Everquest II Forum » The Tavern (General) » Why isn't there more people playing this game???

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Antarious 

*edit* Response to Daffid011
 

The standard accepted number for the MMO industry is that 10% of the market is PvP.  I'd also challenge you to list the western based MMO's that have meaningful pvp and had a higher subscription base than EQ2...  Other than WoW which I'm not sure I see as meaningful pvp.  Lack of PvP entirely would not give a game the smallest feature set...  Tho I suppose size of feature set has nothing to do with total subscribers (I think the thread was about .. the amount of people playing the game).

I missed this a while ago, but anyhow...

 

I'm really curious where you get 10% of the market wants pvp.   It certainly doesn't look like only 10% of the market wants pvp.  Just for example: Wow has more pvp servers than it has pve.  Two pvp centric mmos broke mmo sales records last year.

 

I'm not qualifying pvp as meaningful or whatever the opposite is in your view.  If a game offers pvp in an enjoyable way then it is a solid feature to many people.  It isn't like the same standard is applied to pve being meaningful or not, but as long as it is enjoyable then it is a good feature for a game.

Games that have more subs than eq2 that have pvp (meaningful or not).  Warhammer, World of warcraft, Eve, Lotro, Linage I, lineage II, Aion, guild wars (not an mmo and not subscriber, but same principle)... Even age of conan isn't that far behind.  Almost every mmo that outperforms eq2.  So yes I think more people consider pvp an important design aspect of an mmo and that would disqualify any claim that eq2 has the most features of any mmo on the market. 

Is it the reason more people do not play, I think it plays a part, but there are plenty of other reasons.

I see various different percentages getting thrown around all the time and yet no-one ever provides a link to a reliable source as proof. Why could that be I wonder? Oh yeah its because THEY ARE ALL MADE UP. I even saw one guy in another thread saying "PvP players make up 1% of the market"! All of these opinions getting quoted as fact is really silly. Its basicly just forum posters quoting other forum posters. Mind you if there is a secret database containing the opinions of every single person on the planet that plays mmos then I would love to see it ....... but as its a secret I guess I never will. Ah well.

Also as you already touched on, I dont really get this bias against pvp if it isnt meaningful as the pve aspect of these mmos isnt really all that meaningful either. I think by "meaningful" Antarious might be referring to the lack of any death penalty or ability to take control of or influence things in the game world.......but that applies to the pve aspect of these games too......and so far in the majority of mmos I have seen, the pve is about as "meaningless" as it can be. They're just static game worlds frozen in time that the players cant change and if someone dies then they are back at the spot of their demise within a few minutes. Does this complete lack of meaning and purpose stop the game from being enjoyable? Or maybe the cutesy stories that the players get to read manages to distract them from the fact that what they are doing is essentially meaningless......it being a game and all that.

But yeah you're right. All the games you mentioned which have a pvp aspect to them do indeed seem to have more people playing them than EQ2. The same applies to Vanguard too which is another pve game with weak pvp that isnt doing too well. Hmmm that "10% of the market" is looking pretty big......so big in fact that games companies are beginning to make mmos just for them. Thats pretty nice of them to start catering to the "vocal minority". Anyone would think they are seeing a profit in games with player conflict. Surely this cant be true! Gosh! Meanwhile the other 90% who dont want pvp in their mmos must be having a terrible time having to tiptoe around those pvp zones.

I think a key factor on games with PvP is if it is required or if it is optional and also if it is all the end game offers.  The games that are successful are games that don't force you to do PvP.  Offering PvP in the game as an optional side game is perfectly fine as it makes more game play options available.  Supporting PvE in the end game with interesting challenging bosses for groups and raids and a progression beyond leveling is also key to being successful.

Where things get difficult is when support for PvP starts to ruin the game.  In order for PvP to be interesting it has to be balanced.  This is really where PvP and PvE and really RPG games in general start to run at odds.  An RPG is about developing and progressing your character.  PvE gameplay is the traditional standard way to do that.  You progress by gaining levels, you gain better equipment, your character becomes more and more powerful.  But wait this completely invalidates the whole concept of balance that really is required to make PvP fun.  Suddenly you got lvl xx characters where one guy has 1000 hp and another guy has 10000.  Clearly 1000hp guy won't have a chance in hell.  Great fun for the 10K guy he will kill everyone and be amazing.  Sucks for the 1k guy as he might not ever have a chance esp if he is new on an established server.

