Originally posted by CalmOceans
The pre-GoD Everquest wasn't very challenging in terms of the gameplay itself, it was the requirement of grouping for most classes, not having any maps, traveling very far on foot and the heavy punishment that came when you messed up (I remember death loops that made me want to give up).

      You would have had to bind in a pretty poorly selected spot to worry about death looping. A real life friend managed this so it is possible, but it's not like it was a huge problem unless you didn't consider what you were doing first. While there was some requirement for grouping in early EQ it isn't what most people make it out to be. Two and three man groups could be successful depending on what you were trying to accomplish and the early game lacked locations, not players. 

Originally posted by Seelinnikoi

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Wizardry Online

 

"Thirty years in the making, Wizardry Online is a Free to Play, hardcore fantasy MMORPG."

 

Bwahahaha! Are they serious?

What so funny?

Originally posted by Vahrane

Originally posted by CalmOceans
The pre-GoD Everquest wasn't very challenging in terms of the gameplay itself, it was the requirement of grouping for most classes, not having any maps, traveling very far on foot and the heavy punishment that came when you messed up (I remember death loops that made me want to give up).

      You would have had to bind in a pretty poorly selected spot to worry about death looping. A real life friend managed this so it is possible, but it's not like it was a huge problem unless you didn't consider what you were doing first. While there was some requirement for grouping in early EQ it isn't what most people make it out to be. Two and three man groups could be successful depending on what you were trying to accomplish and the early game lacked locations, not players. 

Correct, it wasn't a big problem, we decided it was a good idea to bind in CoM, some blob killed us 40 times. When I see blobs in other games I avoid them.

The 3 man group were successful, which is why I pointed out that the gameplay itself wasn't as challenging as the world itself was, but soloing was impossible for my warrior after lvl 20, I had decent gear at the time and couldn't solo a dark blue anymore.

Originally posted by NightBandit

 According to the video it's been 30 years in the making....Loading please wait!!!

Wizardry is a old ip who there for 30 years so yeah wizardry is in the making for 30 years. That what they mean.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Calhoun619

Originally posted by zakiyawow

Originally posted by delete5230

 

How do you define "Hard" ?

I define it Everquest 1. Dying in and coming back to life not only naked, but perhaps a level lower than you were when crushed your skull. And although there were "means" of getting your corpse back they werent always available.

That was the thing about death in EQ. It meant something. It could cost you dearly if you died. This run back to your corpse as a ghost or just coming back in a safe area for nothing with all gear and xp in tact was unheard of in EQ.

Hell even in Asheron's Call without DE's or low low WS armor you might need a corpse run with naked body parts. Even dropping your gloves was bad news running back thru the wrong places(Tuskers love to punch those knuckles ill tell you what). I can remeber good times dying in outside BSD hunting level 7 scrolls when they first came out, corpse runs a plenty.

Ahh the good ol days when the gaming was good and staying alive meant something...

I consider "hard" to be something that happened before I failed. What comes after is "punishment".

Cool. I always make it clear what I post is of my own opinion. And the question I answered was How do YOU define "Hard" ? A group doing there job properly for the most part stays alive. The "hard" it seems you want it the hard that comes with pulling too many mobs and training most likely to zone.  Or trying to go deep into a dungeon alone. Dragons. Cazic Thule. Planes. Ever seen a monk/necro bite off more than they can chew or have a FD fail in a real bad spot?

Pulling out of ruins in LoIO which if I remember right is a level 15+ zone could lead to the "hard" you seek.Im sure you havent because im assuming you werent gaming during EQ's earlier years. And with the average age of gamers I come across in MMO's nowadys you might have only been a few years out of diapers.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by Vahrane

Originally posted by CalmOceans
The pre-GoD Everquest wasn't very challenging in terms of the gameplay itself, it was the requirement of grouping for most classes, not having any maps, traveling very far on foot and the heavy punishment that came when you messed up (I remember death loops that made me want to give up).

      You would have had to bind in a pretty poorly selected spot to worry about death looping. A real life friend managed this so it is possible, but it's not like it was a huge problem unless you didn't consider what you were doing first. While there was some requirement for grouping in early EQ it isn't what most people make it out to be. Two and three man groups could be successful depending on what you were trying to accomplish and the early game lacked locations, not players. 

Correct, it wasn't a big problem, we decided it was a good idea to bind in CoM, some blob killed us 40 times. When I see blobs in other games I avoid them.

The 3 man group were successful, which is why I pointed out that the gameplay itself wasn't as challenging as the world itself was, but soloing was impossible for my warrior after lvl 20, I had decent gear at the time and couldn't solo a dark blue anymore.

