EQ Never

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,902
6,888
Yeah, PS2 isn't even on my radar. I know jackfuck about that game and don't doubt you.

so scratch the most successful since EQ2. I know that DCUO does make sony some money, or at least it did, so it's not a failure in the way a lot of their titles have been. But i'd be leery of calling it successful.

I just don't know how it could possibly continue to make money with their support and development strategies over the last 2 months. It's like they're trying to cash out. It makes me think they really have no plans to port it to the next playstation (even if they claim otherwise) and ARE just trying to cash it out.
Well, mmo's are atm machines for gaming companies. Even the crappy ones make bank as long as they keep the dev / support teams at a reasonable level. SWTOR lost money at first not because of of sub numbers, which were pretty good compared to most mmos, but because they had an extremely bloated overhead that counted on WoW type sub numbers (morons).

SoE is still making bank from EQ all these years later because they are pretty efficient at keeping their overhead low. Even Vanguard is profitable.
 

Caeden

Silver Baronet of the Realm
7,538
12,380
Swtor is probably not as bad on a sub now as it was but I still think their f2p can suck my cock.
 

Bellringer_sl

shitlord
387
0
Does Swtor have a sub option to bypass the f2p BS?

While I personally dislike f2p because it is an annoying hinderance to gameplay, I understand why companies are moving to it. I don't mind playing f2p games as long as I have the option to subscribe in order to bypass the f2p BS. I have always considered f2p a method of gettin people to try out the game though the first few starting areas to get them to see the game at no risk then sub if they like it.
 

tower

Golden Knight of the Realm
375
155
I think they are thinking deeper with emergent gameplay this time. Not just oh look, people are using fear in combination with snare, or people are using FD to split stuff. I think in EQ Next they are looking at emergent gameplay outside of combat mechanics. Like they want people to own their own towns and care about them, so that when someone comes along to threaten it, they will be a serious enemy. And if someone is a respected trader or tradeskiller, the player might offer some kind of incentives to those types of players to hang around in his town. Maybe he will make money from the town by taking a cut of trades or something, or maybe the towns generate their own income somehow. And if so, maybe he will then hire players to help him protect his town. So players become part time Guards or something.

Maybe if players are no longer quest grinding, the rich people who are building their own towns might hire a player or group of players to go and chop some valuable wood from a far and dangerous place. Adventurous types will go and do that for the XP and then make cash from selling the materials.

Maybe mages can set trees on fire and it spreads like wildfire through a forest, injuring all the mobs - making for easy XP. But maybe those trees were needed by some players. So you have two groups of players with opposing needs. Something might come from that. If PVP is enabled.... a tradeskiller might hire players to go and kill other players who are disruptive by burning forests etc.

I'm sure there will be emergent combat stuff too, if you give players an interesting variety of spells and skills, smart people will inevitably come up with their own sneaky combinations. But I think the interactions between the players and the world is going be a bigger deal this time. That's what they are leading us to believe anyway.
20 years later MMOs finally catch up to MUDs in design?

I wouldn't call this emergent gameplay, fwiw, but that's semantics.
 

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,040
19,502
20 years later MMOs finally catch up to MUDs in design?

I wouldn't call this emergent gameplay, fwiw, but that's semantics.
It's also completely unrealistic. The game would be out for 5 min before every single forest was burnt down. Players having that kind of impact on the world isn't practical with hundreds of thousands of players
 

belfast_sl

shitlord
65
0
Pandemonium ("Panda"). Someone I know very well was part of the long-time guild/group that either started that guild or made up the core of it. I remember the name Gylen, and a few others..Croazil, Rummol..I never played on that server up to a high level but watched their raids/pvp encounters semi regularly. I didn't even play on that server but knew a bunch of them by name and knew they were badasses.
 

Nirgon

YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE
13,440
20,966
It's also completely unrealistic. The game would be out for 5 min before every single forest was burnt down. Players having that kind of impact on the world isn't practical with hundreds of thousands of players
The good news is after everything's burned down, they will have to look for something else to do.

Like make their own things, and they probably won't want to burn down their owns things. More likely, you will have groups building things together and wanting to burn down other people's things. That's when things get rolling.

Typically, the people dedicated enough to build things are also dedicated enough to organize and easily squash the horde of individuals (retards) trying to burn everything down.
 