So PvP is best handled like wow does it in PvP instances.  This lets the game try to impose some balancing characteristic will preserving the RPG aspects of progression and development.

PvP is not a factor one why EQ2 isn't more successful.  The issue is that it had a bad launch plain and simple.  Following the bad launch SoE made substantial changes to the game to fix it but in the process also changed alot about the game killing off any early fans in the game.  So in a sense the game is totally different and just doesn't have the oomph to really add lots of subs.  Even years after supposedly fixing the game it still had substantial engine design problems.  It was designed based on the concept that it would do everything in CPU to make it run on any type of computer.  It was also designed with the assumption the CPUs would get faster.  Unfortunately they didn't get much faster but went to multiple cores.  So even today eq2 tends to be cpu bound and doesn't deliver the performance of other games.  Even Vanguard graphical preforms better then eq2 on high settings...  Ironically today eq2 is one of the best polished games with one of the best UIs in any game and really should be a top game but is plagued by the original engine. 

They are improving the engine but I'm afraid it is too little too late.

I've started playing LoTRO after playing eq2 for more then a year.  Initial impressions are that the LoTRO game engine is way better then eq2.  Performance and visuals are outstanding.  Coming from eq2 though the UI feels clumsy, the voice chat is a joke, and the crafting system is uninspiring.  Combat and instances in LoTRO so far seem very good.  Course I'm only lvl 25 and have only done one instance so my opinion might change when i'm max level.  Right now in eq2 I still like running TSO and raiding.  I love group play which so far is pretty lacking in LoTRO.

If you scroll down the page this post by Freliant describes the "middle class of MMO players" and I think it's what plagues MMOs. (especially this one)

I'd add that exploration is not stressed in these games for another problem.

I'd make another addition that grinding tier 1, 2, and 3 sets didn't appeal to me.

(which makes another problem of min-maxing too prevalent in these games...wouldn't know how to keep somewhat of a challenge though)

Not to mention that the research assistants possibly making the upper echelons of the min/max community want to make masters their new "baseline".

That's some of my reasons for leaving after trying a month out once again.

"X" number is a charm though right?

Originally posted by Narug

If you scroll down the page this post by Freliant describes the "middle class of MMO players" and I think it's what plagues MMOs. (especially this one)

I'd add that exploration is not stressed in these games for another problem.

I'd make another addition that grinding tier 1, 2, and 3 sets didn't appeal to me.

(which makes another problem of min-maxing too prevalent in these games...wouldn't know how to keep somewhat of a challenge though)

Not to mention that the research assistants possibly making the upper echelons of the min/max community want to make masters their new "baseline".

That's some of my reasons for leaving after trying a month out once again.

"X" number is a charm though right?

Really don't get what you are trying to say...

I'm not sure what you are trying to draw out of Freliant's post and I'm not sure what the middle class means.  What I read was him talking about the game being solo till the end then changing to groups.  I guess I'd ask what is the option?  I have though about this and kinda think not only is it inevitable but I can't think of any alternative that would be fun and work.

Reguarding exploration eq2 both encouraged and rewards exploration more then any game out.  So again you have completely lost me.  In eq2 you get xp/aa for exploring new areas.  You special AA rewards for killing every unique boss.  You have various books with lore and goals to fight special mobs requiring exploration, tagging special mobs, or just finding unique locations.  Again I'm at a loss as to what you would do more to encourage exploration.

Upper echelons have always wanted members to have masters.  The research assistants haven't changed anything.  Masters are still selling for a high price and people are still not 100% mastered.  At lvl 80 it takes 1 month to research a master.  I'd guess most high lvl people probably have around 20-30 skills they need to master.  Thats a lot of work even with the research assistant.  Anyway I haven't seen any impact from research assistants except perhaps the highest prices Masters have come down some.  And casual players are likely to have more masters over time then they ever could in the past.  Not a bad thing In my opinion.

