All Posts by safwd

Originally posted by laresloci

Originally posted by safwd

I am thinking of giving it a shot also. I cant play EQ anymore and i think all the "NEW" style of games are not good.

How would a Dual Core 1.8GHZ, 2G Ram, 8500GT 512 computer play it you think?

 

Barely...and the game is still "rough". However, the concept it good.

I have to question how true this is. I could play the game barely when i tried it right after release on a much lower system. I have to have a better chance now after the fixes and a system upgrade (though still not great).

I hope laresloci is wrong.

And here is a question for you.

Why when SOE is giving out all this free play time on EQ and EQ2 they didnt also do it with Vanguard.

EQ probably wont hold the people who come back to play for free, EQ2 could hold some but probably not alot.

Vanguard could get a big influx of players with some free time and since it is a newer game it might actually keep a fair amount of them.

I am thinking of giving it a shot also. I cant play EQ anymore and i think all the "NEW" style of games are not good.

How would a Dual Core 1.8GHZ, 2G Ram, 8500GT 512 computer play it you think?

Originally posted by Yeebo

Originally posted by safwd

You guys dont get me wrong. I am not saying that an EQ style game would pull 1 million subs, or even 500K, but i do think that it could hold onto a steady base of around 200-300K. And that is plenty of subscriptions to keep a game profitable.

And yes, you are right. There were alot of complaints about the "timesinks" (which are those things that i call "playing a game" in Vanguard during beta. But beta was a hell of alot more people then 300K, and many of those were players who started with games like EQ2 and WoW, of course they didnt like the timesinks.
If Vanguard would have launched as a completed game, as least as far as what we expect when we think of completed game, it would have kept a player base of pretty good size. People still play the game and the reason more arent is because of the launch that it had and the trust issues. It lost its shot to impress. You rarely get a second shot to impress, there are too many games out there.

The problem is people go into a game like Vanguard knowing about the travel time and slower leveling before hand and then still whine and complain about the travel and slower leveling.

A game does not have to come out that is exactly like EQ was, times have changed and some of what EQ had is not really viable anymore. But more grouping then solo is not one of them. As long as you offer solo play as an option, even though a lesser one, you are fine. Slower leveling is not a problem as long as you have the content to support it. Im tired of playing games and reaching max level in less then 2 months. Especially when most of those games have very little replayability (see WoW). And i dont need the game to hold my hand telling me exactly where to go to kill stuff, i can figure that out myself.

Anyway im done for now.

Actually I completely agree with you, not sure if that came through in my post.  VG would have held on to a lot more of their customers if it had been a better product at launch. 

I also agree that there also is likely a solid 200-300K market for something along the lines that you describe.  Wouldn't be my cup of tea, but for those that would enjoy it, more power to them if something does come out. 

Ya, i knew you were agreeing with me on the Vanguard thing. I meant to say something about but i was rushed. What you said above is right on target as far as Vanguard went.
 

I understand that the community interested in a niche game along the lines of EQ is small compared to the numbers that play MMOs today but it is certainly there. Like the full PVP crowd is there and probably big enough to support a game.

All MMOs dont have to be modeled the same way. It was fine back in 2000 when UO, EQ and AC were all at their peeks and were all a bit different. Then came DAOC and it was a bit different. We dont need all games coming out like WoW now because it is so popular. We just need the devs to figure that out. Eve proved that there is room for other types of games. The idea just has to catch on.

You guys dont get me wrong. I am not saying that an EQ style game would pull 1 million subs, or even 500K, but i do think that it could hold onto a steady base of around 200-300K. And that is plenty of subscriptions to keep a game profitable.

And yes, you are right. There were alot of complaints about the "timesinks" (which are those things that i call "playing a game" in Vanguard during beta. But beta was a hell of alot more people then 300K, and many of those were players who started with games like EQ2 and WoW, of course they didnt like the timesinks.
If Vanguard would have launched as a completed game, as least as far as what we expect when we think of completed game, it would have kept a player base of pretty good size. People still play the game and the reason more arent is because of the launch that it had and the trust issues. It lost its shot to impress. You rarely get a second shot to impress, there are too many games out there.

The problem is people go into a game like Vanguard knowing about the travel time and slower leveling before hand and then still whine and complain about the travel and slower leveling.

