EQ Never

  • 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!
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
Randin_sl said:
For those who are railing against the removal of the trinity, I have a question that I'm curious about. Are you against the removal of the trinity no matter what, or do you actually like what SOE was talking about regarding ramping up the AI so that tactics need to evolve beyond the trinity, but fear combat will turn into a shitstorm if they fail?

If it's the latter, it seems to me like it would make more sense to give them the opportunity to prove their ability or inability to improve the AI before coming down on it; if they succeed, then awesome, we've finally gotten a worthy successor to the trinity, if they fail, then we can start petitioning them hardcore to start adding more structure to the combat. If they're serious about listening to the fan base during development, they might actually listen if they realize they can't accomplish their ideal for combat.
Click to expand...
Against any removal of the trinity that stems from an artificially imposed block--like say, simply making it so there are no healing classes. Or an AI that has no collision restriction, or bypasses it, and also ignores any other way to control it's actions, that always goes right after someone who heals and or does more damage. Both of those things are attempting to remove the trinitywithoutanalyzing why it's there in the first place.

That, I think, is the big fear. If we don't have taunt--then are you going to put in the dynamics that taunt was ment to abstract? (Like the danger of attempting to bypass a front line troop and exposing your flank?)...If you don't have heals, are you going to give us systems of reinforcement and resupply that heals were meant to abstract? If not, how do you expect to solve the problems that things like Hit Points, and other abstractions were put in to solve?

The trinity is a solution to a very complex set of issues. If it's going to be removed, are those issues all going to be addressed? Or does some idiot think that with no healers, you'll just get a dynamic experience as long as mobs are balanced to not one shot you and give you red lines to dodge! Because the way the one guy was talking about "no healers", makes me think it's the latter.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Big Flex_sl said:
I've seen this everywhere. "Smart AI makes the Trinity irrelevant." That simply isn't the case. Two element which EQ brought to the genre, effective pulling and crowd control, coupled with advanced AI can make a traditional Everquest-style party makeup even more exciting than Multiclass "every man for himself" hybridized combat.
Click to expand...
I think EQN combat will be a bit better than EMFH, however, I like EQ/VG combat and agree that a combination of modern AI (threat assessment/utility analysis) and old AI (aggro/hate table) would be cool.

A simple example: one aspect of threat assessment is that the AI evaluates the initial attack for whether it should flee (is it outnumber/outmatched), flee and look for others, fight or fight but call for help. But once engaged by a warrior (and taunted) the threat assessment becomes more damage/hate table focused. Heat of Battle and etc.

This is why I'm pushing for EQ3 in addition to EQN.
 
Muligan

Muligan

Trakanon Raider
3,232
907
People keep throwing out there that EQN is for PvP'ers but until I see that there are purely defined classes with definitive/recognizable roles, i'm not buying into this game. It's just not my cup of tea. How much information do we have on classes and the break on progressing through them? We need sticky on "what we know" that we can add to upon confirmation. Posts can be deleted as its added to the main post.
 
Big Flex

Big Flex

Fitness Fascist
4,314
3,166
tad10_sl said:
This is why I'm pushing for EQ3 in addition to EQN.
Click to expand...
I think you'd be better served by pushing for more EQ3 within EQN, the backlash to the class systems, rally calls, etc across the internet seems pretty fucking severe so far. It's about a 50/50 split in opinion. Lithose has put forth the best defense of the trinity I have seen in recent memory, and I think a condensed version should be published on the official boards and reddit when able.

If the "community" can put forth a unified, cohesive argument, I think real change is possible.
 
Melvin

Melvin

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,399
1,168
Tidbit Scaledclaw_sl said:
Heals will be sold in the station cash store, you must be subbed to get a heal, they will also sell as Healer class mercs in the store for 4000 station cash
Click to expand...
While this will probably generate enough income for SOE at release to recoup a good chunk of the development costs, I think they're going to go a different direction with the Station Store for their long term sustainability. They're inevitably going to let you buy player-created content directly from others using Station Cash, or something to that effect. Make no mistake about it, SOE is only excited about player created content because SOE is planning to profit from from the hard/creative work that the players are going to do. The rest of the game is a lower priority to the Developers because it's only just the bait that they're using to get a larger and more diverse group of players to invest time and effort into the new player created Norrath.

