Instancing isn't bad when it is done right like in Vanilla WoW where the whole world was seamless and there were a handful of main instances that took up actual real world space and you had to go through buildings and caves that weren't instanced to get to them.
The problem because when you make the world zoned, you do phasing, there are too many instances and you add fast travel to the instances etc etc.
You should never be able to warp to an instance, it needs to have travel time to keep the world populated, you should retire old instances and do something new with that space like an old theme park ride and you shouldn't over instance. You don't see theme parks just keep making the park bigger, they then would become too cluttered, you'd have massive amounts of areas with no one in and old rides become boring so people don't go to them.
Sadly no developer has got them right since, not even Blizzard who have ruined WoW.
Tbh I'd prefer open world bosses and events to involve everyone, you used to be able to do them easily but now MMOs are so popular it is harder to control.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
I'm seeing a lot of posts from people hypothesizing about whether there will be instances or how they don't want there to be, that sort of thing. This is a little old and perhaps forgotten. So, here is the source from Smed himself - EQNext will have zero instancing.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
Don't tell me that, tell John Smedley that. The President of SOE said SOE is pretty much in the balance with EQN. If you havent noticed, Dragon's Prophet is more like Dragon's Failure, Planetside 2 is eh, and they cant ride off EQ1/EQ2 forever.
It wouldnt completely shock me at all if jobs were on the line with EQN, they can't afford to put out a mediocre experience with their flagship IP
Again, Smedley is the one who said SOE is relying upon EQN, and there would be no reason to lie about that. He was brutally honest about SOE.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Sometimes fellow EQ players disappoint me that they cant think objectively and only think in their EQ nostalgia red rosed glasses. No wonder they arent catering to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd.
As I already pointed out in my OP. However, not everyone is aware of it, and it's a big bit of info.
Not really since the game he brought up was a scrapped version 2 versions ago. I would bet anything you will see instances for raids and maybe even pvp stuff but they will probably stress most of the pvp in open world.
Do you guys really expect this game to have raids and be open world ? The only way that is even possible is if raid mobs are triggered and not static spawns. You can do it open world that way and leave it non instanced. Open world raid bosses are dead people won't accept a guild perma camping them and you never being able to fight them. If you played EQ before instances you would understand this.
The game will have raids, Smed has said this in December 2012 after the remake. And yes i played EQ from 1999 to present day on and off. Open raid bosses are not dead, what made you think that?
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Here's how different it's going to be, just like the other 2 EQs are different from one another.
Originally posted by Grahor Same engine as Planetside 2. If there are instances in Planetside 2, there will be instances in EQN. If there aren't, chances are increased for non-instanced EQN. P.S. Funny thing, eh. I wonder if there will be ways to cheat in EQN like in Planetside 2. That would be some win.
That comment makes no sense what so ever.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
>>So you think that their scrapping some aspects of the game to further improve it and make it unique would result in.................... adding back instancing? That makes sense.....<<
It actually does once you accept that instancing is not always bad, and there are situations where it's good, or at least necessary.
>>Guess you haven't played Vanguard huh?<<
No. Not everybody played Vanguard. How did they solve that problem in the Vanguard? Or "an argument can be made, but I'm not going to make it"?
>>Finally, based on your whole comment, did you miss the fact that they said everything is supposed to be different from what we have seen before and not the same?<<
In the voice of Rick Dicker, talking to babysitter girl: And you believed it.
They didn't really 'solve' anything for Vanguard. The world has lots of little square zones with chunk lines. The whole experience is not seamless at all. Mobs do not path over chunk lines and it is very noticable when you zone through one.
It is more of a poorly executed illusion than anything else.
Ermm mobs do path over chunk lines in Vanguard lol and yes i've played for 6.5 years and know for a fact that mobs path across chunk lines but they act differently. And Vanguards non instanced dungeons work very well, the secret is to make your dungeons vast and multi level and numerous.
Log into Vanguard and fight a mob on a chunk line and come back and tell mobs don't cross chunks.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
Again, Smedley is the one who said SOE is relying upon EQN, and there would be no reason to lie about that. He was brutally honest about SOE.