A game does not have to come out that is exactly like EQ was, times have changed and some of what EQ had is not really viable anymore. But more grouping then solo is not one of them. As long as you offer solo play as an option, even though a lesser one, you are fine. Slower leveling is not a problem as long as you have the content to support it. Im tired of playing games and reaching max level in less then 2 months. Especially when most of those games have very little replayability (see WoW). And i dont need the game to hold my hand telling me exactly where to go to kill stuff, i can figure that out myself.

Anyway im done for now.

Originally posted by Heltern

Originally posted by safwd

Originally posted by Liss

safwd,

I smiled the entire time i was reading your posts. Thank you for such an enjoyable read. You keep my beliefs alive that there are actually other people out there that can appreciate an MMO that requires grouping to succeed and flourish. Thank you.

 

You are not alone my friend. There are plenty of us out there that want a EQ style game again.

Im not too sure we will ever get what we want but there is a player base for that type of game.

We can hope.

 

Vanguard has proven that is not true, the player base for that type of game is miniscule and just a couple of blather mouths on this board would play.

Again you obviously have no clue why Vanguard failed.
 

Vanguard had a huge following prior to its being released. It had a huge following of players that were greatly anticipation a game that was more in the "EQ Style".
Now when this game finally released and it was still in rough BETA and was nearly unplayable on most rigs out there, including ones that were way above even recommended specs, it got a sadly deserved UGLY UGLY name.

So please dont use Vanguard as  "Why games like EQ dont work" fodder. EQ like gameplay had nothing to do with the Vanguard failure. How about we wait and see if a EQ style game gets released that is actually playable before we throw that out there.
Vanguard is actually playable now but the bad taste that it caused with the release has killed it.

P.S. Why must people alwasy argue that no one wants to play a specific type of MMO? There are obviously people who want to play this type of MMO because there are people who say that they want to play this type of MMO.
Why do you care if people want to play this type of MMO, be it 30 people or 300,000? I dont want to play the pieces of crap that started with WoW and have incorperated pretty much every other MMO to come out since then but i dont care if you want to play them.

Originally posted by Liss

safwd,

I smiled the entire time i was reading your posts. Thank you for such an enjoyable read. You keep my beliefs alive that there are actually other people out there that can appreciate an MMO that requires grouping to succeed and flourish. Thank you.

You are not alone my friend. There are plenty of us out there that want a EQ style game again.

Im not too sure we will ever get what we want but there is a player base for that type of game.

We can hope.

Originally posted by Heltern

Not worth playing or remaking, it was bad from the beginning.

Yes, because the new format of speed quest grinding is SOOOOO Much more fun the regular old exp grinding.

The difference in grind between EQ and the new games is that in EQ i went out and killed 100 Orcs, in the new games some NPC tells me to go out and kill 100 Orcs.
And i also get a ton more exp killing those Orcs in the new games so i can get to max level in less then a month and figure out that there is nothing to do when i get there.

Originally posted by tfox2k1

Oh ye of little knowledge.   I was in EQ at the start.   The problem with developers requiring your to group is first creating an environment that requires grouping.   EQ did this by overpowering the mobs and under powering the PCs. 

I also played from the beginning. Mobs in EQ were not overpowered, an even con mob was an even fight, you might win, you might not. A yellow or red con was probably going to hand you your butt. How is that overpowering the mob. I guess if you base this on the WoW method where you can solo an Elite mob a couple levels higher then you and win (Which i did with my Hunter so dont say you cant) then i guess it would be overpowered.

Next you need classes that support each other, which means each individual class are missing several critical skils.   EQ also did this extremely well.

By missing skills you mean everyone could not do everything well. Ya you are right there. EQ was based alot on D&D classes, it was like that in D&D also.

Lastly you need to ensure you have no content that allows your players to solo, otherwise many will.   EQ would actually implement game changing tricks such as mobs summoning everyone or anti-kiting tactics to prevent solo play.  

 Hmm, then how did my Druid solo probably 85%+ of the way up to level 50 if there was no solo content? Druids could solo very well, Necros could solo very well, Mages could solo very well, and later Bards and Shaman could solo very well. True some could not solo well but it isnt like EQ lied to you. If you read up on the classes from day one it told you which were good for solo and which for grouping. EQ never lied about being a group orientated game, but it did allow viable soloing if you were willing to play one of the classes that were good at it.

