Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by jaiceaf

These systems are why people began playing EQ in the first place, and why EQ is still going strong today! Death matters, immersion of character in the game world was seemless. If you don't think fans of the EVERQUEST franchines are going to line up in droves to do open world pvp with the granddaddy of themepark design, you are even more sadly mistaken sir.

Nope. The reason people play EQ was because there weren't many choices. If WOW was available then, I wouldn't be playing EQ for a year.

Going strong? It peaked at what? 500k?

Personally, if the new EQ is pvp centric with open world pvp, i will pass .. even if it is F2P.

Yep.  People basically had an early choice of EQ(99), UO(97), AC(99) or Lineage(98).  AO, DAoC, and Runescape came a couple years later along with others, and that's when choices started happening.  WoW didn't come along until around 5 years later.  By that time people had a lot of choice.  If EQ was that great WoW wouldn't have pulled the rug out from under it.

EQ was not created with pvp in mind, that is ridiculous lol

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by jaiceaf

These systems are why people began playing EQ in the first place, and why EQ is still going strong today! Death matters, immersion of character in the game world was seemless. If you don't think fans of the EVERQUEST franchines are going to line up in droves to do open world pvp with the granddaddy of themepark design, you are even more sadly mistaken sir.

Nope. The reason people play EQ was because there weren't many choices. If WOW was available then, I wouldn't be playing EQ for a year.

Going strong? It peaked at what? 500k?

Personally, if the new EQ is pvp centric with open world pvp, i will pass .. even if it is F2P.

Yep.  People basically had an early choice of EQ(99), UO(97), AC(99) or Lineage(98).  AO, DAoC, and Runescape came a couple years later along with others, and that's when choices started happening.  WoW didn't come along until around 5 years later.  By that time people had a lot of choice.  If EQ was that great WoW wouldn't have pulled the rug out from under it.

 

What he said :)

I played mmos since 1996, all those games had their charm when they where still fresh. Thing is you have games like that on the market, new games, but not many ppl knows about them or even plays them due to them being to harsh. In the end that means game dont makes money and becomes a niche game or dies out. In other words not enough fans of that kind of gameplay.

On the other had whenever i hear harsh death penalities i smell full pvp loot trolls. I dont mind very harsh death penalities, but if im forced to loose any of my hard earned loot i will quit the game. Some ppl see this as neccesary rush for them to feel anything. For me its only anoyment, and yet another grieefieng tool. Even more so today than 15 years ago.

Today there are to many imature players (mentaly imature) that abuse those systems destroying the idea that would work in theory and worked to an extent in the past. But no more. Its very self destructing behaviour that drives potential new players for already strugling type of gameplay away. In the end that means less companies interested in making those kind of games, and less players interested in playing them.

We have to remember that majority of players (make that easily 95%) dont even read this website, yet alone posts and whines here.

I can guarantee that there wont be any full loot in EqNext, as it would simply be a marketing shoot in the foot type of situation. No big self respecting company will make that move this days.

Only new games like that that we can expect are either self funded or small companies, eventualy kickstarter.

Right now you have several games with very harsh death penalities be it Eve, Darkfall, Mortal Online or even UO. There are far more than just those few, but like i said majority of them are a niche games due to harsh mechanics.

---

Originally posted by Torvaldr

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by jaiceaf These systems are why people began playing EQ in the first place, and why EQ is still going strong today! Death matters, immersion of character in the game world was seemless. If you don't think fans of the EVERQUEST franchines are going to line up in droves to do open world pvp with the granddaddy of themepark design, you are even more sadly mistaken sir.

---

Nope. The reason people play EQ was because there weren't many choices. If WOW was available then, I wouldn't be playing EQ for a year. Going strong? It peaked at what? 500k? Personally, if the new EQ is pvp centric with open world pvp, i will pass .. even if it is F2P.

---

Yep.  People basically had an early choice of EQ(99), UO(97), AC(99) or Lineage(98).  AO, DAoC, and Runescape came a couple years later along with others, and that's when choices started happening.  WoW didn't come along until around 5 years later.  By that time people had a lot of choice.  If EQ was that great WoW wouldn't have pulled the rug out from under it.

 

---

before wow the entire mmo community was much different and not main stream like it is now and EQ was the top dog (here in the states at least).

people played it for so long much like the reason people still play wow, because of their friends and guild mates that also still play.

Originally posted by jaiceaf

Those rulesets may be fun for the small niche audience they attract, but anyone who thinks a major genre-defining release such as EQ Next is going to cater to the smallest possible audience is, quite frankly, an idiot.

