EQ Never

Xeldar · Dec 22, 2012

^ Tipp was the best drunk guild master. Shit, I can remember when Arcane Circle, Chaos Overlords, and Black Sun merged to form XK`V.

ismaris · Dec 22, 2012

Xeldar_sl said:
^ Tipp was the best drunk guild master. Shit, I can remember when Arcane Circle, Chaos Overlords, and Black Sun merged to form XK`V.

Yep, Tippfat and gang are still alive and well at XK

We played Vanguard pretty hardcore, and then a bunch of shitty MMO's briefly (AoC, WAR, Rift), and now we're doing nothing.

90Proof_sl · Dec 22, 2012

ismaris_sl said:
Which guild were you in? I play with Xanit K'Ven if you remember them at all.

<Defiant> towards the end. I was a late Luclin through early GoD player.

Flunklesnarkin_sl · Dec 23, 2012

John Smedley_sl said:
?I was really nervous about [showing SOE staff the game],? says Smedley. ?We showed it to them on Monday, and I couldn?t sleep on Sunday night because I was scared. We?ve thrown out two previous designs of the game to go with something pretty crazy and? well, it?s awesome. When the team saw it I could barely breathe when they were watching it. But when I?d finished they were clapping and cheering ? and these guys are gamers, so they?re not afraid to call bullshit when they see us make a mistake. It?s happened before. We?ve made mistakes, and the guys internally will call us on it every time. But they loved this, and we really felt vindicated that the way we?re going with Everquest Next is the right way. I feel good about it. We?re not trying to make WOW2 or Everquest 2.5 ? we?re making something that we think will define the next generation of MMOs

Translation.

I showed the game to all my employees which I pay and they agreed I should continue employing them to make a game.

Lithose · Dec 23, 2012

Rezz_sl said:
I mostly agree with you Lithose, but I want to touch on the "you need an enchanter" bit for a moment. I, and I would like to think the vast majority of sane people, have no problem with classes being better at certain things and creating synergy with other classes in ways beyond tank/healer/dps type setups. The issue that EQ had with balance (and what likely lead to the homogenized classes from WoW and beyond) is that replacing an enchanter with basically any other class drastically slowed down the dynamic of the group. In uninstanced dungeons, you really didn't have time to figure out the magical dynamic that would make your slightly different group makeup work, but the loss of a single key class basically hamstrung the entire party.

With modern games, they slide a bit too much into making all healers the same, all dps the same and all tanks the same, just with minimal flavor differences. In the enchanter example, dropping another dps into the group should dramatically speed up killing but create much more hectic fights as less CC and less buffs. Basically, the ability to increase all melee dps by 40% in a group with more than 2 melee should not happen when replacing that ability with just 100% dps is a net loss before anything else is figured in. Same with Clarity et al. They put all the good shit into one class(like clerics) and left mediocrity for the rest. I mean... Defensive Stance. Being unique and needed is one thing. Being required is another. EQ, for much of its early life, tred waaaay too far on certain classes being required. That is not good design and should not be repeated, especially in a game with 14(then 16) classes and a group size of 6.

See, this is why I thought one of WoW's best design decisions was going with fewer classes at launch than EQ had. I'm all for less classes, to give each class broader strengths and more "required" tricks. Personally, in a 5 man group game, I'd only have 6 classes, with each class having 2 roles. For 12 total arch types (Arch types which are not defined as hard and fast as current WoW, but more like vanilla, where they are fluid and based more on gear than even talents--and yeah, I know vanilla had useless archtypes, I'd make sure each was functional and just have a lot less.). It's complex, sure, but that's why there is a low limit on the number of classes in the game--so you can iterate this into your group and raid content. The problem with lots of classes is eventually you force "graying" just to make sure it's not super frustrating in groups and I think if you're going down that road, you should suck it up and just make a skill based game--because one of the benefits of classes is getting defined, different roles.

Just my .02, for what it's worth, my suggestion would be more like vanilla wow, without the Shaman debacle, rather than than EQ--in fact, I'd kind of "bleed" EQ and vanilla together to create more emphasis on debuffs/buffs, while keeping the classes broad and powerful. To give an example, Claritywouldn'tjust be an enchanter ability, 2 other classes would be able to replace the enchanter, but their clarity would have flaws that the enchanter's didn't. For a while, this is what WoW tried to do, until they folded and just went extreme with same buff/debuff just different name--I think the added complexity, and "arcane" features of having multiple debuffs/buffs that fill the same slot, is just fine and them each being imbalanced is also fine, as long as the classes overall have strengths and weaknesses to make up for it. So the Shaman's clarity might not be as good (Just rough example) but the shaman also is balanced to bring other things--in the end, both classes should be roughly desirable, with the thought in mind of what you're gaining/giving up in terms of mana regen. These choices should be hard, but they should remain *choices* and not simply slots to fill, because fuck it, everyone is the same.