In the end your left with a system that cheats, discourages innovative play styles, forces people to join with others to have a chance.   In addition you have certain classes that are vastly more welcome than others.   I started EQ as a necromancer.    Mainly because I played a similar class in a MUD and enjoyed role playing evil.    At the start of EQ a necro had a LOT of negatives with the promise of being powerful later.

The EQ devs sure gave the class lots of negatives, but removed any benefits later.   In addition since I wasn't one of the holy trinity, my grouping was typically limited.   So because I wasn't a tank, healer, or crowd control class I was basically unwanted.   Even though I put in just the same or more hours than other classes. 

Again Necro was stated to be a solo typle class from the start. But Necros were also very good in groups. If stupid people would not let you in their groups because they didnt want a Necro then you probably didnt want to group with them anyway. My guild and my friends certainly had no problem with it. Necros provided alot in solo or grouping.

 That is the problem with requiring grouping, you're always going to get classes that are not wanted or hardly wanted.    Guild Wars did grouping right in many ways.   Offer NPCs to fill roles that are required such as a healer.    Considering watching paint dry was more exciting than healing in EQ, SOE should have done the same.

The holy trinity was invented by the player base, not EQ. At no time did you absolutely need 1 Cleric, 1 Warrior, 1 Enchanger and then fill in the blanks. People invented that and other people ran with it, but not everyone ran with it. While i didnt group much with my Druid i was invited to group often even though i was not one of the holy ones. I invited plenty of times to be the main Healer though i rarely did it due to hating that roll. You could certainly make a very functional group without any members of the trinity and i saw it done often, and was a part of many with my SK. And while you think playing a healer is like watching paint dry (and i kind of agree) i knew many people that only liked playing Clerics. I never got it but if they liked it then good for them.

 Rose tinted glasses make EQ appear far more positive than the actual game experience was or is.   If a game was released today with the best graphics of any MMO, but the game play of EQ, it would be an utter disaster.   Witness Vanguard for a close comparison of my analogy.

Yes, you are right. Vanguard was a disaster because of the gameplay. It had nothing to do with the fact that the game was nearly unplayable on most systems that people owned. No, you are probably right, it was the gameplay.
No, it was not the GAMEPLAY, it was the way the GAME PLAYED.

You are not a fan of EQ, sweet. You dont think that a game like EQ could make it in the MMO world today, sweet. I dont care about the first one and you are wrong about the second one.

 

Originally posted by tfox2k1

 

Originally posted by rat4pay

All I see is people complaining on how the game has not changed and needs to be upgraded.  If you guys left because of this, why are you not playing EQ2.  That is free also.  I tried it for a while and thought oh WOW and EQ combined.  So go play EQ2.

 

Why play EQ2?   Thats just another SOE product waiting to be screwed up worse than it already is.   I think until Smedley quits or is fired, SOE will continue to be a horrible gaming company.

 

 

Ahh, so i see your initial post was not jaded in any way.

EQ is an old game. The graphics are dated but i do not find them Fugly. In fact i dont think they are that much worse then most of the games out there.

The UI is old and could use an update but only because we have all gotten lazy and no longer want to take the time to look for anything.

The play style is slow (though not as slow as it once was) but it was meant to be slow. I thought it was actually pretty refreshing when i tried to kill a mob one level higher then me in the newbie area and it kicked the crap out of me.

If EQ could relaunch (with perhaps updated graphics) and bring in new players the game could be huge again. There is more to do in EQ then any game i have ever played. More then most of those games combined. The problem with EQ now is that it was a game built for grouping and it is very hard to find groups at low and mid levels now. If it got a influx of people to start it out then im sure many would love it.

I for one prefer the "EQ" style of gameplay far more then the new style of gameplay.

This arguement applies to pretty much every MMO out there.

If you think that you are going to pre order, or jump in day one of launch and get a completely polished game that includes everything that was ever talked about them you are fooling yourself. This RARELY happens. Some say it happened with LoTRs but i cant say, i played it for a short time in open Beta and decided i didnt like it enough to buy.

