I dont like this option, it will still removes us from the world and remove all competition aspect. So many times i was camping something in EQ and part of the fear was actually someone walking by my camp and the risk of being kill stealed forced players interaction. Be it like ''sup, been here for 3 hours, coo?'' ''- yea coo, just passing by'' to straight out cold war ambiance where the other player didnt reply back and you knew shit was about to get intense. It made the reward so so so much satisfying. It also fucks up mudflation if every group in the area receive the message a boss popped and we can all kill him in our lill instance for more loot and down the drain goes the value of the items.i always picture the compromise between instancing & non instancing simply working like:
A.) Set up eq-classic/kunark style camp at Disco in Seb
B.) Bartender named pops
C.) Group agrees via a pop up action window to instance & fight the named
D.) upon victory or failure respawn at the zone ent etc
and then really to clarify one point, not every named will have the instance option. So your disco group can still deal with named spawns in the classic fashion, and at your choice choose to attempt the available instance.
If you make it so that the key is a more dependable drop but you have to get to the highest level mob area and the place where you get it has really nasty pulls it could alleviate that, or since most of the bosses are non instances give this key accessed boss a lockout so no group has a reason to intentionally farm the key more than once that day.A system where, say, 90% of a dungeon is uninstanced but there are two rare spawn named mobs and the only way to get to said named mobs is by finding the keys to their "instances"? You find the keys off of roaming named at 100% drop rate and .2% drop rate off random trash? Then once you have the key you go into your own instance of their room but it could be a placeholder instead of the named and once it's defeated you get ported back to the other side of the door and have to start farming again? I could get behind that. Especially if the keys only drop off of trash in a small vicinity around their "instance" door and it's highly contested. So your group can decide to farmed the contested named throughout the dungeon or try to farm these highly contested keys.
The problem with it is that if the keys only drop in a certain area of a dungeon that area will most likely become a "camp" so why even bother having the instanced bosses?
The weather sound effects were fucking perfect in EQ2. I remember on more than one occasion being tricked into thinking it was raining outside by the sound effects in game.Just saying, EQ2 had some very well done thunderstorms back in the days
my good reason is that only a mentally retarded person would have continued playing EQ after Luclin. So while EQ may have had some good expansions later on, I wouldn't know about it because in my world EQ only consists of vanilla, kunark and velious. It's like people that still play WoW after the abortion that was WOTLKConsidering it had instances content before wow even released there's a good reason you never thought that.
You really don't have to kick a player in the nuts to add a sense of danger. I hate to use the Dark Souls example again, but there it is.Imo, most instancing problems would be fixed by the simple change that you shouldnt be able to breeze to cap lvl like WoW. Make leveling a bitch. Make the ding sound oh so much more rewarding. Bring back hell levels where death can cost you all the exp you worked so hard on collecting. This alone will split the population mass and balance the players across the world in a more natural way so we're not fighting all at the same spot for the same mob.
Many, many of the positive features (Not saying that hell levels was a positive element) in EQ1 or even early UO were due to a fuck up, a lack of foresight or poor understanding of the repercussions of mechanics. Early MMO success stories can almost all be attributed to beneficial accidents, whereas anytime an MMO developers attempt to deliberately design or implement features.. they're terrible.Weren't Hell Levels just screwed up ways of calculating EXP at those levels, not really some true design intention?
That the higher experience required at those levels was "supposed" to be spread out among the levels at that range.
Er, did you even read what I wrote? 8( Stop thinking WoW and start thinking how you can use the technology."Hey we're standing right next to each other but I can't see you because I haven't fulfilled some stupid mundane requirement to be in your phase".
I remember when they admitted kiting in EQ was a bug and one day they actually tried to fix it. The backlash on flameplay was hilarious because it broke pulling mobs as well. I think what makes it even more tragic is if we had played EQ the 'intended' way 99% of shit would have been unkillable. I remember one guild on our server getting a warning for pulling Dain down the well saying you're intended to fight him in his room and pulling him out is an exploit.were due to a fuck up, a lack of foresight or poor understanding of the repercussions of mechanics.
No. That was the explanation given by developers. Which was about as hilarious when Ester said cloth caps dropping off warders was working as intended.Weren't Hell Levels just screwed up ways of calculating EXP at those levels, not really some true design intention?
That the higher experience required at those levels was "supposed" to be spread out among the levels at that range.
And it worked. To some extent.No. That was the explanation given by developers. Which was about as hilarious when Ester said cloth caps dropping off warders was working as intended.
Levels were hard coded, and all of it was meant to slow down progress in key areas of content/dungeon overlap because they didn't have enough higher level content finished, and they needed to slow the funnel down of high level players entering very limited (and very few) static areas.
And thats what made EQ emergent, shit like that. Later when WoW was released they had strict rules shutting all the emergent gameplay down. I remember some elite quest mob in ashenvale that you could kite and then pull to the guards at 49% and have the guards kill it. That was just one example. Another was the world bosses and pulling them near a graveyard and then graveyard rushing them. Or pulling the world bosses into the opponents quest hub and having it destroy evryone etc... Well they fixed that shit right away and made sure that none of that shit could ever be done again, making the game more and more strile as it went on.I remember when they admitted kiting in EQ was a bug and one day they actually tried to fix it. The backlash on flameplay was hilarious because it broke pulling mobs as well. I think what makes it even more tragic is if we had played EQ the 'intended' way 99% of shit would have been unkillable. I remember one guild on our server getting a warning for pulling Dain down the well saying you're intended to fight him in his room and pulling him out is an exploit.
They did not fix the hell level thing until after luclin if im not mistaken. By then there was more than enough content, hell if thats the reason, some conspiracy, why did they not fix it when they released Kunark? Kunark alone gave enough high level content where this was no longer an issue.No. That was the explanation given by developers. Which was about as hilarious when Ester said cloth caps dropping off warders was working as intended.
Levels were hard coded, and all of it was meant to slow down progress in key areas of content/dungeon overlap because they didn't have enough higher level content finished, and they needed to slow the funnel down of high level players entering very limited (and very few) static areas. They "fixed" it when they had more content flow.
I see your point but the simple solution would be that having someone on ignore doesn't mean you can't interact with them in some meaningful way. There is no reason you shouldn't all be able to see each other, just that Tad and Ut wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. If phasing does ever get to this stage, I think it would be bad design that you could phase someone out by putting them on ignore.The biggest problem however is reconciling phases. I had a diagram for this at one point but the jist of it is imagine I'm friends with Tad and Utnayan but they have each other on ignore. In my phase I see Tad and Utnayan. Tad sees me, Utnayan sees me, but neither of them see each other. Utnayan starts fighting a mob, what do all of us see? What does Tad see if I start helping Utnayan? Does he see me fighting empty space? What if Tad wants to help me fight? Does he now see the mob and Utnayan?
I think splitting should be a fundamental part of the mechanism of an MMO, just like Crowd Control used to be. A lot of WOW people keep talking about the 'trinity' of healing, tanking, and DPS. Back in EQ days, DPS was a given, and CC was what one needed in dungeons. Monks gave one another option with splitting and were vital for raids. I like the idea of more individualized classes with roles. I don't mind some overlap, such as the SK/Monk FD one, but really the more classes that can do something, the less meaning those classes tend to have in my opinion.Another thing I HATE is grouping mobs so you always pulled what they intended you to pull instead of using your skills to pull singles, etc... This goes for both EQ2 and WoW.