EQ Never

tad10_sl said:

I thought they mentioned it at SOELive - as one of their "for example but this doesn't mean it is in the game" like they did with Paladin and SK.

Click to expand...

Possibly, I may have missed that.

Here's hoping PAX brings some amount of new information because Gamescom was lacking. It'll probably all be Landmark related. If Landmark is going to be ready for beta this winter, it'd be nice to start kicking out (even if very controlled) a playable demo for big events.

gogojira_sl said:

I wouldn't mind that but I'm almost certain ranger was mentioned as one of the eight starting classes in the beginning (unless you're just referencing my dual wield/bow preference). It's not that big of a deal though, I'll find the sweet spot and mix and match abilities.

I still wonder what this implies with epics. Creating 40 epic quests certainly isn't an insurmountable task. But do they create a variation for all 40 classes or just have the base class and all of its branches covered? Although a bow ranger and a melee ranger would need entirely different weapons. And I'd guess that would open up the opportunity for a character to obtain every epic weapon for all the classes he has unlocked; not sure how I feel about that. I think I'm just arguing with myself at this point.

Click to expand...

I would guess if they do epics they would tie it to the weapons and not the classes. That way if you have an epic two handed sword anybody who could use the two handed sword could work on that epic. This way going forward if they add champs as I am expecting the new classes would have the same access to epics as existing ones do.

Yeah, that's the third time I've been told that. I understand that, and agree that's how it will probably work. Certainly no deal breaker for me, but it'll be disappointing because I've always loved the way EQ handled epics.

gogojira_sl said:

Yeah, that's the third time I've been told that.

I understand that, and agree that's how it will probably work. Certainly no deal breaker for me, but it'll be disappointing because I've always loved the way EQ handled epics.

Click to expand...

Well hopefully we're wrong and they go all out and that after you get the Weapon you still have to go on a class specific quest?

tad10_sl said:

Well hopefully we're wrong and they go all out and that after you get the Weapon you still have to go on a class specific quest?

Click to expand...

I can embrace that idea. If we're creating the landscape for them, they can at least give us a nice set of shiny, class-based weapons with quests to go along with it. I'm OK with a catch-all weapon if it can evolve.

With their class model and hopefully frequent class additions, epic weapons by type just make much more sense then making them per class. As long as the quest itself is awesome authored content and not a shopping list like in GW2, I'm cool with it. It also gives you some freedom to pick your favorite weapon model, depending on the weapon selection of your favorite main class(es).

They could still tailor them to certain classes or abilities based on the actual weapon stats/effects, and make more of the same weapon type but targeted at other class groups later on. The 2handed sword that gives holy and fire skills a larger radius and reduces cooldown on your heal and stun skills wont do as much for a SK then it does for a paladin (or classes that have similar skill sets).

So I've just never gotten into Minecraft for some reason (heresy I'm sure , just not my thing ) but maybe with an EQ twist if it's intuitive I'll enjoying dinking around with the EQL beta.

Also I've seen the powerful and intricate designs folks can do with Minecraft , so I'm assuming one of you experts in that type of thing WILL be building a Red Panda Pirate shaped fortress ????

I typically like to play what's regarded as a 'chaotic neutral' or 'unaligned' character in your standard DnD framework. It should be interesting to try and walk that line in EQN. Hopefully that will be a viable way to operate in this game. I guess there's no reason to believe otherwise at this point, but if I gotta go full good guy or bad guy in order for highly specialized classes to become available to me, or to otherwise advance in tier or whatever, that will be unfortunate for my style.

Minequest and all the other peripheral bells and whistles they're talkin bout are lookin pretty decent to me so far. Beating a dead horse at this point but it's all gonna come down to the combat. I really wanna believe that they are farther along than it appears and we're gonna start seeing something soon, but if we're placing bets I'd hafta wager against any combat documentations showing up in the next month. Maybe one of you guys can persuade them to throw us some sorta bone this weekend?

Neways, what's goin on with this storyblocks infoz? Cheers to yous guys for hookin it up with some new data, here's hoping it's more consequential than what ponytail and friends have offered up so far.

Couloir_sl said:

I typically like to play what's regarded as a 'chaotic neutral' or 'unaligned' character in your standard DnD framework. It should be interesting to try and walk that line in EQN.

Click to expand...

Good question to tweet StoryBricks. EQN should be able to handle the entire range of ADD alignments.

hijack for a brief moment with the old school ADD alignments .

What would you consider Stannis ? Lawful Neutral ?

