I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The next big thing is not the challenge of the game but what all that each player can do in that challenge.

Originally posted by lupisenparis

I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The next big thing is not the challenge of the game but what all that each player can do in that challenge.

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in subscriptions numbers until they started seriously screwing up UO. The Death System in UO worked, because the game was not based around gear, and you could easily replace what you had and get back into the game after being looted. UO didn't need zones and worked fine without them.

UO had housing. EQ did not. I'll take a skill system based game, with open PVP, houses and without classes/levels any day over the alternative...and so would most people if they had actually experienced it.

The only major thing EQ had over UO was aesthetics.

Originally posted by lupisenparis

I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The problem with EQ now, is the ease of boxing toons. EQ has static camps and fairly easy gameplay, it has resulted in the majority of it's population to pick up boxing, of course a declining population only made this worse, which in turn made more people box resulting in even less players etc..which will just lead to it's death.

Anyhow, I believe some companies try but the big guns who have the cashflow like NCsoft and Blizzard don't have enough competition to try something new. It's far less risky for companies to try out an already succesfull MMO system than try something game breaking which could lead to financial bankruptcy.

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The next big thing is not the challenge of the game but what all that each player can do in that challenge.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in subscriptions numbers until they started seriously screwing up UO. The Death System in UO worked, because the game was not based around gear, and you could easily replace what you had and get back into the game after being looted. UO didn't need zones and worked fine without them.

 

UO had housing. EQ did not. I'll take a skill system based game, with open PVP, houses and without classes/levels any day over the alternative...and so would most people if they had actually experienced it.

 

The only major thing EQ had over UO was aesthetics.

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in sub numbers....

-Subscriber numbers peaked at around 250,000 in July of 2003-  wikipedia for UO

--------------------------

Accepting both Sony's press releases and the internet archives available today as accurate, these records show a rapid rise in subscriptions to "...more than 225,000..." on November 1, 1999. Sony announced the achievement of 300,000 subscriptions on October 30, 2000. By October 2, 2001, Sony stated that there were "...over 410,000...". On July 29, 2002, Sony announced that there were "...over 430,000..." and that for the 1st time 100,000 had played simultaneously. In preparation for the Fan Faire of 2003, Sony announced on September 25, 2003, that there were "... more than 450,000..." subscriptions.-- wikipedia for EQ

do the math buddy, its not neck and neck.

Well most people thought that 2008 was going to be the year of the mmos but unfortunately that is not happening. It has been pretty much disappointment after disappointment. You would think developers can do much better than WOW (released 2004), a 4 year old game. How sad is that ? It's either Warhammer or bust for 2008 because you take a good long hard look at the up coming mmo games and only Warhammer stands out. Everything else in 2008 won't even get much consideration.

In 2009 we have games such as Aion, Guild Wars 2, Earthrise, Stargate Worlds. The problem is that we don't know enough about these games to even get excited about them. I'll even toss in Heroes Journey just for kicks so that there might be actually a glimmer of hope. I would toss in Blizzard's new mmo but we don't know what it is and they already daid their focus is on Starcraft and WOTLK. Bioware's new mmo supposedly is pushed back until 2010/11 so we have a long wait there. So pretty much most of us will be waiting to see how Warhammer does if it's a bust then it will be a long cold winter without any good mmo games to play.

Games currently playing:  Guild Wars and Hellgate.

Games waiting for: Guild Wars 2, Dragon Age, Starcraft 2, Bioware MMO.

Originally posted by lupisenparis

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The next big thing is not the challenge of the game but what all that each player can do in that challenge.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in subscriptions numbers until they started seriously screwing up UO. The Death System in UO worked, because the game was not based around gear, and you could easily replace what you had and get back into the game after being looted. UO didn't need zones and worked fine without them.

 

UO had housing. EQ did not. I'll take a skill system based game, with open PVP, houses and without classes/levels any day over the alternative...and so would most people if they had actually experienced it.

 

The only major thing EQ had over UO was aesthetics.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in sub numbers....

