unacceptably slow for a lot of people, which is why, while they should be trying to get players to interact more, they need to make that interactioncreatecontent, and not simply be another way to consume it.

Draegan_sl · Feb 28, 2013

That's what some people have been trying to do with Ecosystem designs. Essentially when you interact with X, Y happens. Or if you interact with Player B, Z happens. Cause and effect, but instead of it being scripted like GW2 where a leads to b which leads to c, you need to create a system where spontaneous actions occur. Like in real life. Creating that spectrum is difficult because the way most people do things now is that they create specific events and plug in an array of reactions and once those reactions are cataloged by the player base, it just becomes script and rote, See: GW2

Search

EQ Never

Creslin

Trakanon Raider

mkopec

Creslin

Trakanon Raider

Rhuobhe

N00b

Deisun_sl

shitlord

Kharza-kzad_sl

shitlord

Merlin_sl

shitlord

Agraza

Registered Hutt

Denaut

Trump's Staff

Bocephus

Merlin_sl

shitlord

Merlin_sl

shitlord

LennyLenard_sl

shitlord

Merlin_sl

shitlord

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate

Illuziun

Bronze Knight of the Realm

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate

Randin

Trakanon Raider

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate