ONE THING FOR SURE, DEVELOPERS DO AS THEY FEEL. they don't ask the players.
...
The problem is they did ask the players, and the majority of the players answered with their credit card and bought the easy, casual, convenient and streamlined themeparks of the last 8 years. That's what millions of people buy.
Just accept it, you (and I and a good number of other veteran posters here) are a minority now, and only small, underfunded and unexperienced companies (but with a vision!) will make games for us - the AAA companies don't care about us, why should they? Many of us buy their games anyway.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
-Try as we might, the chances of any of "difficult, group based" games coming about anytime soon are very slim. Here are some reasons.
Lets face it, the MMO community isn't made up nerdy fellows camping out in their mom's basement anymore. In the post-WoW period, the market has expanded to young kids/teenagers who have more buying power in the "MOMMY-GIMME" era. The developers are only doing what any good business would do, and go where the money is. This leads to games being developed that are easier, faster-paced and have a very quick gratification scheme because...thats what the market wants.
Not only is the demand from the market changing how/what games are being developed, but the recent shift in pay structure is going to change how games are made from here on out. Subscription based payment was a way to retain players for long periods of time, allowing them to slowly make their money back from each customer/player over time. How can you keep someone subscribed for a long time? Make the game slower and more challenging so content takes longer. Now, since Sub based payment is taking a backseat to F2P (free-to-play), developers make the majority of their money back rather quickly but capitalizing on higher retail/digital box prices and microtransactions.
For some games such as GW2, they made their money off of us very quickly. $60-$80 just to buy the game, and any microtransactions you bought in your first few weeks of playing (i.e. That bank/bag space or character slot that you HAD to have). They didn't care how long you play, as they made their money off you in the first week you were playing. Other games follow a similar structure of quick payback for the publisher/developer.
-How can we fix it? Buying power is still the best way to show developers what kind of game you want. If a game doesn't sound like your style? DONT BUY IT. If a game has a few features you like, and seems to have a plan that fits your play-style. BUY IT. Developers design their games to appeal to the masses, make sure you know whether or not you're part of that mass.
-Like the OP, I want a challenging and social based game. I will wait until I see a game that fits my playstyle before I buy.
TLDR:
Wont be many games like the OP wants in the future.
Young crowds are still dominating the MMO market.
F2P = the death of long-term MMO gaming (for now).
If you want a specific type of game made, Support it and don't support others!
Originally posted by Suraknar Originally posted by FondelDarkfall Unholy Wars anyone?
It is First person...
I did not like it for an MMO experience...
Not sure what they will change in DF 2, but...all I saw is features and features, and trying to appeal the illusion of being "elite"...which caters to younger players but not the ons that want to experience the old school gameplay, and want to build communities in a virtual world side to side with the action and dangers this world contains.
DF focusses on destroying communities not building them, it is first person and only the ones with the twitch skillz will prevail...brains, immagination, creativity, and most importantly sociability are secondary if not less, which means it does not appeal to old school players.
****
Anyways, I agree with OP....the sentiment is mutual.
Heh, another man who knows nothing of DF but pretends he knows everything...
Caters to younger? Lol. There is almost no people in DF younger 20. Most are around 30. I myself am 45... Younger players don't play sandbox games because they take a lot of social skills - thing youngsters are bad in.
And as to destroying community - lol ten times more. You can't play sandbox games without community. DF one is one of the best on MMO market.
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.
I define it Everquest 1. Dying in <insert location/dungeon here> and coming back to life not only naked, but perhaps a level lower than you were when <insert mob here> 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 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".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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).
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 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 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 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.
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.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
And full loot PVP and permadeath and deadly traps. We'll see how it goes.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
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.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
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.
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?
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...
There is a difference between hard content, challenging content and punishment and it is all in the eyes of the person behind their avatar.
Most define hard as if mobs can one shot you with 50K damage and you have 10K hit points so if you miss a key press/lagg through a script then you’re toast and can try again until your armor is no longer functional at which you can exit the instance and repair then come back in a few days to try again. This is their idea of challenge/punishment and reward.
The sever punishment is removed/reduced because the difficulty far exceeds normal encounters (raid (requires more than one person/group to have knowledge of their avatars arsenal of skills)) so making a repair is punishment enough. Of course there is a possibility with the right gear (most times the mob you are killing may drop it (depends on the loot table and group make up) so you have to defeat the mob and hope you win the roll against others to get the gear to kill the mob easier again to get more gear to make the next mob easier) and right keystrokes (most times the people in the group need to press certain keys at key times to key the mobs hit point down and/or the party hit points up) so you will not be defeated.
They removed corpse runs a long time ago in EQ because it was NOT fun for most. I lost a high level because they rotted away while I was out of town on business back in 2003. I also lost interest about that time because I just did not feel like going through the hassle to re-gear.
Shard runs in EQ2 were horrid and others that would group seemed not to care if you wiped or not. They were removed because it was to much of a setback for most and the servers were dying because of TOO much HARD content (see above statement). (get it?)
I like to do my best at the challenge and dying is not allowed so I play solo and hardcore. If my char dies I re-roll. (I have re-rolled level 80+ chars many times). I have 5 level 90’s and I do solo and GROUP stuff (just not raid stuff)
Sadly I play alone because many others don’t seem to care for this play style because they think it to much of a challenge. I have been campaigning off and on over the last 3 years to get a EQ2 perma-death server but that has not happened because of EQ1 and its perma-death server fiasco which the devs intended to fail.
Here is my advice:
Find a good old game you like and pick it back up. Stop buying this new released hyped crap with the same carrot in a different package until something you feel has challenge gets released.
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.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
The problem is they did ask the players, and the majority of the players answered with their credit card and bought the easy, casual, convenient and streamlined themeparks of the last 8 years. That's what millions of people buy.
Just accept it, you (and I and a good number of other veteran posters here) are a minority now, and only small, underfunded and unexperienced companies (but with a vision!) will make games for us - the AAA companies don't care about us, why should they? Many of us buy their games anyway.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
According to the video it's been 30 years in the making....Loading please wait!!!
Asbo
-Try as we might, the chances of any of "difficult, group based" games coming about anytime soon are very slim. Here are some reasons.
Lets face it, the MMO community isn't made up nerdy fellows camping out in their mom's basement anymore. In the post-WoW period, the market has expanded to young kids/teenagers who have more buying power in the "MOMMY-GIMME" era. The developers are only doing what any good business would do, and go where the money is. This leads to games being developed that are easier, faster-paced and have a very quick gratification scheme because...thats what the market wants.
Not only is the demand from the market changing how/what games are being developed, but the recent shift in pay structure is going to change how games are made from here on out. Subscription based payment was a way to retain players for long periods of time, allowing them to slowly make their money back from each customer/player over time. How can you keep someone subscribed for a long time? Make the game slower and more challenging so content takes longer. Now, since Sub based payment is taking a backseat to F2P (free-to-play), developers make the majority of their money back rather quickly but capitalizing on higher retail/digital box prices and microtransactions.
For some games such as GW2, they made their money off of us very quickly. $60-$80 just to buy the game, and any microtransactions you bought in your first few weeks of playing (i.e. That bank/bag space or character slot that you HAD to have). They didn't care how long you play, as they made their money off you in the first week you were playing. Other games follow a similar structure of quick payback for the publisher/developer.
-How can we fix it? Buying power is still the best way to show developers what kind of game you want. If a game doesn't sound like your style? DONT BUY IT. If a game has a few features you like, and seems to have a plan that fits your play-style. BUY IT. Developers design their games to appeal to the masses, make sure you know whether or not you're part of that mass.
-Like the OP, I want a challenging and social based game. I will wait until I see a game that fits my playstyle before I buy.
TLDR:
Wont be many games like the OP wants in the future.
Young crowds are still dominating the MMO market.
F2P = the death of long-term MMO gaming (for now).
If you want a specific type of game made, Support it and don't support others!
I did not like it for an MMO experience...
Not sure what they will change in DF 2, but...all I saw is features and features, and trying to appeal the illusion of being "elite"...which caters to younger players but not the ons that want to experience the old school gameplay, and want to build communities in a virtual world side to side with the action and dangers this world contains.
DF focusses on destroying communities not building them, it is first person and only the ones with the twitch skillz will prevail...brains, immagination, creativity, and most importantly sociability are secondary if not less, which means it does not appeal to old school players.
****
Anyways, I agree with OP....the sentiment is mutual.
Heh, another man who knows nothing of DF but pretends he knows everything...
Caters to younger? Lol. There is almost no people in DF younger 20. Most are around 30. I myself am 45... Younger players don't play sandbox games because they take a lot of social skills - thing youngsters are bad in.
And as to destroying community - lol ten times more. You can't play sandbox games without community. DF one is one of the best on MMO market.
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.
The whole notion of "true MMO" is preposterous. Here, I made this for you:
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I define it Everquest 1. Dying in <insert location/dungeon here> and coming back to life not only naked, but perhaps a level lower than you were when <insert mob here> 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".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
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.
What so funny?
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.
Wizardry is a old ip who there for 30 years so yeah wizardry is in the making for 30 years. That what they mean.
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.
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.
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.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
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.
And full loot PVP and permadeath and deadly traps. We'll see how it goes.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
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.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm pretty numbed on any death penalty a game can offer, so harsh DP only serves to annoy/tire me.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
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.
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 is my advice:
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
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.