Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

Originally posted by ext1

 

---

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

---

Originally posted by Zekiah "Autonomous Brokering that allows players to buy things from anywhere in the world without having to run to another zone to get it. Items can even be delivered straight to inventories right where players are but that will also incur a delivery surcharge." Bad idea but not surprising.

---

Why?  I like this idea.  I dont like the fact that if I have a full bag I have to run all the way back to a merchant to sell.  Or if I want to buy something I have to run to the Bazaar in PoK.  This adds a much needed convenience at least for me.

---

 

Convenience turned MMORPGs into single player carnival games where "everyone's a winner!"

 

I disagree. I think content turned MMORPGs into single player carnival games.  Leading me from quest to quest, waiting in line to do what the person did before me.  Using this convenience will not stop me from being an active member in my guild, or speaking with/helping out strangers I run across.

Doing all that (unecessary) running around didnt make me more social.  It just made me more fustrated.  Convenience <> easy.

 

I think you are missing the point. I take it you didn't play UO, and that game is still the classic example of the sort of "social" game play based not only on not having things conveniently wrapped up for the player, but also giving players the tools to do something about it...through game play.

In UO, for example, there were no auction houses. But players could own houses, and they were able to set up their own auctions. Guilds did this since it was generally beyond a single player's ability (mostly due to time, but also handling things). Also, in UO players organized and set up "Trade Fairs". Events where craft players got together and sold and repaired to service other players. Customers got deals and low prices, were able to stock up, while the merchants made more money by volume. This is game play. Not "hack'n'slash game play, but game play for a wise range of player types...together. It adds to the overall game, feels more like a world, and gives depth in a wide range of ways to the entire game experience.

The alternative, where games have gone today, gives convenience, but removes all the other game activity. This was social activity. It's almost entirely missing today. And the result is hardly nothing else outside of the hack'n'slash. And players for the most part rarely talk to others. (yeah, yeah, I know, there's a few people here who say they always talk and are very social, what with talking about their favorite music and rock bands and all that. )

Correct I have not tried UO, but have been thinking about it.  I see your point.  But I can also see (some reasons) why it had to change.  At least for me.  I simply dont have the time I did 10 years ago to play at that level. But I still want to play.  I still want a world to explore and live in.  I still want my housing :-)    These conveniences (which may ruin the original experience) provides a means for me to enjoy the aspects of what I like within the constraints of my time.

If a game designed as UO was then came out today.  Regardless of how much I praised it, I simply would not have the necessary time to invest to enjoy it.  I guess I'm selfish in thinking I would like to have an option (keep the original mechanics give me the choice to use convenience) to enjoy it as well :-)

Originally posted by Fendel84M
What if EQN is like a modern day or Sci-fi Norrath?! That would be weird...but I suppose even fantasy worlds would have to evolve eventually :-p

Actually .. thats what makes a fantasy world, It never evolves. Tolken, R Jordens, D Eddings, if you pick  fantasy world they all have thousands of years where the world stays the same. Thats what makes them fantasy

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

Originally posted by ext1

 

---

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

---

Originally posted by Zekiah "Autonomous Brokering that allows players to buy things from anywhere in the world without having to run to another zone to get it. Items can even be delivered straight to inventories right where players are but that will also incur a delivery surcharge." Bad idea but not surprising.

---

Why?  I like this idea.  I dont like the fact that if I have a full bag I have to run all the way back to a merchant to sell.  Or if I want to buy something I have to run to the Bazaar in PoK.  This adds a much needed convenience at least for me.

---

 

Convenience turned MMORPGs into single player carnival games where "everyone's a winner!"

 

I disagree. I think content turned MMORPGs into single player carnival games.  Leading me from quest to quest, waiting in line to do what the person did before me.  Using this convenience will not stop me from being an active member in my guild, or speaking with/helping out strangers I run across.

Doing all that (unecessary) running around didnt make me more social.  It just made me more fustrated.  Convenience <> easy.

 

I think you are missing the point. I take it you didn't play UO, and that game is still the classic example of the sort of "social" game play based not only on not having things conveniently wrapped up for the player, but also giving players the tools to do something about it...through game play.

In UO, for example, there were no auction houses. But players could own houses, and they were able to set up their own auctions. Guilds did this since it was generally beyond a single player's ability (mostly due to time, but also handling things). Also, in UO players organized and set up "Trade Fairs". Events where craft players got together and sold and repaired to service other players. Customers got deals and low prices, were able to stock up, while the merchants made more money by volume. This is game play. Not "hack'n'slash game play, but game play for a wise range of player types...together. It adds to the overall game, feels more like a world, and gives depth in a wide range of ways to the entire game experience.