Your right Smed has no reason to lie.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Sometimes fellow EQ players disappoint me that they cant think objectively and only think in their EQ nostalgia red rosed glasses. No wonder they arent catering to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd.
You disappoint when we have been through this before and choose to ignore the fact that SMEDS(who you agree has no reason to lie) says different.
Think me and you have been through this before.
Let's go back shall we?
SOE Live October 2012
Smed.
You mentioned last night that EQ Next will look like nothing we've ever seen. Will EQNext still have the familiar feel to it that EQ fans are used to? How do you strike the balance between innovation and still staying true to the franchise?
I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have.EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system.You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it.
InEverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
At GDC last week, you also talked about how quickly traditional MMO content is consumed and how that plays into your decision to adopt a philosophy toward emergent gameplay. The question comes up about how that affects the future of raid content -- something that takes a lot of time to design and is usually played by only a portion of the community. What are your thoughts on that?
This is a very interesting question. I think it's at the core of why what we're doing is sustainable. I'll go right to the heart of the matter. You get to the point where we make an expansion, and when I say we, I mean the entire MMO community. You make your expansion, the real hardcore players consume it in a month, and they're doing the raids over and over and over until the next round of live content that we put in. Typically, three or four times a year, we as MMO companies put new endgame in there to keep the raiders happy.
We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make because players want that.We're not talking about the end of raids, the end of this incredibly high-level content. We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction. Imagine seasons changing.Imagine if you're a Druid andyou need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness,but you don't know where. Or image forests growing back after they're burned to the ground by invading forces. What we want is a dynamic world that gives all those other possibilities and doesn't just say OK, go to raid X with group composition of X, Y, Z, and kill the dragon for the 52nd time to get the tier 800 gear. It's this rinse-and-repeat gameplay that's got to change, and so we're changing it.
So it seems that the main take on Smed's EQN is not to actually chance the main essence of what EQ is but to make the world more interactive, i living breathing world. All of the key elements are still there, classes, raids and all the other things you would expect from this epic IP.
Again, EQN will be very familiar to EQ players.
Let's not go through this again with you keep repeating the same line only to be called out and countered, you didn't reply to my post last time because you cannot counter what i've just posted from Smed himself.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
Again, Smedley is the one who said SOE is relying upon EQN, and there would be no reason to lie about that. He was brutally honest about SOE.
Your right Smed has no reason to lie.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Sometimes fellow EQ players disappoint me that they cant think objectively and only think in their EQ nostalgia red rosed glasses. No wonder they arent catering to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd.
You disappoint when we have been through this before and choose to ignore the fact that SMEDS(who you agree has no reason to lie) says different.
Think me and you have been through this before.
Let's go back shall we?
SOE Live October 2012
Smed.
You mentioned last night that EQ Next will look like nothing we've ever seen. Will EQNext still have the familiar feel to it that EQ fans are used to? How do you strike the balance between innovation and still staying true to the franchise?
I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have.EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system.You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it.
InEverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
At GDC last week, you also talked about how quickly traditional MMO content is consumed and how that plays into your decision to adopt a philosophy toward emergent gameplay. The question comes up about how that affects the future of raid content -- something that takes a lot of time to design and is usually played by only a portion of the community. What are your thoughts on that?
This is a very interesting question. I think it's at the core of why what we're doing is sustainable. I'll go right to the heart of the matter. You get to the point where we make an expansion, and when I say we, I mean the entire MMO community. You make your expansion, the real hardcore players consume it in a month, and they're doing the raids over and over and over until the next round of live content that we put in. Typically, three or four times a year, we as MMO companies put new endgame in there to keep the raiders happy.
We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make because players want that.We're not talking about the end of raids, the end of this incredibly high-level content. We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction. Imagine seasons changing.Imagine if you're a Druid andyou need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness,but you don't know where. Or image forests growing back after they're burned to the ground by invading forces. What we want is a dynamic world that gives all those other possibilities and doesn't just say OK, go to raid X with group composition of X, Y, Z, and kill the dragon for the 52nd time to get the tier 800 gear. It's this rinse-and-repeat gameplay that's got to change, and so we're changing it.