 Thats funny you mention it, because as someone who has played EQ and Eq2 both since launch, these rulesets define the game, especially for veterans. in everquest and Everquest 2, the nagafen servers were for the hardcore pvp minded, and were always the busiest servers...(Outside of the RP server in original EQ). If you think EQ's playerbase and WoW's playerbase are the same....you are sadly mistaken. 

To prove my point, pvp in WoW is a filler. EQ NEXT will "Designed from the beginning with PvP in mind." As quoted by John Smedley. Pvp was a main point of attraction in EQ from the beginning.  It was not an afterthought, it fits the lore, along with not being able to freely travel anywhere you wanted because of faction ties, and you are considered Kill on Sight to some NPCS, with very good illusions allowing you to pretend to be on the same faction as the NPC.

These systems are why people began playing EQ in the first place, and why EQ is still going strong today! Death matters, immersion of character in the game world was seemless. If you don't think fans of the EVERQUEST franchines are going to line up in droves to do open world pvp with the granddaddy of themepark design, you are even more sadly mistaken sir.

I cannot wait to do a corpse run, games are too easy these days....sure they are pretty, but where is the substance to keep all you carebears playing? You guys run from game to game complaining it doesn't have what you want, and then attempt to turn existing franchises into a bastardized version of your "ideal" game. 

Don't want meaningful depth, gameplay mechanics....play GW2. I tried it out thinking I would find a challenge similar to Everquest. NEXT! It doesn't hold a torch to the world of Norrath.

My Epic Cleric from vanilla EQ loved nothing more than standing outside various open dungeons offering 90% experience ressurections for a plat. If I was feeling generous, I would throw in Aegolism shield buff as well (which costs materials to cast, which means $$$). Druids and wizzies made money porting people around. Necros could put people's corpse into a box and bring it them! Or even summon their corpse! COULD YOU IMAGINE THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PLAYERS IN GAMES TODAY IF THESE SYSTEMS WERE IN PLACE? 

 

You are right sir, I love EQ still. I must be an idiot. What game are you playing? 

 Pvp was never a big part of EQ, ever.

There were what 4 pvp servers out of 70?  and those were the lowest populated servers out of all of them.  World pvp was just not important to EQ.

And people are going to different games because they have been playing the same systems for 13 years now.  EQ was just the first so some, not all or a lot, stayed with it longer.  If EQ offered the same thing it had in the beginning today with upgraded graphics it would do the exact same thing.  Again because people have been there and done that.

Which is why smedley wants to do something different.  He also knows people have been playing the same game for 13 years.  Offering EQ with the same systems as before or wow today will end up with the same cycle, boom and bust.

People new to gaming today that haven't played the games for the last +decade would find the systems just as engaging with just as much depth.

Me personally I feel there is no real difference in terms of depth.  They are just different games but one is not more deep, more challenging or more rewarding. 

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Homitu

I like a death penalty that makes me shout out obscenities when I die and perhaps inhibits my achieving an immediate goal.  

I don't like a death penalty that discourages me from exploring dangerous territory or trying new adventurous things.  

I like your perspective.  I don't want to shout out obscenities, but I would want it to make me wish I had played smarter or bugged my friend a little more to come with me.

I definitely agree with your second paragraph though.  Obstacles should require a tactics change not discourage exploration or risk taking.

+1  Agree here as well..now to find that balance  :)

Originally posted by rungard

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by rungard

i see alot of talk about this penalty or that, but i really dont see many actually wanting some choice in the matter from within the game.

any game that touts "sandbox" should offer up alot more choice than your typical themepark.

there are lots of ways to introduce choice and options.

The choice is: you don't pick the server that has the harsher penaltys it's simple really.

 You mean you hope.

I see very different things on the horizon, where every game system has depth and choice, and is more flexible for a broader range of players. Where systems dont have to be seperated by servers, and where coexistance is achievable of all play types through integration and not segregation.

read all the hype, it all points to big changes in store for eq fans and mmo fans as well. Why would they rely on old worn out skeleton rules when they have the chance the chance to put some meat on the bones of every system.

change may be hard, but it is also inevitable.

Well i going by what Smed said,EQNEXT could have a hardcore server, that tells me that the game will have server choices. Some of those old rules still work great in some MMOs.

Isn't it strange how ideas of "great game design" are set firmly by the first game they enjoyed playing, and then never change?

Originally posted by Rimmersman
Ill say it again. IMO EQNext will be PVE centric with an up to date PVP system but no why in hell will PVP be leading the way where the devs are concerned.

Yup, whenever you think about eq you think about pve. And its fine. Thats the way it should be. You cant be everything for everyone at the same time.