1,678
149
It's also completely unrealistic.
Not if there are consequences. The fire thing for example, make the spell require a component. And make it damage loot, so it's good for xp bad for loot. Or whatever. Small things like this can totally change behaviour.

But I agree with the other guy, MMO's are striving to catch up to MUD's. They have a long way to go, but it will be great for us if they at least strive for that, because WoW type games certainly don't.
 

Bellringer_sl

shitlord
387
0
Plus the trees will grow back, duh. And if the land belongs to a faction, that faction may attack that person, or the person takes faction hits. Stop being so fucking close minded.
 

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
You're looking at that example from the wrong angle. You are looking at it from the point of view of a normal person, not a fuckhead. Fuckheads destroy things just because they can, regardless of consequences. Does the forest pop back up overnight? Defeats the entire point of selling an idea as a world if so.

When you think of ideas, you have to take multiple approaches to see if they can/cannot work. And one of those approaches -has- to be the fuckhead approach. "Can you remove content by your actions, y/n?" if the answer is yes, then the fuckhead approach is "I will remove content whenever I can" regardless of whatever things you attach to it short of outright account banning/deletion. Which then becomes a PR nightmare weighing on how your customer service setup handles things.

Also, mythical social pariah status has been invoked apparently. This doesn't exist. Every game has its groups of fuckheads, and they will congregate as fuckheads do and continue to be fuckheads. Do you -really- want to spend the majority of your gametime watching out for fuckheads who might destroy stuff because they can? Not because they want to PVP with you, or compete with you by building stuff, or race you to spawns, or anything else. They just want to be fuckheads and fuck things up for everyone else because the game gives them the ability to do so. You can call it Trolling or what have you, but it is all the same. Fuckheads being fuckheads.

Dynamic content like that can't exist unless your character is attached to your identity in real life so that consequences actually matter. Otherwise, fuckheads will be fuckheads and ruin it for as many people as possible. Search your feelings; you know this to be true.
 

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
Dynamic content like that can't exist unless your character is attached to your identity in real life so that consequences actually matter. Otherwise, fuckheads will be fuckheads and ruin it for as many people as possible. Search your feelings; you know this to be true.
I think you can put in consequences for fuckheadedness: you start pking the world treats you as a killer, KOS in towns, you start burning down forests all NPC druids and wild animals hate you and you're KOS in the wild. Etc.
 

DickTrickle

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
13,283
15,346
I would totally burn the forest down first chance I got. The more people it made angry, the more likely I would be to repeat it. I am a fuckhead.
 

Bellringer_sl

shitlord
387
0
Yep. That's why you can incorporate shit like being able to burn down a forest while still being able to deal with fuckwads. There are many ways to deal with fuckwads in that situation. I named three. Dismissing an idea just because people may attempt to exploit it to their own desires is fucking remedial. People are always going to do something in game to satisfy their own desires, that's why they are playing the game. If you can identify highly negative actions that may happen if a certain feature is implemented, you can also implement ways to counter it.

Of course there will always be things missed, and that's why ongoing development happens. Hotfixes, patches, updates. Giving in the fuckwad's is the ultimate way of letting them win. People should simply stop being a negative fucking nancy saying things are impossible and think of the positives, negatives, ways to increase the positives and decrease the negatives.
 

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
The good ol' boys club is back in full force. That's a fucking shame too because SOE almost turned it around there for a little bit.
My instinct is that you're wrong here Ut. As noted, I'd given up on SOE but now the tea leaves suggest some unholy combination of Storybricks, Sandboxiness, Jeff Butler and Pixie Dust has turned it around for EQN. We'll see in 7 days.

Edit: Well unless the FTP model ends up screwing everything up.
 

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
The thing is, with all the alternatives available, and the infatuation with F2P that this game is almost certainly going with... that isn't much of a deterrent. For sane people, those are harsh penalties and if they wish to continue playing the game, they'll abide by the rules of the world. The problem isn't normal sane players, but the professional Trolls that inhabit games these days. I don't remember them much in EQ back in the day, but I didn't play DAOC much or UO, so my knowledge of the level of fuckheads in those games is pretty minimal. Today, however, in -all- games, Trolls abound. Especially in games where someone's actions can negatively effect another player.