So it seems that the main take on Smed's EQN is not to actually chance the main essence of what EQ is but to make the world more interactive, i living breathing world. All of the key elements are still there, classes, raids and all the other things you would expect from this epic IP.
Again, EQN will be very familiar to EQ players.
Let's not go through this again with you keep repeating the same line only to be called out and countered, you didn't reply to my post last time because you cannot counter what i've just posted from Smed himself.
Why are you copying and pasting stuff into multiple different threads?
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
Again, Smedley is the one who said SOE is relying upon EQN, and there would be no reason to lie about that. He was brutally honest about SOE.
Your right Smed has no reason to lie.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Sometimes fellow EQ players disappoint me that they cant think objectively and only think in their EQ nostalgia red rosed glasses. No wonder they arent catering to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd.
You disappoint when we have been through this before and choose to ignore the fact that SMEDS(who you agree has no reason to lie) says different.
Think me and you have been through this before.
Let's go back shall we?
SOE Live October 2012
Smed.
You mentioned last night that EQ Next will look like nothing we've ever seen. Will EQNext still have the familiar feel to it that EQ fans are used to? How do you strike the balance between innovation and still staying true to the franchise?
I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have.EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system.You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it.
InEverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
At GDC last week, you also talked about how quickly traditional MMO content is consumed and how that plays into your decision to adopt a philosophy toward emergent gameplay. The question comes up about how that affects the future of raid content -- something that takes a lot of time to design and is usually played by only a portion of the community. What are your thoughts on that?
This is a very interesting question. I think it's at the core of why what we're doing is sustainable. I'll go right to the heart of the matter. You get to the point where we make an expansion, and when I say we, I mean the entire MMO community. You make your expansion, the real hardcore players consume it in a month, and they're doing the raids over and over and over until the next round of live content that we put in. Typically, three or four times a year, we as MMO companies put new endgame in there to keep the raiders happy.
We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make because players want that.We're not talking about the end of raids, the end of this incredibly high-level content. We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction. Imagine seasons changing.Imagine if you're a Druid andyou need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness,but you don't know where. Or image forests growing back after they're burned to the ground by invading forces. What we want is a dynamic world that gives all those other possibilities and doesn't just say OK, go to raid X with group composition of X, Y, Z, and kill the dragon for the 52nd time to get the tier 800 gear. It's this rinse-and-repeat gameplay that's got to change, and so we're changing it.
So it seems that the main take on Smed's EQN is not to actually chance the main essence of what EQ is but to make the world more interactive, i living breathing world. All of the key elements are still there, classes, raids and all the other things you would expect from this epic IP.
Again, EQN will be very familiar to EQ players.
Let's not go through this again with you keep repeating the same line only to be called out and countered, you didn't reply to my post last time because you cannot counter what i've just posted from Smed himself.
Why are you copying and pasting stuff into multiple different threads?
Not that i need to explain myself to you but i'll humor you.
Fact is the person i'm quoting is repeating the same line in two different threads so to counter what he is saying i've posted in two different threads.
As long as he keeps saying the same thing i'll repeat the same line to counter what he is saying.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
Again, Smedley is the one who said SOE is relying upon EQN, and there would be no reason to lie about that. He was brutally honest about SOE.
Your right Smed has no reason to lie.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Sometimes fellow EQ players disappoint me that they cant think objectively and only think in their EQ nostalgia red rosed glasses. No wonder they arent catering to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd.
You disappoint when we have been through this before and choose to ignore the fact that SMEDS(who you agree has no reason to lie) says different.
Think me and you have been through this before.
Let's go back shall we?
SOE Live October 2012
Smed.
You mentioned last night that EQ Next will look like nothing we've ever seen. Will EQNext still have the familiar feel to it that EQ fans are used to? How do you strike the balance between innovation and still staying true to the franchise?
I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have.EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system.You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it.
InEverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
At GDC last week, you also talked about how quickly traditional MMO content is consumed and how that plays into your decision to adopt a philosophy toward emergent gameplay. The question comes up about how that affects the future of raid content -- something that takes a lot of time to design and is usually played by only a portion of the community. What are your thoughts on that?