Originally posted by Damage99
Create a hardcore ruleset server which employs a few mechanics reminicent of the old days.  As long as it were planned in the design the development for such a server would be minimal.

This i agree.

This is no difference than the fact that Diablo 3 has a hard core option. Like you say, if it is planned in the design, the costs of doing it probaly is not going to be huge, and that will make a lot of people happy.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Isn't it strange how ideas of "great game design" are set firmly by the first game they enjoyed playing, and then never change?

It's true, not strange....;)   And games aren't the only place this happens.  It's a familiar concept among woodwind and brass players, where it is termed 'home instrument bias'.     What is strange is that folks don't figure it out themselves.  'Your preferred playing style' is a completely legit idea.   Especially as opposed to the 'One True Way!' cliche.

I don't want punishing death. I want meaningful death penalties. I want to be scared of dieing in the wrong spot. I would like something more realistic than a respawn and a few coins for repairs.

I think that the idea of dying alone off in some cave should carry some penalty. I like the idea the one guy had early in this post.

If you die you must pray to your diety for deliverance.How punative that deliverance might be would depend on your chosen diety.Praying to that diety should be a last resort.  You should want to try to get friends to help you first.

If you cannot get any help,and no one can get to you to rescue you.Then you are at the last resort, plead to the gods for help.

I think injuries could be added in, in this situation.

You pray to  Mithaniel Marr, it takes a while (5 minutes) for your prayer to be answered. The agent of the god comes before you and demands an offering (random item or gold lost). You will then be resurrected at Mithaniel Marr's temple, but with an injury. This injury could be minor or major, and the effects would be temporary. If you die while under the effect of a minor injury you would certainly earn a major injury.A minor injury would reduce your effectiveness for a short period (2 hours)  and a major injury could last up to a week.Your character may also have to perform a service(quest for an offering) for the god that resurrected you before that deity would help you again.

As long as there are systems in place for an injured character to do ( crafting + other sandboxy stuff) it wouldn't be too much.The character might be able to get healing for the injury in the form of another quest.

I don't believe that a character should be able to just jump up after the resurrection and run right back into the cave and try again.

@paulytheb

I'd like that system if and only if the combat system was really, really well polished and relied more on my skill as a player than RPG stats.

And the network/server stability and performance was AAA.

Yes Badspock,

The systems in the game would have to support the death penalty.

There would also have to be protections for groups. I wouldn't want all group members flung to the far reaches of the world in different temples because of a wipe.

Groups could simply be favored by the gods, dungeon instances could allow for full group recovery in case of a wipe.(Injuries earned would not take effect until you leave the instance) I'm not really sure if EQnext is going to have instanced dungeons, but I expect that would be the case.Groups also would likely have a healer that could mitigate some of the bad effects of dieing.It would be a nice bonus for healers to have a less harsh death experience.

A balance must be made, from the ground up, while building the game to support a more meaningful death.

Originally posted by augustgrace

Well over a decade ago when I was playing UO, I would have agreed with you on punishing death.  But then I had no real responsibilities, plenty of free time, the arrogance of youth, and there weren't many alternatives to compare UO to.  

Older now, with work, a family and a house to take care of, my gaming time is precious and I have no desire to spend that time doing corpse runs or earning back lost gear/exp.  

I even tried going back to UO a couple years ago, and the same activities and penalties I enjoyed years ago, just felt like work.  These days I want to have fun during my gaming sessions.  I don't want to spend my time polishing my e-peen or pursuing grindy activities.

This exactly...well, replace UO with EQ2, in my case

Originally posted by paulytheb

Yes Badspock,

The systems in the game would have to support the death penalty.

There would also have to be protections for groups. I wouldn't want all group members flung to the far reaches of the world in different temples because of a wipe.

Groups could simply be favored by the gods, dungeon instances could allow for full group recovery in case of a wipe.(Injuries earned would not take effect until you leave the instance) I'm not really sure if EQnext is going to have instanced dungeons, but I expect that would be the case.Groups also would likely have a healer that could mitigate some of the bad effects of dieing.It would be a nice bonus for healers to have a less harsh death experience.

A balance must be made, from the ground up, while building the game to support a more meaningful death.

 It's a really hard balance to achieve.

Make death sting too much, players will either leave or will seek content that is below them i.e. stack the deck in their favor instead of challenging themselves.

Make it too easy and players will throw corpses at mobs/each other to kill them and/or get bored and leave.

Originally posted by whiteoak21

what are you thinking of punishing death?

I like non-combat characters.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Isn't it strange how ideas of "great game design" are set firmly by the first game they enjoyed playing, and then never change?

I love Pizza, should I totally dislike it the next day?