Point is, when you pre order you are taking a risk, and i cant believe that any of you didnt know that. If you didnt then that means you didnt read this board at all before the launch of the game because it was talked about alot.

If you are unwilling to take that risk then dont pre order, wait a month or so after launch and see what people are saying about it, if you like what they say then buy it, if you dont then wait some more or move on to something else.

No one was duped into buying a BETA game. Anyone who has played MMOs before should know that this is highly probably. If AOC was your first MMO and you didnt know this then live and learn, they next game will probably be just like it.

Originally posted by sebbonx

Everquest invented Kill Stealing- WRONG
And who cares anyway. Kill Stealing sucks but it was never that bad.

 

Everquest invented tons of kiddies playing- WRONG. Back in 99 kids really didnt play MMOs. It was all the 20-30+ D&D Nerds (like me) playing

Everquest invented no instancing so all the worlds retards could train you-WRONG. EQ was not the first non instanced game. You probably never got trained in your life, if you would have you would know that it wasnt that big of a deal. And was actually pretty cool most of the time.

Everquest invented bored kiddies running around being jerks- You made me laugh a bit on that one.

WoW community is 100 times better! I can enter an instance and they can't!- You hit the answer on the head right here. You combat a crappy community with instancing so you can get away from them. Way to go WoW. I enjoyed WoW for a short while but it certainly wasnt because of the community, there isnt one so it could not be about the community. I do miss all the asshats following you around spamming dual though.

I still have no problems when i pop back into EQ ever year or two. You will run into your jerks but they are everywhere. You will run into alot of good helpful people also.

My favorites

EQ- ShadowKnight and Druid

DAOC- Thane

Wow- Hunter (Im not a big fan of the game but i thought the Hunter class was pretty cool, though too easy to play)

Originally posted by pencilrick

Casual gamers want to make progress in an hour's time of play.

Hardcore gamers want freedom.

All games, I believe, (and whether they realize it or not) want consequences for their in-game mistakes (i.e., a death penalty that stings just at least just a little.)  You must have a death penalty or all fights become mundane and all rewards feel less meaningful.  Risk and Reward go together; one without the other is not good.

Solution:

1)  Racial starting areas, meaning NO stupid in-game tutorial.  Tooltips suffice to show someone how to move or attack.  If population shrinks over time, don't consolidate the noob area into an artificial tutorial, rather merge a server if necessary.

2)  Few and meaningful quests.  Quests should be additional fun and challenging activities, not a trivial grind and the main focus of the game.

3)  Bring back the experience grind, but make it as fast as games that are quest grinds.  With the threat of the sting of death, players will always be somewhat alert and excited with each challenging fight.  Plus, as they group and rely upon one another, this will build the in-game community.

4)  In most cases, monsters should be as tough as they look.  A dinosaur should be tougher than a deer.  (None of this WOW-type stuff of having a 16th level dinosaur in the same zone as a 17th level ostrich.  C'mon).

5)  Dungeons should be for the hardcore; those who want to group and take a couple or more hours to play. 

6)  Instancing should be limited.

7)  Any mechanic to ease play should be weighed carefully before introduction.  While players may complain that it takes time to traverse the Plans of Such-and-such, they will probably be happier than if instant teleports are placed around for no sensible reason.  Dangerous travel is part of the adventure.

8)  Backstory is okay in a game, and important to explain the NPC and city structure of the world, but players should never be forced down some scripted story arc.  The characters are not in a "story", they are in a "world."  For example, it is much more fun to freely wander Middle Earth (at your own peril) than to have some artifical constraint saying, "You can't go to the Mirkwood yet, because you haven't completed Chapter 4 and you're still in Chapter 2.

9)  Definition:  TRAINS.  The foolish mistakes of other players should have some possible impact on their peers.  For example, if a group of noobs pulls too many monsters and they start to run your way, there should be a possibility of some of the monsters aggroing on your group.  After all, if you share the world you share the risks. 

10)  Death penalty that stings (as previously mentioned).

11)  Wandering mobs, and maybe at least one overly-tough mob per zone or area, to keep folks on their toes as they grind.  Ex.:  That giant werewolf in DAOC, Thid-side, or the werewolf or griffin in EQ's Karanas and Commonlands, respectively.

Of course, there are many other ingredients that can go into a great MMORPG, but they all should be sensible, serious (mostly), and appropriate to the game setting.