This is a very interesting question. I think it's at the core of why what we're doing is sustainable. I'll go right to the heart of the matter. You get to the point where we make an expansion, and when I say we, I mean the entire MMO community. You make your expansion, the real hardcore players consume it in a month, and they're doing the raids over and over and over until the next round of live content that we put in. Typically, three or four times a year, we as MMO companies put new endgame in there to keep the raiders happy.
We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make because players want that.We're not talking about the end of raids, the end of this incredibly high-level content. We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction. Imagine seasons changing.Imagine if you're a Druid andyou need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness,but you don't know where. Or image forests growing back after they're burned to the ground by invading forces. What we want is a dynamic world that gives all those other possibilities and doesn't just say OK, go to raid X with group composition of X, Y, Z, and kill the dragon for the 52nd time to get the tier 800 gear. It's this rinse-and-repeat gameplay that's got to change, and so we're changing it.
So it seems that the main take on Smed's EQN is not to actually chance the main essence of what EQ is but to make the world more interactive, i living breathing world. All of the key elements are still there, classes, raids and all the other things you would expect from this epic IP.
Again, EQN will be very familiar to EQ players.
Let's not go through this again with you keep repeating the same line only to be called out and countered, you didn't reply to my post last time because you cannot counter what i've just posted from Smed himself.
Why are you copying and pasting stuff into multiple different threads?
Not that i need to explain myself to you but i'll humor you.
Fact is the person i'm quoting is repeating the same line in two different threads so to counter what he is saying i've posted in two different threads.
As long as he keeps saying the same thing i'll repeat the same line to counter what he is saying.
It just means that I will have to repeat myself. You are using two separate quotes of Smedley's to falsely infer a meaning that he never portrayed. He said the class system will be familiar to Everquest fans because it will resemble its roleplaying heritage. That's it. He said raids or high level content will exist but it won't resemble what we see today in themeparks.
No I think it's you who cannot grasp the concept. Open raid bosses with spawn timers is 10 years ago it is not realistic in a sandbox or themepark keep telling yourself it is all you want, but you're wrong. You want a game only 100k people play go for it SOE wants a game 500k-1m play to do that you cannot have top guilds perm camping raid bosses from the majority of your playerbase. There are ways around this triggered spawns, etc you do not need instances for this.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
Again, Smedley is the one who said SOE is relying upon EQN, and there would be no reason to lie about that. He was brutally honest about SOE.
Your right Smed has no reason to lie.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Sometimes fellow EQ players disappoint me that they cant think objectively and only think in their EQ nostalgia red rosed glasses. No wonder they arent catering to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd.
You disappoint when we have been through this before and choose to ignore the fact that SMEDS(who you agree has no reason to lie) says different.
Think me and you have been through this before.
Let's go back shall we?
SOE Live October 2012
Smed.
You mentioned last night that EQ Next will look like nothing we've ever seen. Will EQNext still have the familiar feel to it that EQ fans are used to? How do you strike the balance between innovation and still staying true to the franchise?
I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have.EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system.You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it.
InEverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
At GDC last week, you also talked about how quickly traditional MMO content is consumed and how that plays into your decision to adopt a philosophy toward emergent gameplay. The question comes up about how that affects the future of raid content -- something that takes a lot of time to design and is usually played by only a portion of the community. What are your thoughts on that?
This is a very interesting question. I think it's at the core of why what we're doing is sustainable. I'll go right to the heart of the matter. You get to the point where we make an expansion, and when I say we, I mean the entire MMO community. You make your expansion, the real hardcore players consume it in a month, and they're doing the raids over and over and over until the next round of live content that we put in. Typically, three or four times a year, we as MMO companies put new endgame in there to keep the raiders happy.