       I played a warrior in early EQ and agree with you that past 20 it was pretty ridiculous. There were still a few solo spots for warriors though. The aviak village in the Karanas was great at the low 20's (with its nearby zone line) and, just before that, the Lake Rathe aviak guards that were nearby the zone into the arena. It was painfully slow with the respawn times of original EQ ><! There were alot of spots like that spread throughout the world many of which depended on what race you were as to how easily you could access them. The big problem was the large (for the times) player base and, in comparison, small world. So even with a few solo spots available for a warrior, most of the time all of them were camped! I think that extrememly frustrating hunt for the "good exp" was one of EQ's primary sources of appeal (in an odd way) for alot of us and what made many people refer to it as a HC game. 

Originally posted by Calhoun619

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Cool. I always make it clear what I post is of my own opinion. And the question I answered was How do YOU define "Hard" ? A group doing there job properly for the most part stays alive. The "hard" it seems you want it the hard that comes with pulling too many mobs and training most likely to zone.  Or trying to go deep into a dungeon alone. Dragons. Cazic Thule. Planes. Ever seen a monk/necro bite off more than they can chew or have a FD fail in a real bad spot?

Pulling out of ruins in LoIO which if I remember right is a level 15+ zone could lead to the "hard" you seek.Im sure you havent because im assuming you werent gaming during EQ's earlier years. And with the average age of gamers I come across in MMO's nowadys you might have only been a few years out of diapers.

Now you're just assuming things. But if you really must know, I rarely consider PvE to be hard. Not in the new MMOs or old - oh and I've played my share of the old ones, don't you worry. Playing with arcaic threat mechanics is not hard. And biting more than you can chew is just plain stupid.

I am not impressed.

Originally posted by Qui

Ahh the good ol days when the gaming was good and staying alive meant something...

I consider "hard" to be something that happened before I failed. What comes after is "punishment".

I consider "challenge" to be a "hard" task that carries risk,  "punishment" is your reward for failing.

We need more challenge in MMOs and less vapid, pandering, reward-fests.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Wizardry Online

SOE and anime, nice....

And full loot PVP and permadeath and deadly traps. We'll see how it goes. :)

Originally posted by Vahrane

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Wizardry Online

 

Didn't realize they were far enough along to offer beta sign-ups, thanks for posting that.

I'm on the list, let's see what happens.

 

    Wizardry Online has had beta sign-ups open since the beginning of the summer and they have yet to even briefly comment about the progression of its localization since then. They were supposed to have launched it here before the end of summer. I was semi-looking forward to giving it a shot but by the time it launches I'm betting a more interesting title will have been released.

They recently re-announced that they are accepting applications, but I don't know if that actually means something or if it just means they wanted to get it in the public eye again.

Originally posted by rutaq

Originally posted by Qui

Ahh the good ol days when the gaming was good and staying alive meant something...

I consider "hard" to be something that happened before I failed. What comes after is "punishment".

I consider "challenge" to be a "hard" task that carries risk,  "punishment" is your reward for failing.

We need more challenge in MMOs and less vapid, pandering, reward-fests.

I'm pretty numbed on any death penalty a game can offer, so harsh DP only serves to annoy/tire me.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

They recently re-announced that they are accepting applications, but I don't know if that actually means something or if it just means they wanted to get it in the public eye again.

      Hopefully it releases sometime within Q4 of this year. It would have been nice if they had moved quicker and gotten it out during the summer when I had more time to play! It really doesn't seem high on SoE's list of priorities at the moment. Especially considering the one interview that I've seen with an SoE management rep. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_gKgXBn2Is) that made it painfully obvious they were fairly in the dark about what they had licensed beyond it being an old IP that might hold some residual nostalgia for those of us who still remember the 80's. 

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Calhoun619

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Cool. I always make it clear what I post is of my own opinion. And the question I answered was How do YOU define "Hard" ? A group doing there job properly for the most part stays alive. The "hard" it seems you want it the hard that comes with pulling too many mobs and training most likely to zone.  Or trying to go deep into a dungeon alone. Dragons. Cazic Thule. Planes. Ever seen a monk/necro bite off more than they can chew or have a FD fail in a real bad spot?

Pulling out of ruins in LoIO which if I remember right is a level 15+ zone could lead to the "hard" you seek.Im sure you havent because im assuming you werent gaming during EQ's earlier years. And with the average age of gamers I come across in MMO's nowadys you might have only been a few years out of diapers.

Now you're just assuming things. But if you really must know, I rarely consider PvE to be hard. Not in the new MMOs or old - oh and I've played my share of the old ones, don't you worry. Playing with arcaic threat mechanics is not hard. And biting more than you can chew is just plain stupid.

I am not impressed.

So the tl:dr version of our conversation is no, youve never played EQ1 but you insist on telling me its not hard and you're too good at games anyways. We on the same page?

I guess if impressing you was my goal I would be sad?

Originally posted by Calhoun619

Originally posted by zakiyawow

Originally posted by delete5230

 

How do you define "Hard" ?