Just my two coppers on the topic.

 

I like your ideas alot.

Originally posted by Shadus

 

---

Originally posted by safwd
Thats what we did before in game maps were invented and none were built online yet.

---

 

When was this mystical time? I've been getting maps online for the games I play since the early 90s/late 80s... and even many muds used to have ascii maps you could find online.

Hell I remember paying >$10 an HOUR to play mmo's and never had much trouble finding maps if I looked around.

For me that mystical time was very early EQ, before anyone bothered to make a map and post it online. And the very early maps that were posted were VERY basic and sometimes not of much use.

Originally posted by stragee

I guess I'll chime in on this one. 

Recently I was playing the OB of Requiem: Bloodymare.  The first 15 levels were actually really fun.  Running around from place to place doing my quests and some grinding in between.  They didn't place any npc's too far away or in odd places that would make doing quests unreasonable.  Mind you the quests weren't all exciting or anything that I hadn't seen before.  But again because the quests were setup right it was fun.

Unfortunately that changed at lvl 20.  Suddenly the quest NPC's are referring to places that I really don't have a clue about.  I have a minimap but it's useless with nothing on it.  The large map has major places listed, but the quests i'm doing now don't involve major places so it's no help either. 

So I officially lost all desire to play the game.  There's no argument there to be had, I just simply lost interest because I despise running around blindly without a clue of where to go.  That's just lame.  Some people call it adventure, I call it a lame way of keeping the players playing.  Yeah I could probably go into the official forums and hope to find a closed beta player that could help me...but I'm not going to. 

I'd rather just play something else.

Unless Requiem prohibits you from talking to other players you could have just said "Hey, can anyone tell me how to get to X"

Thats what we did before in game maps were invented and none were built online yet.

No, there are none.

The games we loved are dead dead dead.

Vanguard is the closest but it really isnt all that close.

I have a better idea yet.

Lets just get back to the days where games were made for a certain part of the community. Not every game had to accomidate every type of player.

There is no reason, other then Developer Greed (and it is greed because they would make plenty of money doing it this way), that we cant have games that center on PVP, Linear PVE quest driven, non linear, non quest based PVE (EQ style), open sandbox, and so on.

All the asshats who come onto a thread and say that a game should not get made because They would not play it are another reason why we have the same game getting made again and again with a slightly different wrapper.

Diversity is good my friends, Diversity is good.

Originally posted by terrant

 

Originally posted by Thachsanh

 

 

You actually need to do some reading before you post. Otherwise, you would just look stupid, especially the line about UO and EQ.

Do you even know what UO brought to the gaming world? UO  was incredibly innovated even at today standard.

Do you even know what EQ brought to the MMO world? What Verant did at that time was revolutionary.

Only from a certain point of view.

 

Player made housing? It was in MOOs and MUSHes and MUDs years before. Open FFA PvP? Ditto. Ever hear of something called Gemstone III? Or Meridian 59, as someone else pointed out? Or Federation Space, for us older AOLers.

Many of these games were 100% free-form. All UO added was a graphics component, and a little more structure. EQ did the same. Don't get me wrong they were big leaps forward, but each game built off the bones of the predecessors.

I guess my point is it's nothing new. AoC is a semi-WoW-clone with better graphics and an innovative combat system (the other major feature, cities, are nothing new since SWG and AO both had them ages ago). WoW was an EQ clone with a deeper storyline and (supposed)  more focus on factioned PvP. EQ was a UO close that was safer to play and prettier. UO was a good MUD with some graphics. I just hate people griping about WoW clones when every MMO made clone off of thigns much, much older than WoW.

But EQ was not an UO clone. EQ was in development before UO was released so how could it have been a clone? Plus they really were nothing alike. Both built off Meridian 59 and Muds, but EQ had much more D&D influence then UO did.

But ya, i agree with you.

I greatly prefer my EQ original style.

But if starting out now EQ2 would probably be easier to get into. The playerbase in EQ is pretty much top end. If you see lowbies around they are most likely twinks and though they may group with you they probably dont have to group since there gear is way high for what they are fighting.
Groups will probably be easier to find in EQ2.

Learning curve is probably a little easier in EQ2. EQ1 was gotten