It's very similar to the PVP problem in mmos.
 
6,216
8
a flying mount is about 1500 and you can just buy one of those at level 1... total smack in the face to all the old timers who spent a long time getting their flying mounts.
Cash shops are just result of such a deeper issue than being ABLE to buy your way to glory, the problem is people WANTING to.

I stop playing games when I have everything I want. I find it totally illogical to buy anything that can be obtained in-game.

Stopped playing Vanguard 3 months after it released because I had the best gear on the server. Stopped playing Farcry 3 as soon as my weapons were unstoppable. Never capped a character in an old RPG like final fantasy because what's the point? I dropped ruby weapon 10 levels ago... Etc etc
 

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
Yep. That's why you can incorporate shit like being able to burn down a forest while still being able to deal with fuckwads. There are many ways to deal with fuckwads in that situation. I named three. Dismissing an idea just because people may attempt to exploit it to their own desires is fucking remedial. People are always going to do something in game to satisfy their own desires, that's why they are playing the game. If you can identify highly negative actions that may happen if a certain feature is implemented, you can also implement ways to counter it.

Of course there will always be things missed, and that's why ongoing development happens. Hotfixes, patches, updates. Giving in the fuckwad's is the ultimate way of letting them win. People should simply stop being a negative fucking nancy saying things are impossible and think of the positives, negatives, ways to increase the positives and decrease the negatives.
Yes, you can kill the people burning down the forest. Does it respawn instantly? Are you protecting the forest for a reason? Are you protecting every forest in the game world because people are destroying them for no reason? All of your solutions are aimed at normal people, not Trolls. Does the game know you are Trolling and it keeps you from respawning once killed? Does burning down forests give you a respawn timer increase, or flag you as a Troll? Does accidentally burning down a forest flag you as a Troll regardless, or flag you for PVP regardless, or give you faction hits regardless? What about NPCs? What if someone trains a mob that shoots fireballs around through forests intentionally? What if this happens when you are asleep? What if...

No, you haven't thought it through, and you are putting way too much freedom in the hands of a populace that -will- do all of the above, especially in a F2P game. It isn't remedial to apply common sense to a no-brainer issue when dealing with human nature. Especially online human nature. Take the worst, then aim for the best. But you -have- to take the worst into account.
 

Bellringer_sl

shitlord
387
0
Cash shops are just result of such a deeper issue than being ABLE to buy your way to glory, the problem is people WANTING to.

I stop playing games when I have everything I want. I find it totally illogical to buy anything that can be obtained in-game.

Stopped playing Vanguard 3 months after it released because I had the best gear on the server. Stopped playing Farcry 3 as soon as my weapons were unstoppable. Never capped a character in an old RPG like final fantasy because what's the point? I dropped ruby weapon 10 levels ago... Etc etc
Your first sentence is too true. The customer's who participate in this shit is what makes the games fucking awful. Unfortunately it still allows the company to make its money so who the fuck would change it? The MMO community is reflective of our social community in general. How depressing.

Your second sentence made you look like a complete douche and a part of the people who you bashed in your first sentence. You stop playing games when YOU have everything you want. So I presume your guildmates gear you up then you quit? Awesome job bro, way to be a team player with loyalties. Please tell me the post is just phrased wrong.
 

Bellringer_sl

shitlord
387
0
Yes, you can kill the people burning down the forest. Does it respawn instantly? Are you protecting the forest for a reason? Are you protecting every forest in the game world because people are destroying them for no reason? All of your solutions are aimed at normal people, not Trolls. Does the game know you are Trolling and it keeps you from respawning once killed? Does burning down forests give you a respawn timer increase, or flag you as a Troll? Does accidentally burning down a forest flag you as a Troll regardless, or flag you for PVP regardless, or give you faction hits regardless? What about NPCs? What if someone trains a mob that shoots fireballs around through forests intentionally? What if this happens when you are asleep? What if...

No, you haven't thought it through, and you are putting way too much freedom in the hands of a populace that -will- do all of the above, especially in a F2P game. It isn't remedial to apply common sense to a no-brainer issue when dealing with human nature. Especially online human nature. Take the worst, then aim for the best. But you -have- to take the worst into account.
Yep, it's impossible. Just quit.