Is the above a lot harder to balance? Sure. But again, that's why there are less classes. I think WoW's current archetype design is very lazy and just shows an impetus to have balance, rather than flavor, which I think is a huge mistake. (Even though, I absolutely think balance is important, I just think it needs to be worked into the overall picture of different classes and different strengths and weaknesses. With how many defined archetypes there are in WoW now, I don't think that's possible anymore, which is a shame.)

Xeldar · Dec 23, 2012

90Proof_sl said:
<Defiant> towards the end. I was a late Luclin through early GoD player.

lol I remember in Aduentus we'd start fighting Aerist in Ssraezsha Temple. Usually we had some Dark Defiant WArriors with us. If we started winning, Zephyros would show up. If Zephyros showed up, Ancient Dawn would show up. If Ancient Dawn showed up, they'd kill DDW + Zephyros. If we started winning against Zephyros, Defiant would show up.

Pancreas · Dec 23, 2012

Hard class systems where all abilities in each class are unique or the class is governed by a unique mechanic will either offer a few distinct classes, or many classes that are shades of each other. Like you have said, to have many classes, and each be completely unique, it's kind of inevitable that some will shine while others wont.

I personally like skill systems. Although the primary method of distinction has been some sort of hard cap on the number of skills a single character can purchase. Otherwise everyone is everything and there is no point in presenting a choice in the first place. This leads to some min maxing to the point where the most beneficial and powerful skills become must haves and everything else becomes bleh.

So to avoid all that I would like to see a blending of a class system, a skill system, and the reputation system.

This would be a flexible class system, allowing players to change class post character creation. There would be no class selection at creation. You make your character and select traits and skills and maybe assign stats. As you play, you will encounter various groups within the game, and depending on your standing with them you will be able to join and gain a rank or title. This title is essentially your class and affords you the right to train in that organization or under that individual. You will gain rank in time and this will open up more abilities to learn. You may only have one active title at a time. However, you will be able to use abilities you have learned from other classes/titles, with restrictions. A cleric of a holy diety would not be permitted to use necromancy or poisons if they had somehow made that transition; A cleric of a dark diety might be permitted however... That is an extreme example but there would be many other restrictions that make sense and preserve the balance. And generally, titles that could share skills would be easier to transition into compared to titles that had skills that were exclusive to each other.

The skill portion of the system allows for characters to mix and match things they have learned along the way. However, as a character advances along a path to various titles, they will generally fall into one of two categories. A specialist or a generalist. The specialist titles, gain powerful abilities, but have the most restrictions placed on them, the generalist titles can incorporate many different skills but they are all of weaker standing. There is also a general pool of skills that require no specific title to utilize, but would still require training.

This ties classes and class trainers to the game world and makes them actual factions that the character can then battle on behalf of. So from a lore standpoint it makes the classes seem much more relevant to the game world. It creates flexibility and allows for characters to grow more organically depending on play style, rather than have a player make a decision that will dominate their experience on day one. It will relieve quite a bit of pressure of forcing people to bring certain classes. Instead people will be making decisions based on objectives, I need someone who can handle some traps or I need someone who can keep the party alive. Has anyone had experience fighting dragons? Individuals who are good at what they do will gain recognition and it will make it more important to find capable players. This reinforces the social aspect of the game, but doesn't pigeon hole players into any one slot.

TL;DR Flexible classes, based on in game factions, with a pick and choose skill system, that has some restrictions and some incompatible combinations of class/skills.

TJT · Dec 23, 2012

EQ2 had a lot of problems, this is true. I played EQ2 at release and things like group exp "debt" and locked encounters made me rage quite hard. However, EQ2 NAILED the atmosphere compared to WOW. Freeport felt like a huge foreboding city and how as soon as you hit the docks you were tossed into a little one room boarding house, full of collectibles and what have you. I felt that shit was brilliant and I actually hope the next MMO to come about has that. Unfortunately, although EQ2 generally looked awesome and felt awesome.... playing it was not.

But the original EQ was like the Wild West of the MMO. Not including Ultima, of course. It is a shame that kind of freedom probably wont exist in an MMO again and we'll be stuck in a game world with very little depth.

Just my 2CP.