 

 

 

I define it Everquest 1. Dying in and coming back to life not only naked, but perhaps a level lower than you were when crushed your skull. And although there were "means" of getting your corpse back they werent always available.

That was the thing about death in EQ. It meant something. It could cost you dearly if you died. This run back to your corpse as a ghost or just coming back in a safe area for nothing with all gear and xp in tact was unheard of in EQ.

Hell even in Asheron's Call without DE's or low low WS armor you might need a corpse run with naked body parts. Even dropping your gloves was bad news running back thru the wrong places(Tuskers love to punch those knuckles ill tell you what). I can remeber good times dying in outside BSD hunting level 7 scrolls when they first came out, corpse runs a plenty.

Ahh the good ol days when the gaming was good and staying alive meant something...

Here is my advice:

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by rutaq

Originally posted by Qui

Ahh the good ol days when the gaming was good and staying alive meant something...

I consider "hard" to be something that happened before I failed. What comes after is "punishment".

I consider "challenge" to be a "hard" task that carries risk,  "punishment" is your reward for failing.

We need more challenge in MMOs and less vapid, pandering, reward-fests.

I'm pretty numbed on any death penalty a game can offer, so harsh DP only serves to annoy/tire me.

So you don't want "hard" to include any impactful risk ?

IMO hard has never included risk.  Hard is the chance of completing a task/the amount of effort it takes to complete the task, risk is what happens oif I fail the challenge.  It didn't change the nature of the challenge.  

Now the risk may have changed the way I thought about the challenge, but it didn't actually change the challenge.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

IMO hard has never included risk.  Hard is the chance of completing a task/the amount of effort it takes to complete the task, risk is what happens oif I fail the challenge.  It didn't change the nature of the challenge.  

Now the risk may have changed the way I thought about the challenge, but it didn't actually change the challenge.

I agree but the risk adds a special emotional element and also can be a gating factor.  Since repeated failures and carelessness in older games would de-level you, destroy your gear, debuff and severely weaken you for hours.  Players adept at failure were prevented from progressing without learning and becoming better.

Risk prevents someone from winning by brute force lemming-ing their way through content by waiting for the RND gods to roll in their favor.

Originally posted by Calhoun619

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Calhoun619

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Cool. I always make it clear what I post is of my own opinion. And the question I answered was How do YOU define "Hard" ? A group doing there job properly for the most part stays alive. The "hard" it seems you want it the hard that comes with pulling too many mobs and training most likely to zone.  Or trying to go deep into a dungeon alone. Dragons. Cazic Thule. Planes. Ever seen a monk/necro bite off more than they can chew or have a FD fail in a real bad spot?

Pulling out of ruins in LoIO which if I remember right is a level 15+ zone could lead to the "hard" you seek.Im sure you havent because im assuming you werent gaming during EQ's earlier years. And with the average age of gamers I come across in MMO's nowadys you might have only been a few years out of diapers.

Now you're just assuming things. But if you really must know, I rarely consider PvE to be hard. Not in the new MMOs or old - oh and I've played my share of the old ones, don't you worry. Playing with arcaic threat mechanics is not hard. And biting more than you can chew is just plain stupid.

I am not impressed.

So the tl:dr version of our conversation is no, youve never played EQ1 but you insist on telling me its not hard and you're too good at games anyways. We on the same page?

I guess if impressing you was my goal I would be sad?

Here let me help you: What you are using is called a "straw man argument" (wiki link included).

Your emotions should be subordinate to your reason.  Not the other way around.

You can consciously choose to feel a certain way.  Yes some people require more training at this than others but virtually every human can do this. 

This does not mean you turn into an emotionless zombie but it does mean that to let an event/person/circumstance dictate how you feel is IMO a reaction approave, a wrong approach,.

But that could be a whole other topic :)

I've never played any game anywhere where people would succeed just by continually attempting the same thing.  They succeeded by changing something, they learned something, they did something different, even if that was just to gain a few more levels or get a higher player to help them.  No one succeeds at anything JUST by multiple attempts.  They succeeded becausee they changed the variables.

Risk prevents someone from winning by brute force lemming-ing their way through content by waiting for the RND gods to roll in their favor.

IMO it doesn't do that at all.  The only thing that will let you succeed is changing the variables you can control.

Originally posted by rutaq

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
 

I agree but the risk adds a special emotional element and also can be a gating factor.  Since repeated failures and carelessness in older games would de-level you, destroy your gear, debuff and severely weaken you for hours.  Players adept at failure were prevented from progressing without learning and becoming better.

 

Risk prevents someone from winning by brute force lemming-ing their way through content by waiting for the RND gods to roll in their favor.

Yes but extreme punishment prevents me from learning through repetition and discovery. You know - the normal way.