We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make because players want that.We're not talking about the end of raids, the end of this incredibly high-level content. We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction. Imagine seasons changing.Imagine if you're a Druid andyou need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness,but you don't know where. Or image forests growing back after they're burned to the ground by invading forces. What we want is a dynamic world that gives all those other possibilities and doesn't just say OK, go to raid X with group composition of X, Y, Z, and kill the dragon for the 52nd time to get the tier 800 gear. It's this rinse-and-repeat gameplay that's got to change, and so we're changing it.
So it seems that the main take on Smed's EQN is not to actually chance the main essence of what EQ is but to make the world more interactive, i living breathing world. All of the key elements are still there, classes, raids and all the other things you would expect from this epic IP.
Again, EQN will be very familiar to EQ players.
Let's not go through this again with you keep repeating the same line only to be called out and countered, you didn't reply to my post last time because you cannot counter what i've just posted from Smed himself.
Why are you copying and pasting stuff into multiple different threads?
Not that i need to explain myself to you but i'll humor you.
Fact is the person i'm quoting is repeating the same line in two different threads so to counter what he is saying i've posted in two different threads.
As long as he keeps saying the same thing i'll repeat the same line to counter what he is saying.
It just means that I will have to repeat myself. You are using two separate quotes of Smedley's to falsely infer a meaning that he never portrayed. He said the class system will be familiar to Everquest fans because it will resemble its roleplaying heritage. That's it. He said raids or high level content will exist but it won't resemble what we see today in themeparks.
And it seems i must repeat myself.
Nope in the fist question he mention nothing about classes, it's only later he mentions a druid having to prey to a deity for certain skills.
And nope he never even mentions the word themepark in the whole interview, he says that they will still include raids because that is what his fanbase wants. What the raids are like doesn't matter, the fact is that raids will be in and that is something the EQ fanbase can relate to.
As Smed said: EQN will still be very familiar to EQ players.
They didn't really 'solve' anything for Vanguard. The world has lots of little square zones with chunk lines. The whole experience is not seamless at all. Mobs do not path over chunk lines and it is very noticable when you zone through one.
It is more of a poorly executed illusion than anything else.
Oh come on. Now you're just spinning like a top, trying to cling to an argument you refuse to let go of. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, where there's no argument to be made.
And by the by, every seamless world MMO is divided up into chunks, hosted across different servers. The only reason you notice it in Vanguard is because they did a poor job of moving the player between servers as they cross from one chunk to another.
The raid bosses are not locked up in private instances. They're out in the open world. Hence open world, non instanced boss battles. How the world is managed or presented has nothing to do with it. The world could be contained in discrete zones (ie. FFXI, EQ1/2, etc) and it would still be "open world, non-instanced", because they're not locked up in private instances.
Another MMO that's done open world bosses for years is Lineage 2. Here's a map showing the locations of them. Anywhere you see a colored number is the location of a world raid boss.
FFXI has a number of world raid bosses that spawn openly out in the world zones, not in instances. You can see videos of them all over YT. Nidhogg, Tiamat, Jormungand, Serket and a number of others... all out in the open. You can be running through an area and find them standing there in front of you.
As I recall, Anarchy Online had them going at least way back to 2001 and also has a number of world Raid bosses, not locked up in private instances.
This isn't some bleeding edge, untested, theoretical technology. It's something that's been possible for over a decade now.
It's one thing to say "never been done", if you're not aware of any examples. But when it's demonstrated to you that it has been, and you continue to cross your arms, shake your head and say "Nope. Never been done", or "Can't be done", that's just intellectual dishonesty. You know you're wrong, you just refuse to admit it.
There's nothing wrong with saying "oh, okay, I was mistaken".
I'll be the first to agree that Smedley's word is as trustworthy as a used car salesman's. He has a history of not living up to his hype and always chooses his wallet over his word. So, whether he's being honest - or twisting the truth - when he says "no instances" is one thing. However, in saying thata non-instanced world can be done is not stretching the truth, because it can be done, and has been done.
They didn't really 'solve' anything for Vanguard. The world has lots of little square zones with chunk lines. The whole experience is not seamless at all. Mobs do not path over chunk lines and it is very noticable when you zone through one.
It is more of a poorly executed illusion than anything else.
Oh come on. Now you're just spinning like a top, trying to cling to an argument you refuse to let go of. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, where there's no argument to be made.