Jarnin_sl said:

The problem with a character having loads of abilities is that all of those abilities end up watered down. You click a button and it might have 1-2 effects, and those effects are usually miniscule, but having a lot of abilities with 1-2 miniscule effects adds up when you're mashing shit every second or two.
Then you have systems with fewer available abilities. The abilities might have lots of miniscule effects, a handful of moderate effects, or a single kick ass effect. The single kick ass effects are often considered "class defining abilities", so things like Ice Comet or Feign Death or Resurrection.

I've played enough games with 20+ available abilities to come to the conclusion that I don't enjoy playing whack-a-mole. There are loads of abilities that are so narrow that they rarely get used at all, and then there are other abilities that are so useful that they're constantly in use or on cooldown. Personally I'd like to have less abilities that are more meaningful and class defining than having a shitload of utility abilities that I rarely use.

When I heard Georgeson say that the devs on EQNext want players looking at the action, not looking to see what abilities will come off cooldown next, he said exactly what I wanted to hear. Now whether that is how EQN works out is another story, but I like the idea that they're limiting the number of abilities.

Click to expand...

Jarnin, good point and I agree with the wack-a-mole statement. I just think that 8 (with movement ones) is pretty low, because there has to be some degree of skill. I am hopeful that the dervs will get us something that works, and works well. There has to be a balance between buttons/abilities and skill. Not to use wow as a perfect example, but even the simplest of combat rogues have more than that to manage and I wouldn't consider them wack-a-mole. There also is the idea of utilities vs combat abilities to consider. All classes should have some sort of reason that they are important (utility) or they will have no place in a raid/group if there is a class that has their same damage or healing output along with the utility. Perhaps the dervs would be willing to bend on it a bit and say 8 combat, 2 movement, etc. I guess we will see how it goes.

Not sure if this interview has been posted with Butler/Micheals. Nothing earth shattering, but they mention overhead map or lack there of. Also comment to a degree the size of the world, that the technology would allow for unlimited... Confirmation as well on landmark stuff that we all pretty much knew already.

tad10_sl said:

Not going to go back to where this appropraite.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/08/03/ev...ext-interview/

This is for Neir or Creed or whoever was talking about crafting tables - it's the only place where they discuss that crafting is tiered like classes.

Click to expand...

Thank you Sir, saw this one but was good to reread it again. Good refresher on some of the details they talked about. Still on the fence on "Their" crafting for now. I really want to be completely be onboard but have been shafted before. I like not having to grind up crafting. The idea to find recipes, tools and tables sounds great. Yes, I really think crafting professions COULD be tables and not a class.

The key thing I enjoy in crafting is being focused on making money or being a mainstay support for a guild with benefits on getting in on some of the good stuff related to crafting.

bytes_sl said:

I believe it when I see it. Arenanet said the exact same thing about crafting in GW2 and everbody who's ever leveled a new character by spending 30 gold to buy up crafting materials in the auction house, would beg to differ.

And nice to see they're selling additional landclaims. I got a neg for saying that a few days ago.

Click to expand...

I was a hardcore merchant in SWG, did tailoring and music instruments. Had the big house with many NPCs and TONS of stock to choose from. Each time I left the house I would get tells asking for me to make their guild matching uniforms. Make some serious bank! Empire uniforms were the big money for a long time. The Town I was in worked with me to help restructure the town with other crafters to help invite outside player easier access to the shops in a central location.

Games like WOW is what I hate, you have to deal with others who will grind up a crafter asap just to price compete against you for no other reason than they dont like your price on X item because they thought it was too high. Once you pull all your stock off the market their stock prices hop up to over what you were charging and within 2 weeks they are just happen to get rid of it with a firesale due to noone buying it. I scoop up their crap and resell it with my own for what I was originally charging. Its mind numbing and having to compete with soo many doing this same shit is crap.

Teekey_sl said:

I'm going to buy up a shit ton of property then rent them to other players for in-game currency, using the permission system. If those fuckers refuse to pay up, I cut them off!

I also reserve the right to resell anything they create in the PlayerStudio.

Click to expand...

Think thats how Second Life is or has been for some time now.

They talked about packaging up and selling, would guess that once you buy a plot its your forever and if you are gone for X time it get packaged up, you own it and can place it but it unlocks the land. They had this tech since SWG with the housing and remembering where what is placed where. Didnt pay taxes, packaged up!

I'd think real estate dealing would be more profitable than crafting. Could be wrong.

tad10_sl said:

I'd think real estate dealing would be more profitable than crafting. Could be wrong.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, even if they allow players the ability to sell weapon and armor look from their own creations on the Station store thing, the land items would have possibly more potential. Assuming you mean land items not land location.

Except if they add more land, your bottom falls out.

Lleauaric_sl said:

Except if they add more land, your bottom falls out.

Click to expand...

Location, location, location.