Azrayne · Dec 23, 2012

Lithose_sl said:
See, this is why I thought one of WoW's best design decisions was going with fewer classes at launch than EQ had. I'm all for less classes, to give each class broader strengths and more "required" tricks. Personally, in a 5 man group game, I'd only have 6 classes, with each class having 2 roles. For 12 total arch types (Arch types which are not defined as hard and fast as current WoW, but more like vanilla, where they are fluid and based more on gear than even talents--and yeah, I know vanilla had useless archtypes, I'd make sure each was functional and just have a lot less.). It's complex, sure, but that's why there is a low limit on the number of classes in the game--so you can iterate this into your group and raid content. The problem with lots of classes is eventually you force "graying" just to make sure it's not super frustrating in groups and I think if you're going down that road, you should suck it up and just make a skill based game--because one of the benefits of classes is getting defined, different roles.

Just my .02, for what it's worth, my suggestion would be more like vanilla wow, without the Shaman debacle, rather than than EQ--in fact, I'd kind of "bleed" EQ and vanilla together to create more emphasis on debuffs/buffs, while keeping the classes broad and powerful. To give an example, Claritywouldn'tjust be an enchanter ability, 2 other classes would be able to replace the enchanter, but their clarity would have flaws that the enchanter's didn't. For a while, this is what WoW tried to do, until they folded and just went extreme with same buff/debuff just different name--I think the added complexity, and "arcane" features of having multiple debuffs/buffs that fill the same slot, is just fine and them each being imbalanced is also fine, as long as the classes overall have strengths and weaknesses to make up for it. So the Shaman's clarity might not be as good (Just rough example) but the shaman also is balanced to bring other things--in the end, both classes should be roughly desirable, with the thought in mind of what you're gaining/giving up in terms of mana regen. These choices should be hard, but they should remain *choices* and not simply slots to fill, because fuck it, everyone is the same.

Is the above a lot harder to balance? Sure. But again, that's why there are less classes. I think WoW's current archetype design is very lazy and just shows an impetus to have balance, rather than flavor, which I think is a huge mistake. (Even though, I absolutely think balance is important, I just think it needs to be worked into the overall picture of different classes and different strengths and weaknesses. With how many defined archetypes there are in WoW now, I don't think that's possible anymore, which is a shame.)

I've always thought that if I made a class based MMO I'd have 3 or 4 archtypes, tank, debuff and crowd control (either the same or separate) and possibly healing, with each class having access to at least 2 of those and aspects of all of them (all classes having 'some' CC or heals, etc). All 4 would perform more or less equally on DPS, ideally (so any healers would be blood mage types)

I'd think anything less than 8 classes would feel very restrictive, unless there was some fairly extreme thematic variation within each class. it's not a question of role sometimes, sometimes you just want to do things a little differently, which is why I swap between warlock and mage so often when playing WoW (with a smattering of SPriest and ele sham), despite them both being DPS casters. I think the theme and aesthetic of a class is almost as important as the actual gameplay.

BilboFaggins · Dec 23, 2012

Every time I see people praising WoW over EQ, it makes me cringe. Don't get me wrong. WoW was a good game, but EQ was a better virtual world experience.

The "exploits" as people refer to them (I prefer to call them unexpected features) were what made EQ feel more alive and less like a "game".

Also, I hate the word balance. I wish game designers would get a shock straight to their ball sack every time they say the word balance. Each class should be unique, and part of that uniqueness is the lack of balance. Some classes excel in certain areas while others do not. The gamer knows damn well that if they play a rogue, then they should not be able to stand toe to toe exchanging hits with a boss mob like a warrior can do. At the same time, the warrior shouldn't expect to be able to put out nearly as much dps as the rogue.

Stop making every class do everything every other class does with just different names for the same abilities. Honestly, half of the spells in MMORPGs these days are little more than a copy paste change name from every other class's spells.

Oh and one more thing before I end this rant... Enough with the 5 second buff/debuff. MMORPGs these days have too many buttons to spam as it is. Stop giving us spells/abilities that last for super short periods of time. If I have a buff I can cast, let me cast it once an hour or so. Don't make me cast it on every fight. Of course it all boils down to the fact that fights are ridiculously short these days.