Mark my words: SOE's primary mission in EQN is to get players to pay SOE for the content that other players create.
 
Teekey

Teekey

Mr. Poopybutthole
3,644
-6,335
tad10_sl said:
They answered this but backtracked. Backtrack is likely the real answer
-Original: Founding of Halas, you can work against it and maybe Halas isn't founded.
-New: Founding of Halas, you can work against it (maybe wood needed, so you burn down a forest, etc.) however there will be alternate methods of advancement. So you can slow it down, maybe slow it waaaaaay down, but Halas gets founded.
Click to expand...
This was kind of heartbreaking to see in the panels. If they truly want a sandbox, then you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want. If they truly want individual server progress, let the players decide which way Rallying Calls go.


It's still a cool concept regardless, but allowing more freedom will make them WAY more meaningful. Hopefully they decide to implement smaller scale Rallying Calls add a bit more freedom (especially faction vs faction). I can understand how the founding of a very iconic town like Halas is something they want to happen eventually, for story and gameplay reason, though.
 
Qhue

Qhue

Tranny Chaser
7,614
4,571
I am very impressed by everything I saw. They learned that the old level-based themepark is just no longer interesting and their whole notion of having a more dynamic world with fully destructible everything is pretty darn amazing. As to what they have been working on? Well its this very concept of how to implement a dynamic world and the whole creation system. They are doing this shit RIGHT people... start with the foundation and basic physics of how the world works and when you have that working and working well then you can implement whatever actual gamified system into that world that you could possibly want.

The world creation that gets polished for and by the EQMinecraft game launching in a few months will set the stage nicely and force the engine to be robust. They are doing something to really change shit up in a meaningful way and I could not be happier.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Big Flex_sl said:
I think you'd be better served by pushing for more EQ3 within EQN,.
Click to expand...
I would say 90% certain this won't happen. Some minor changes, maybe - such as prohibiting SK/Paladin multiclassing. But Jeff Butler and Darren McPherson are making the game they want to make. The attitude is: there are 200,000 of you and 50,000,000 LOL players. We like you guys, but we want their money.

The absolute best thing to do is push for simultaneous development of EQ3 with players offering to do the building. The basic design for the classes and combat are pretty much done. EQ classes except sub in VG healing classes and VG rescue abilities (OT/DT). Some additional development required for EQ3 lore, voxel-based abilities and of course EQ3 races. But nothing outrageous developmentally since 80-90% of EQN can just "slot in" and players will build whatever else is needed. It could even benefit EQN because SOE may be able to use buildings being built for EQ3 by motivated players for EQN.

Edit: And let me add on to Qhue, that I really believe that most PvPers - not just LOL players - are going to dig the world and combat. They have improved on LOL with the multiclassing. It is not be all you can be - as you are slot-type limited by the base char, but people will come up with awesome combos for PvP (e.g. magebane example).
 
M

misery_sl

shitlord
495
0
Lithose_sl said:
Against any removal of the trinity that stems from an artificially imposed block--like say, simply making it so there are no healing classes. Or an AI that has no collision restriction, or bypasses it, and also ignores any other way to control it's actions, that always goes right after someone who heals and or does more damage. Both of those things are attempting to remove the trinitywithoutanalyzing why it's there in the first place.

That, I think, is the big fear. If we don't have taunt--then are you going to put in the dynamics that taunt was ment to abstract? (Like the danger of attempting to bypass a front line troop and exposing your flank?)...If you don't have heals, are you going to give us systems of reinforcement and resupply that heals were meant to abstract? If not, how do you expect to solve the problems that things like Hit Points, and other abstractions were put in to solve?