The raid bosses are not locked up in private instances. They're out in the open world. Hence open world, non instanced boss battles.
And by the by, every seamless world MMO is divided up into chunks. The only reason you notice it in Vanguard is because they did a poor job of moving the player between servers as they cross from one chunk to another.
Another MMO that's done open world bosses for years is Lineage 2. Here's a map showing the locations of them. Anywhere you see a colored number is the location of a world raid boss.
It's one thing to say "never been done" if you're not aware of any examples. But when it's demonstrated to you that it has been, and you continue to cross your arms, shake your head and say "Nope. Never been done", that's just intellectual dishonesty. You know you're wrong, you just refuse to admit it.
There's nothing wrong with saying "oh, okay, I was mistaken".
I agree, Vanguard raid bosses or overland raid bosses are in the persistent world not some lock off instance.
Bugging me how people keep asking the same Qs, look at PS2 if you want a hint at what the EQ2 world will be like, it will be open and huge, PS2 was made as proof of concept for EQ:N!!
I'm seeing a lot of posts from people hypothesizing about whether there will be instances or how they don't want there to be, that sort of thing. This is a little old and perhaps forgotten. So, here is the source from Smed himself - EQNext will have zero instancing.
Skipping past all the argumenting in this thread, I want to put forward a couple points... first, in the case of the video, that is several years old, and while at one point they really wanted there to be no instancing, that doesn't mean that it is still possible. And even more important, and you need to keep this in mind always when dealing with John Smedley, is this... John Smedley is a liar. He will look you in the face and say whatever it is what you want to hear most, and he will lie. He will say whatever he has to for the benefit of his game. If no instancing is a feature that everyone wants, he will tell you that there is no instancing, even if the game will be sent out the door a week later filled to the brim with instancing, just as long as he gets a few more dollars for SOE from a few more people. Never trust a word that the man says.
It will be a seamless world, because it will not be rendering everybody in the location for you. There may be a 1000...but you're only going to see/interact with 100
Nope in the fist question he mention nothing about classes, it's only later he mentions a druid having to prey to a deity for certain skills.
And nope he never even mentions the word themepark in the whole interview, he says that they will still include raids because that is what his fanbase wants. What the raids are like doesn't matter, the fact is that raids will be in and that is something the EQ fanbase can relate to.
As Smed said: EQN will still be very familiar to EQ players.
It just shows you haven't actually fully comprehended what you quoted. When he says it isn't going to be a fully skill-based system, it means that the likelihood that it will have classes is high.
There you go again connecting two completely unrelated statements. He didn't say it would be familiar to EQ players because it will have raids, both statements are completely separate. The fighting a mob repeatedly for a chance at a piece of gear only for you to fight a tougher mob for a chance to get a piece of gear is a themepark feature. He specifically dispels those type of raids.A bunch of players getting together and fighting a powerful isn't exactly an Everquest only feature nor a themepark only feature.
Nope in the fist question he mention nothing about classes, it's only later he mentions a druid having to prey to a deity for certain skills.
And nope he never even mentions the word themepark in the whole interview, he says that they will still include raids because that is what his fanbase wants. What the raids are like doesn't matter, the fact is that raids will be in and that is something the EQ fanbase can relate to.
As Smed said: EQN will still be very familiar to EQ players.
It just shows you haven't actually fully comprehended what you quoted. When he says it isn't going to be a fully skill-based system, it means that the likelihood that it will have classes is high.
And it shows you haven't been reading what i'm saying, we know there is a lightly hood there will be classes, he mentions a druid later on in that interview. EQN having classes was never the debate between me and you.
There you go again connecting two completely unrelated statements. He didn't say it would be familiar to EQ players because it will have raids, both statements are completely separate.
Nope i haven't connected anything, think you are the one who first bought raids into this debate between me and you. My point is that he says the game will still be familiar in answer to the question asked which was: will eqn still feel familiar to what EQ players are used to.
So from that it's apparent that EQN will still familiar to EQ players.