-Subscriber numbers peaked at around 250,000 in July of 2003-  wikipedia for UO

--------------------------

 

Accepting both Sony's press releases and the internet archives available today as accurate, these records show a rapid rise in subscriptions to "...more than 225,000..." on November 1, 1999. Sony announced the achievement of 300,000 subscriptions on October 30, 2000. By October 2, 2001, Sony stated that there were "...over 410,000...". On July 29, 2002, Sony announced that there were "...over 430,000..." and that for the 1st time 100,000 had played simultaneously. In preparation for the Fan Faire of 2003, Sony announced on September 25, 2003, that there were "... more than 450,000..." subscriptions.-- wikipedia for EQ

do the math buddy, its not neck and neck.

It was neck and neck around the year 2000, which is right before they started changing UO drastically. Thanks for getting the numbers for me, and proving me right.

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The next big thing is not the challenge of the game but what all that each player can do in that challenge.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in subscriptions numbers until they started seriously screwing up UO. The Death System in UO worked, because the game was not based around gear, and you could easily replace what you had and get back into the game after being looted. UO didn't need zones and worked fine without them.

 

UO had housing. EQ did not. I'll take a skill system based game, with open PVP, houses and without classes/levels any day over the alternative...and so would most people if they had actually experienced it.

 

The only major thing EQ had over UO was aesthetics.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in sub numbers....

-Subscriber numbers peaked at around 250,000 in July of 2003-  wikipedia for UO

--------------------------

 

Accepting both Sony's press releases and the internet archives available today as accurate, these records show a rapid rise in subscriptions to "...more than 225,000..." on November 1, 1999. Sony announced the achievement of 300,000 subscriptions on October 30, 2000. By October 2, 2001, Sony stated that there were "...over 410,000...". On July 29, 2002, Sony announced that there were "...over 430,000..." and that for the 1st time 100,000 had played simultaneously. In preparation for the Fan Faire of 2003, Sony announced on September 25, 2003, that there were "... more than 450,000..." subscriptions.-- wikipedia for EQ

do the math buddy, its not neck and neck.

 

It was neck and neck around the year 2000, which is right before they started changing UO drastically. Thanks for getting the numbers for me, and proving me right.

lol OH in the year 2000 rofl--- and I thought we were talkiing about PEAKED subs not some year where EQ was catching up to the reigning game at the time and then surpassed it!!!
 

Originally posted by lupisenparis

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The next big thing is not the challenge of the game but what all that each player can do in that challenge.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in subscriptions numbers until they started seriously screwing up UO. The Death System in UO worked, because the game was not based around gear, and you could easily replace what you had and get back into the game after being looted. UO didn't need zones and worked fine without them.

 

UO had housing. EQ did not. I'll take a skill system based game, with open PVP, houses and without classes/levels any day over the alternative...and so would most people if they had actually experienced it.

 

The only major thing EQ had over UO was aesthetics.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in sub numbers....

-Subscriber numbers peaked at around 250,000 in July of 2003-  wikipedia for UO

--------------------------

 

Accepting both Sony's press releases and the internet archives available today as accurate, these records show a rapid rise in subscriptions to "...more than 225,000..." on November 1, 1999. Sony announced the achievement of 300,000 subscriptions on October 30, 2000. By October 2, 2001, Sony stated that there were "...over 410,000...". On July 29, 2002, Sony announced that there were "...over 430,000..." and that for the 1st time 100,000 had played simultaneously. In preparation for the Fan Faire of 2003, Sony announced on September 25, 2003, that there were "... more than 450,000..." subscriptions.-- wikipedia for EQ

do the math buddy, its not neck and neck.

 

It was neck and neck around the year 2000, which is right before they started changing UO drastically. Thanks for getting the numbers for me, and proving me right.

lol OH in the year 2000 rofl--- and I thought we were talkiing about PEAKED subs not some year where EQ was catching up to the reigning game at the time and then surpassed it!!!
 