The trinity is a solution to a very complex set of issues. If it's going to be removed, are those issues all going to be addressed? Or does some idiot think that with no healers, you'll just get a dynamic experience as long as mobs are balanced to not one shot you and give you red lines to dodge! Because the way the one guy was talking about "no healers", makes me think it's the latter.
Click to expand...
I would retype this, but I think you covered everything. Also, I want to heal. I don't feelforcedto heal, I justenjoyhealing. Why is healing a sin these days?
 
Xaxius

Xaxius

Lord Nagafen Raider
531
147
Qhue_sl said:
They are doing this shit RIGHT people.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how any rational person with any appreciation the history SoE has in the MMO space can say that with a straight face. Are we so starved for something good we lose all sense of reality when we see a tech demo and hear a bunch of dev-speak?

Nevermind, I know the answer to that.
 
Teekey

Teekey

Mr. Poopybutthole
3,644
-6,335
I think the best hope for the people who want EQ3 is to get into Landmark and remake entire Original EverQuest zones/dungeons/etc.

If you guys do all the world building, they'd probably be more likely to actually make an EverQuest HD.
 
S

slicedmass_sl

shitlord
132
0
Teekey_sl said:
This was kind of heartbreaking to see in the panels. If they truly want a sandbox, then you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want. If they truly want individual server progress, let the players decide which way Rallying Calls go.


It's still a cool concept regardless, but allowing more freedom will make them WAY more meaningful. Hopefully they decide to implement smaller scale Rallying Calls add a bit more freedom (especially faction vs faction). I can understand how the founding of a very iconic town like Halas is something they want to happen eventually, for story and gameplay reason, though.
Click to expand...
I can see why they do it, as griefing will usually prevail. It would be cool if they did it in a way that no matter what Halas is founded but maybe if you go against the "honorable" way then Halas ends up being built underground as an underground city rather than on top of the world. So all servers would have Halas but some would have the top ground version and some the bottom ground.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Xaxius_sl said:
I don't understand how any rational person with any appreciation the history SoE has in the MMO space can say that with a straight face. Are we so starved for something good we lose all sense of reality when we see a tech demo and hear a bunch of dev-speak?

Nevermind, I know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
See my comment, for what they are trying to do with EQN, I agree with Qhue.
This is not the game I would make if I had the wherewithal to make a game (and I don't ;-) ) but it is a solid game. That's why Butler and McPherson aren't going to change anything significant based on the roundtable despite Terry Michael's concerns.
 
Lenas

Lenas

Trump's Staff
7,559
2,299
That will probably be a large community project, complete recreation of EQ1 zones and dungeons within EQNL.
 
Grim1

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,903
6,889
Teekey_sl said:
This was kind of heartbreaking to see in the panels. If they truly want a sandbox, then you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want. If they truly want individual server progress, let the players decide which way Rallying Calls go.


It's still a cool concept regardless, but allowing more freedom will make them WAY more meaningful. Hopefully they decide to implement smaller scale Rallying Calls add a bit more freedom (especially faction vs faction). I can understand how the founding of a very iconic town like Halas is something they want to happen eventually, for story and gameplay reason, though.
Click to expand...
It's a tricky balance. The potential for griefing is huge with this system. And griefers ruin their bottom line since they are primarily a PvE mmo company. Perhaps in their PvP zones / servers they can allow more freedom though. Of course if you eliminate everything in a PvE zone that has the potential for bad actions then the game loses all it's flavor and that is just as bad on the bottom line.

Ultimately it's up to them to come up with the solutions to these problems. Releasing Landmark early will help them a ton in that department. The players will come up with all kinds of ideas good and bad that they would not on their own. And then they can design EQN accordingly.

My advice to them is to err on the side of more freedom. Then try and let the players figure out the issues with community. Only nerf the absolute worst issues that are game breaking.
 
C

Creslin

Trakanon Raider
2,503
1,151
I thought it would be cool if the RCs had multiple endings but like I said earlier in the thread, it would just make it too hard for them to maintain a coherent game across the servers. I dunno why people interpreted the first thing as meaning you could make the RC fail, it never sounded like that to me. The actual dynamic content will be the mobs moving around the world and whatever player made stuff they allow us to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.