The fighting a mob repeatedly for a chance at a piece of gear only for you to fight a tougher mob for a chance to get a piece of gear is a themepark feature.
Again that's not what i'm debating about, something you have bought to the debate lol.
He specifically dispels those type of raids.A bunch of players getting together and fighting a powerful isn't exactly an Everquest only feature nor a themepark only feature.
What has that got to do with our debate, and you keep going on about themepark which is not part of our debate.
So yeah i'm glad EQN will be new concepts but still familiar to EQ players, it's going to be a good move by Smed to still keep his current player base happy.
As for the PVP subject, well yes EQN will have PVP like EQ had but will he turn the EQ ip into a PVP ip where the game is built around PVP.
I really can't see it but we only have a a month to wait and all will be made clear.
It's going to be fun reading these forums on that day.
In many ways, I dislike instances. However, the term 'worlds biggest sandbox' and 'no instances' do not match up for me. I feel that comparing Planetside 2's capabilities with the hypothesized EQNext implementation is wrong. A FPS game benefits greatly from having no instances - just more people to shoot!
A sandbox game however will benefit greatly from players playing how they want, when they want. Until I hear otherwise, I feel there will be some form of instancing. Only August 2nd will tell.
Comments
Instancing isn't bad when it is done right like in Vanilla WoW where the whole world was seamless and there were a handful of main instances that took up actual real world space and you had to go through buildings and caves that weren't instanced to get to them.
The problem because when you make the world zoned, you do phasing, there are too many instances and you add fast travel to the instances etc etc.
You should never be able to warp to an instance, it needs to have travel time to keep the world populated, you should retire old instances and do something new with that space like an old theme park ride and you shouldn't over instance. You don't see theme parks just keep making the park bigger, they then would become too cluttered, you'd have massive amounts of areas with no one in and old rides become boring so people don't go to them.
Sadly no developer has got them right since, not even Blizzard who have ruined WoW.
Tbh I'd prefer open world bosses and events to involve everyone, you used to be able to do them easily but now MMOs are so popular it is harder to control.
Says you.
Those mechanics would work today just like they worked then. Just because you and your pals want another game where everyone can be "the winner" doesn't mean everyone does. I'd rather play a game with 100-500k players where accomplishments meant something than endure another hand-holding, meaningless, circle-jerk where everyone gets a lollipop and everyone is equal regardless of their time devotion and ability to coordinate with others.
In the words of a wise man, "if [you] want linear and coddled, theres plenty of other games" for you to choose. - Smedley
Based on your post history, this won't be your cup of tea.
Have to respectfully disagree. If they released Everquest 1 today without the horrible UI, with updated graphics, etc, the game would not perform well. And I enjoyed EQ1.. for its time. This isnt the time for EQ1 anymore. The early 2000s was such a different time in gaming that it worked then. It's smart that they are straying away from EQ1 and EQ2.
And since youre being a smartass -- Smedley and Georgeson have consistently said this game this game is "UNFAMILIAR" direct quote, to EQ1 and EQ2, but that is has so many cool features that it'll be fine. And he isnt worried about EQ1 or EQ2 dying because EQN is such a different experience that people who love EQ1 will still play EQ1. The hidden line in that is that they arent targeting the EQ1/EQ2 players, which is smart. They are targeting the whole MMORPG genre, and you can't alienate them. They pretty much know how stubborn their current player base is. Smedley has also gone as far as to say the future of SOE as a company is relying on EQN's success. So if EQN fails, SOE is done.
Cater to few, cater to a lot with jobs on the line.. Just saying. I think EQN will be an awesome game, but they will cater more towards the whole MMORPG genre rather than trying to win over EQ1/EQ2 players.
Lol, if EQN fails SOE is done? Hardly.
EQ1 and EQ2 today are nothing like classic Everquest (which you didn't play, stop joshin').
The A, number 1, primo, top reason every major MMO in the last 8 years has failed has been their desire to "appeal to everyone" by catering to the lowest common denominator. People are tired of these trivial themeparks that have removed the RP and immersion from the MMORPG. This game may have mass appeal, but it will be more likely to have mass appeal for the reasons Eve does than WoW and its subsequent clones.