As to leaving in a month I'm not sure how any of they points would effect a new player other then that they would spend a lot of the starting game soloing.  Again being able to solo to max level is I'm affraid a requirement for any game past the first 6 months of life.  You just won't find the population at lower levels to support setting up groups easily. 

Simple really.  EQ2 is run by SOE.  MANY people don't like SOE and won't play them especially after the SWG dabacal,

Originally posted by TeranHawkins

Simple really.  EQ2 is run by SOE.  MANY people don't like SOE and won't play them especially after the SWG dabacal,

Debacle.

In any case, Teran has a good point. There are a lot of people who will never again touch an SOE product, and justifiably so. SOE has become a textbook case on how NOT to run a service provided company, due to some of their bone-headed decisions (the SWG revamp and the RMT lies just to name a few) and their inability to respond honestly to the feedback.

I played EQ2 for three years and still consider it one of the best MMO's on the market. I applaud the developers for being able to produce and tweak content to try and keep things fresh (user-created story-books are an example of this).

Still, for me, the manner in which SOE treats its customers and the manner in which the CEO has blatantly lied to his customers has turned me off of the game. It's a great game, but it is run by a company which I no longer wish to support with my gaming dollars.

And since other people's milage may vary on these issues, I suspect EQ2 will continue to chug along, at least until they announce EQ3 (or whatever they decide to name it).

Originally posted by ethion

Really don't get what you are trying to say...

I'm not sure what you are trying to draw out of Freliant's post and I'm not sure what the middle class means.  What I read was him talking about the game being solo till the end then changing to groups.  I guess I'd ask what is the option?  I have though about this and kinda think not only is it inevitable but I can't think of any alternative that would be fun and work.

Reguarding exploration eq2 both encouraged and rewards exploration more then any game out.  So again you have completely lost me.  In eq2 you get xp/aa for exploring new areas.  You special AA rewards for killing every unique boss.  You have various books with lore and goals to fight special mobs requiring exploration, tagging special mobs, or just finding unique locations.  Again I'm at a loss as to what you would do more to encourage exploration.

Upper echelons have always wanted members to have masters.  The research assistants haven't changed anything.  Masters are still selling for a high price and people are still not 100% mastered.  At lvl 80 it takes 1 month to research a master.  I'd guess most high lvl people probably have around 20-30 skills they need to master.  Thats a lot of work even with the research assistant.  Anyway I haven't seen any impact from research assistants except perhaps the highest prices Masters have come down some.  And casual players are likely to have more masters over time then they ever could in the past.  Not a bad thing In my opinion.

As to leaving in a month I'm not sure how any of they points would effect a new player other then that they would spend a lot of the starting game soloing.  Again being able to solo to max level is I'm affraid a requirement for any game past the first 6 months of life.  You just won't find the population at lower levels to support setting up groups easily. 

Just want to clarify my "month once more" line. It should read I've tried out another month again.

More clarification. I once started the game in December of 2004 and playing on/off through the years with almost a whole year of play during 2005. Sporadic times of play occurred through the years. My play time this year is 1 month.

(I should note I a have a 80 shadowknight)

Don't have the ultimate exploration solution, not a dev obviously, but I'd say more surprises and more lost civilizations couldn't hurt.

The "upper echelon" was meant to show how things would trickle down in a negative fashion.

(Just look at groups requiring certain classes just for single group dungeons like RE2 and such ex; plate healer/leather healer/raid equipped tank)

About all I have to clarify at this time. The rest of my "no comment" is allowing opinions to flow respectively and freely.

Thank you for the response of course.

Edit: Sorry about my error but I had to edit my post to read, "I have a 80 shadowknight"

Originally posted by Hotjazz

Originally posted by socrates656

 Why do more people play wow? what the hell is wrong with gamers? do they like to play shitty games or what?

 

WOW is the perfect PVE mmo. It is player friendly, you have fast levels and all your friends play it.

 

EQ=WOW=EQ2, so why not play the one your friends play.  This is also the reason why AOC, Lotr, War, Aion and the rest of the clones fails.