Nah, EQ clearly surpassed UO some time after the turn of the century. I was referring to Pre-UO:TD. UO started going down hill with Renaissance (Trammel), but really took a nosedive with Third Dawn/LBR.

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

Originally posted by kaydinv

Originally posted by lupisenparis

I seriously think EQ had the right formula for fun at the start after learning some lessons given by the pitfalls of UO.  They tried to do it alittle different than UO with having zones (which sometimes came in handy in RZ), they also put good reason for zoning IF the death penalty is harsh enough to make you want to avoid it.  UO had serious flaws that made EQ smoke UO without question.  EQ had the right balance in their death penalty where you had the chance to bounce back without alot of downtime but at the same time seriously reconsider trying to die too many times.  It would seem to me that this formula will always retain greater attraction vs UO/Eve/SWG style.  Planetside doesnt really fit with UO/Eve/SWG side because the downtime to bounce back is virtually none unless the spawn tubes are camped heheh. 

The next big thing is not the challenge of the game but what all that each player can do in that challenge.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in subscriptions numbers until they started seriously screwing up UO. The Death System in UO worked, because the game was not based around gear, and you could easily replace what you had and get back into the game after being looted. UO didn't need zones and worked fine without them.

 

UO had housing. EQ did not. I'll take a skill system based game, with open PVP, houses and without classes/levels any day over the alternative...and so would most people if they had actually experienced it.

 

The only major thing EQ had over UO was aesthetics.

 

UO and EQ were nearly neck and neck in sub numbers....

-Subscriber numbers peaked at around 250,000 in July of 2003-  wikipedia for UO

--------------------------

 

Accepting both Sony's press releases and the internet archives available today as accurate, these records show a rapid rise in subscriptions to "...more than 225,000..." on November 1, 1999. Sony announced the achievement of 300,000 subscriptions on October 30, 2000. By October 2, 2001, Sony stated that there were "...over 410,000...". On July 29, 2002, Sony announced that there were "...over 430,000..." and that for the 1st time 100,000 had played simultaneously. In preparation for the Fan Faire of 2003, Sony announced on September 25, 2003, that there were "... more than 450,000..." subscriptions.-- wikipedia for EQ

do the math buddy, its not neck and neck.

 

It was neck and neck around the year 2000, which is right before they started changing UO drastically. Thanks for getting the numbers for me, and proving me right.

lol OH in the year 2000 rofl--- and I thought we were talkiing about PEAKED subs not some year where EQ was catching up to the reigning game at the time and then surpassed it!!!
 

 

Nah, EQ clearly surpassed UO some time after the turn of the century. I was referring to Pre-UO:TD. UO started going down hill with Renaissance (Trammel), but really took a nosedive with Third Dawn/LBR.

at any rate, while UO brought anti-vanilla feelings- Eq brought terrain based versatility to an increasingly happy sub base.  Currently both are unhappy because both changed directions but as you can see with the sub numbers between wow and lotro the uo/eve/swg crowd mabey piping loud, they are more or less a niche group.  They do deserve a niche game but it wont ever bring a huge mass appeal unless pve goes all out only for raiders and groupies.  Yes, raiders are also a niche group that pipe extremely loud as well.

Originally posted by yoyo10910

Every where i look, everything i try... nothing seems fun anymore. SWG, WoW, EQ2, EQ, LOTRO, Guild Wars just got boring after a while. ive been hearing this from other people too. im looking for something fun, and something that doesnt make you have to go out and collect mushrooms, and wild flowers for some old guy in town. Its the same quests!!! go gather a........ go kill some....... go tell him that....... make me some........ when players say, "I want all quests to be different." They dont mean just change the name of the items you have to gather/kill/make.

Try Asheron's Call 1

Originally posted by yoyo10910

Every where i look, everything i try... nothing seems fun anymore. SWG, WoW, EQ2, EQ, LOTRO, Guild Wars just got boring after a while. ive been hearing this from other people too. im looking for something fun, and something that doesnt make you have to go out and collect mushrooms, and wild flowers for some old guy in town. Its the same quests!!! go gather a........ go kill some....... go tell him that....... make me some........ when players say, "I want all quests to be different." They dont mean just change the name of the items you have to gather/kill/make.