The alternative, where games have gone today, gives convenience, but removes all the other game activity. This was social activity. It's almost entirely missing today. And the result is hardly nothing else outside of the hack'n'slash. And players for the most part rarely talk to others. (yeah, yeah, I know, there's a few people here who say they always talk and are very social, what with talking about their favorite music and rock bands and all that. )

Correct I have not tried UO, but have been thinking about it.  I see your point.  But I can also see (some reasons) why it had to change.  At least for me.  I simply dont have the time I did 10 years ago to play at that level. But I still want to play.  I still want a world to explore and live in.  I still want my housing :-)    These conveniences (which may ruin the original experience) provides a means for me to enjoy the aspects of what I like within the constraints of my time.

If a game designed as UO was then came out today.  Regardless of how much I praised it, I simply would not have the necessary time to invest to enjoy it.  I guess I'm selfish in thinking I would like to have an option (keep the original mechanics give me the choice to use convenience) to enjoy it as well :-)

I can see your point there. And I do think that there needs to be changes to accomodate players that don't have the time.
But the changes I think we need to see are actually an advancement to make these game worlds Worlds. They aren't for players who want fast driven hack and slash game play, who I think are a small minority anyways, especially these days where there are so many "old" gamers in the market for a good worldly MMORPG.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

Originally posted by ext1

 

---

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

---

Originally posted by Zekiah "Autonomous Brokering that allows players to buy things from anywhere in the world without having to run to another zone to get it. Items can even be delivered straight to inventories right where players are but that will also incur a delivery surcharge." Bad idea but not surprising.

---

Why?  I like this idea.  I dont like the fact that if I have a full bag I have to run all the way back to a merchant to sell.  Or if I want to buy something I have to run to the Bazaar in PoK.  This adds a much needed convenience at least for me.

---

 

Convenience turned MMORPGs into single player carnival games where "everyone's a winner!"

 

I disagree. I think content turned MMORPGs into single player carnival games.  Leading me from quest to quest, waiting in line to do what the person did before me.  Using this convenience will not stop me from being an active member in my guild, or speaking with/helping out strangers I run across.

Doing all that (unecessary) running around didnt make me more social.  It just made me more fustrated.  Convenience <> easy.

 

I think you are missing the point. I take it you didn't play UO, and that game is still the classic example of the sort of "social" game play based not only on not having things conveniently wrapped up for the player, but also giving players the tools to do something about it...through game play.

In UO, for example, there were no auction houses. But players could own houses, and they were able to set up their own auctions. Guilds did this since it was generally beyond a single player's ability (mostly due to time, but also handling things). Also, in UO players organized and set up "Trade Fairs". Events where craft players got together and sold and repaired to service other players. Customers got deals and low prices, were able to stock up, while the merchants made more money by volume. This is game play. Not "hack'n'slash game play, but game play for a wise range of player types...together. It adds to the overall game, feels more like a world, and gives depth in a wide range of ways to the entire game experience.

The alternative, where games have gone today, gives convenience, but removes all the other game activity. This was social activity. It's almost entirely missing today. And the result is hardly nothing else outside of the hack'n'slash. And players for the most part rarely talk to others. (yeah, yeah, I know, there's a few people here who say they always talk and are very social, what with talking about their favorite music and rock bands and all that. )

Correct I have not tried UO, but have been thinking about it.  I see your point.  But I can also see (some reasons) why it had to change.  At least for me.  I simply dont have the time I did 10 years ago to play at that level. But I still want to play.  I still want a world to explore and live in.  I still want my housing :-)    These conveniences (which may ruin the original experience) provides a means for me to enjoy the aspects of what I like within the constraints of my time.

If a game designed as UO was then came out today.  Regardless of how much I praised it, I simply would not have the necessary time to invest to enjoy it.  I guess I'm selfish in thinking I would like to have an option (keep the original mechanics give me the choice to use convenience) to enjoy it as well :-)

I can see your point there. And I do think that there needs to be changes to accomodate players that don't have the time.
But the changes I think we need to see are actually an advancement to make these game worlds Worlds. They aren't for players who want fast driven hack and slash game play, who I think are a small minority anyways, especially these days where there are so many "old" gamers in the market for a good worldly MMORPG.

Agreed.  Originally was for GW2 until I played it for a few weeks.  I am definitely not a fan of this 'action combat' that has been all the rave recently.

Hoping EQN can deliver something closer to what we both can enjoy.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

I didn't play EQ1 or EQ2. I want Sandbox, not Themepark, as an experience to play in.

I have very little hope that EQN will really give us a Sandbox experience. I think it's all hype and bull, and I think the best they will offer is illusion and busted bubbles. But I'll watch and make a final determination when info is available to do so. If it does, I'll sing Smed's praises. Otherwise, I really can't say I'll be disappointed since I don't really expect much. It's not just Smed, it's the whole way of doing business in the industry. No faith in it at all.

          If EQN is modeled after EQ1 and not EQ2 then I can see it being a sandbox type game......

Dear Norrath:

Your logo looks its age.  Time for a rework.