Ok I lied. I have one more gripe I have to air. And this one generally pisses me the fuck off. No more god damned carnival mechanics in what is supposed to be a virtual world!!! Let me explain. Xyz exp comes out. Some jack ass shows up in town and sets up his prize booth. He's got armor and weapons like you have never seen before. Then the bastard tells you to go through the pathetic ass haunted ride repeatedly to collect tickets. The ride sucks dick because its on rails and is exactly the same lame shit every single fucking time, and NOTHING GOOD EVER DROPS BECAUSE THE PRIZE BOOTH OPERATOR ALREADY ROBBED ALL THE GOOD SHIT FROM THE MOBS! After you have done this. Mind fuck ride twenty times, you go back to the little bastard and turn in your twenty tickets and he hands you some gloves... Just a thousand more trips and you can get a full set of his prizes. Fuck that! Let me kill the bastard and just loot what I want!!!

Lemmiwinks_sl · Dec 23, 2012

Hobbits are fucking awesome and I'll cut you if you speak ill words against them.

Unforgiving_sl · Dec 23, 2012

hobbits r ghey Yo !!

Arkk · Dec 23, 2012

Pancreas_sl said:
(Class design discussion)

I like it. Free-form character development has always been a favorite of mine, and this pretty much matches my ideal of a perfect system to a T.

I had drawn out a similar but slightly more rigid system more akin to one of the Final Fantasy job systems. Essentially, you have abilities divided up into sets of Active abilities (your "class" abilities - for this example, let's say Necromancy) and a pool of Support abilities (passive character developments, mostly - Run Speed, for instance). Active abilities are determined based on your current job/title, possibly with the addition of less-effective dual-classing to offer a smaller, weaker set of abilities from a different class (which also allows you to create something along the lines of the EQ hybrid classes dynamically - a Warrior class with a Necromancy subset would essentially be an EQ Classic Shadowknight). The Support abilities are equipped to the character from a pool of learned abilities, based on a point value and maximum capacity (Run Speed is 2 points, your character currently has a 10 point allotment).

Ameraves · Dec 23, 2012

I really feel like this thread should be renamed. Much like the thread back on FOH, it is nothing more than hopes and wishes for what people would like to see in EQ Next, and the comparisons to the current/past games. Every time I click on it I keep hoping to get some actual information on the game, and it never delivers.

Malkav · Dec 23, 2012

Ameraves_sl said:
I really feel like this thread should be renamed. Much like the thread back on FOH, it is nothing more than hopes and wishes for what people would like to see in EQ Next, and the comparisons to the current/past games. Every time I click on it I keep hoping to get some actual information on the game, and it never delivers.

I agree. We should rename it to the "EQ nostalgia circle jerk thread". Because it's what it's always been.

rad · Dec 23, 2012

Thank you, come again.

Kedwyn · Dec 23, 2012

My problem with all these new games:

1. You beat them inside the free month. Even many casuals. See Rift, Tor, Tera for examples. Not enough content. WoW released with a shit ton more content, people didn't max out in that game during the free month. At least not that many. 10 days played is a shit ton. I think i maxed in rift during the head start weekend. Fucking fail. Tor wasn't much better, remove the long winded fetch a bear ass dialogue and the game was MUCH shorter.

2. End game is all about metered fun.

#2 is a big problem and why I think many people give up and burn out after they hit end game. Developers are so anal about progression speed that they remove all of the soul out of the game and instead become FUN JEWS while they give you cock blocked content you can do 7 quests at a time. 1 dungeon every x hours bull shit. This needs to stop.

Keep the welfare quests for casuals, let them get their metered content and if they do that for X days they'll get the same thing the neck beard got in a week of straight pharming. Keep the pharming though. Let me play your game. I started out and could play all I can eat style. Then all of a sudden I hit end game and I get 40 minutes of quests then I'm done. No more progression. Sorry but daily quests are the reason I don't bother with end game alts anymore, they simply are not fun.

Let people play your fucking game. If you want a faction grind then put some faction in to grind. Velious had a decent base to build from. I'd much rather be killing kings and minions to pharm faction, loot and other worth while shit actually playing a game than to be running around doing the same half a dozen quests to fill some arbitrary bar for a ring and another bar for a bracer. Fuck me people parking meter style content has to fucking go.

Agonizing the Bait Master_sl · Dec 23, 2012

Enjoy faggots, thats all you get

Lenas · Dec 23, 2012

Real?

Edit. Nm, age of conan. You're gay.

Agonizing the Bait Master_sl · Dec 24, 2012

Butt hurt? lol

EQ Never

Silver Squire

Silver Knight of the Realm

shitlord

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

Silver Squire

Vyemm Raider

Mr. Poopybutthole

Irenicus did nothing wrong

N00b

shitlord

shitlord

Lord Nagafen Raider

New title pending...

French Madman

Lord of Guk

Silver Squire

shitlord

Trump's Staff

shitlord