Problem is gamers are demanding thousands of QUESTs plus Uniqueness. That's not going to happen unless you do something truly drastic (hire an army of designers/scripters or do something cutting edge)

You just gotta find the best of out a bad bunch and settle for less or go play other genres where they hit scores like 10+ left and right (MGS4 I hear hit 10 at IGN or something)

To be helpful, I picked EVE because it was closest game to my ideals. I didnt like the skill training or the autoattack combat at first but with time I adjusted.  Soon hopefully Ryzom will return and new games like Champions, jumpgate evo, etc will be out. And there are small Indy MMOs I never see people talk bout here like Wurm online, Starport, etc. You can try those

it depends on which kind of games you like best...for each aspect, different kind of players will love a game which fits  him/her..

I really think the biggest issue is the cost of making an MMO is very high so the variety is going to be small. Henry Ford once said you can have any color car you want as long as it's black. then other comoanies brought the mass customization cost model down and down guess what happened to one size fits all?

Once the cost model meets the future demand for virtual worlds you will see a larger variety of MMO's aimed at nitches because it will be profitable. It;s really that simple.

I myself am sure that the real good MMO is yet to be made. All existing ones are only steps towards it, at best - or just stupid boring IP moneymakers, like LotRO and AoC.

Well if everyting ive read about vanguard is true then I'll gladly pay to play.

The issue is as follows, and I confronted it myself.    I played almost every major MMO from UO on to max level with several characters.    My last was WoW which I quit nearly two years ago after swearing off MMOs.   Although I did still go into Guild Wars occasionally.

The issue wasn't that I didn't live MMOs and the interactions.   In fact I had a difficult time playing single player MMOs, except for Mass Effect (amazing), because they lacked the social aspect of an MMO.   The issue was the time required to be competitive and 'win' at end game with the current crop of MMOs.    Always trying to compete in order to justify my time spent in an MMO lead to the game becoming a job.  

As a working adult with a family and a child, I just didnt have the time to spend as I did way back ten years ago while in college.   I couldn't spend eight or more hours a day in an MMO, which is what it takes to be in a serious raiding guild.     The PVP games required extensive time in order to gather gear or points in order to be competitive at PVP and that made things even worse.   Except for Guild Wars.    Yet Guild Wars lacked much of the social aspect of other MMOs.

Then after reading a review of LOTRO and the devs discussing the exact problem I was having in the MMO genre as a working adult.   I decided to give Turbine's game a try.    LOTRO started out slow and seemed easy, but was enjoyable following the story along.    Now as I'm approaching level 50, got more into the story, tried some of the pvp, and started on end game.   I realize LOTRO is indeed the perfect MMO for someone who doesn't want their life consumed by a game, but want enough content and challenge to feel rewarding.  

So give LOTRO another chance, but get to about level 40 before you decide.   The end game is actually very rewarding and the storyline is the best.   In addition I've never played an MMO with a better community. 

If you're an adult gamer who has outgrown the endless carrot chasing of other MMOs, then LOTRO is your answer.    The population is also quite active, yet not so crowded you're fighting over every spawn.

I have a better idea.  Get rid of quest all together or instead of being led by the nose with 1 million quests have only a select few that further the story of the game.   Replace them with weekly or bi-weekly events; remember when mob X was invading cities in UO just a bunch of strangers got together to defend their town, man what fun.

To much time is wasted thinking up 1000's of quest and everything else suffers for it.

APB will offer something new to the MMO genre

www.apb.com

Omg there are still good games out there. They may not have millions of subscribers like WoW but that is only cause Blizzard sold thier souls. The game is not that great. Go play any of the following if you want to actually feel like a noob again. The feeling is great

Lineage II

Dungeons and Dragons Online

Eve Online

all the rest are just copies of each other for the most part  these 3 games will blow you away I guarantee it!