Fail?, the other games fail?, LoL, last time I looked they were still being played by a lot of people!, enough to be rentable businesses, enough for their companies to create more content to them. It seems based on your last phrase that people only play WoW, the other games dont exist anymore or are played by ghosts. Many of the games you cared to mention are very well these days. The only failure is not being the top dog Wow is... for now

Me and the Wife were asking ourselves this the other day. Not about why others aren't playing EQ2 but why we weren't. What it boiled down to was while it is very nice looking game and seems to have a lot, deffinetly like a lot of the classes and races (My fav is a froglok monk, just so kewl to play lol) it just had to much grind in it. There weren't a lot of people on the lower end content so we couldn't really find many people to do stuff with. We looked at what it would take to get a mount and decided then and there to quit. It really should have been our game, seemed almost perfect for a husband and wife duo but the grind was a bit much for us. I don't care if it's xp grind or quest grind, grind is grind lol. What we ended up doing was going back to UO.

Truly wanted to like EQ2, deffinetly a neat game in many regards.

doesnt this game have 75-100k players?

Thats pretty good guys.

Sony turns a huge profit with EQ2 and it shows by how they continue delivering content.

Originally posted by TheICE

There not playing it because they are better games out there, I recently started playing eq1 again, and it blows eq2 out of the water.

eq2 after kunark= garbage

 

If you would like to try a fun game check out eq1 and the new server which starts you at 51 with 50 aa's, Tons of people on the server and loads of fun.

Egads, I am glad I ran into this post. I've been thinking of trying for EQ1 for a long time but always held back due to the "left behind" feeling I often find in MMO's that have been out for extended periods of time. I will definitely get EQ1 a try now that I know there's a server that lets you start a bit ahead so you can actually catch up!

That bit of gratitude aside, these are my complaints from when I tried EQ2 about a year and a half ago:

1) I felt that there were almost too many classes. It wasn' t necessarily the fact that there were a lot of classes that irked me, but moreso the fact that many of the classes felt so similar to each other that I believed they could have been merged into single classes and divided more by talent trees or another mechanic, rather than cluttering up the character creation with so many undiversified classes.
2) A biggie here, as has been said many many times in this thread... The loneliness factor. I played for a full month at about 4-5 hours a day, and I rarely found people to interact with. The chat was mostly dead except for "grats" whenever an announcement of someone getting a legendary item came across (which I must admit, I like that system on all the games I've seen it in).
3) The combat felt very uninvolved. The two classes I tried the most were paladin and druid. Both of them felt like I was doing little more than auto-attacking and using occasional spells to heal myself or do a little extra damage. It definitely wasn't as slow-paced as I found LotRO to be, but it just wasn't particularly involving either.
4) Group mobs. This was one of the biggest turn-offs for me, in fact. After I hit level 13ish, most of the mobs I started seeing were actually groups of 3-5 mobs all acting under one "mind." I really didn't like this aspect and would have preferred to see one CHALLENGING mob rather than a group of mediocre mobs which do nothing short of prolonging the already humdrum fight.

I didn't really have a problem with the art style and the game ran fine on my computer, with maybe 2-3 CTD's during my month of play and no lag to speak of. All in all, the game didn't hold my attention, and I think the "left behind" feeling of the lower level gameplay caused most of that. However, since I did list what I didn't like, it's only fair that I list what I -did- like in the game:

1) The crafting system. While it felt more like a gimmick than anything, I enjoyed it. I would have liked to have seen an auto-craft option for more materials or lower quality items or something for training, though. The mini-game system was neat, but I really didn't see it making an impact on the results of the item. Vanguard utilizes a much more complex crafting system and has a lot more variables in it that can affect your end result, and it would have been nice to see more of that in the EQ2 system. But EQ2's is still leaps and bounds better than the common crafting formula seen in games like WoW and LotRO.
2) Race diversity. I really liked seeing options for a lot of different races, each of which felt distinctly unique. A big plus on that one.
3) Housing. While the housing isn't as big a deal as in UO simply due to the fact that it's instanced, it was nice having something to do when I was winding down and getting ready to log out.
4) Hovering. I got an unusual amount of enjoyment out of fluttering around with my Fae... Let's not try to analyze that any further.
5) Items. As I mentioned further up,  I like legendary find announcements. And even though I didn't play into it long enough to get any amazing items, I felt that the game's rarer items truly felt like treasures to find.

Anyway, off I go to research the EQ1 server mentioned.