We may not know the details yet, but you can expect immersion and competition to return to the genre with EQ Next.
That's old news to be fare and said before they remade certain parts of the game but i still think it stands.
Don't tell me that, tell John Smedley that. The President of SOE said SOE is pretty much in the balance with EQN. If you havent noticed, Dragon's Prophet is more like Dragon's Failure, Planetside 2 is eh, and they cant ride off EQ1/EQ2 forever.
It wouldnt completely shock me at all if jobs were on the line with EQN, they can't afford to put out a mediocre experience with their flagship IP
Again, Smedley is the one who said SOE is relying upon EQN, and there would be no reason to lie about that. He was brutally honest about SOE.
But, I guess you're going to say Dave Georgeson is lying too for saying EQN will be unfamiliar to EQ1/EQ2 and what that means. It means they want a DIFFERENT GAME THAN EQ1/EQ2! Imagine that! Of course they want to change the genre and create immersion, EQ1 isnt the only way to create immersion in an MMORPG..
Sometimes fellow EQ players disappoint me that they cant think objectively and only think in their EQ nostalgia red rosed glasses. No wonder they arent catering to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd.
The game will have raids, Smed has said this in December 2012 after the remake. And yes i played EQ from 1999 to present day on and off. Open raid bosses are not dead, what made you think that?
Here's how different it's going to be, just like the other 2 EQs are different from one another.
https://twitter.com/DaveGeorgeson/status/349901394062487552
Not more, not less...
That comment makes no sense what so ever.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Ermm mobs do path over chunk lines in Vanguard lol and yes i've played for 6.5 years and know for a fact that mobs path across chunk lines but they act differently. And Vanguards non instanced dungeons work very well, the secret is to make your dungeons vast and multi level and numerous.
Log into Vanguard and fight a mob on a chunk line and come back and tell mobs don't cross chunks.
Think me and you have been through this before.
Let's go back shall we?
SOE Live October 2012
Smed.
You mentioned last night that EQ Next will look like nothing we've ever seen. Will EQ Next still have the familiar feel to it that EQ fans are used to? How do you strike the balance between innovation and still staying true to the franchise?
I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have.EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system.You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it.
InEverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
At GDC last week, you also talked about how quickly traditional MMO content is consumed and how that plays into your decision to adopt a philosophy toward emergent gameplay. The question comes up about how that affects the future of raid content -- something that takes a lot of time to design and is usually played by only a portion of the community. What are your thoughts on that?
This is a very interesting question. I think it's at the core of why what we're doing is sustainable. I'll go right to the heart of the matter. You get to the point where we make an expansion, and when I say we, I mean the entire MMO community. You make your expansion, the real hardcore players consume it in a month, and they're doing the raids over and over and over until the next round of live content that we put in. Typically, three or four times a year, we as MMO companies put new endgame in there to keep the raiders happy.
We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make because players want that. We're not talking about the end of raids, the end of this incredibly high-level content. We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction. Imagine seasons changing.Imagine if you're a Druid and you need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness, but you don't know where. Or image forests growing back after they're burned to the ground by invading forces. What we want is a dynamic world that gives all those other possibilities and doesn't just say OK, go to raid X with group composition of X, Y, Z, and kill the dragon for the 52nd time to get the tier 800 gear. It's this rinse-and-repeat gameplay that's got to change, and so we're changing it.
So it seems that the main take on Smed's EQN is not to actually chance the main essence of what EQ is but to make the world more interactive, i living breathing world. All of the key elements are still there, classes, raids and all the other things you would expect from this epic IP.
Again, EQN will be very familiar to EQ players.
Let's not go through this again with you keep repeating the same line only to be called out and countered, you didn't reply to my post last time because you cannot counter what i've just posted from Smed himself.
Why are you copying and pasting stuff into multiple different threads?
Not that i need to explain myself to you but i'll humor you.
Fact is the person i'm quoting is repeating the same line in two different threads so to counter what he is saying i've posted in two different threads.
As long as he keeps saying the same thing i'll repeat the same line to counter what he is saying.
It just means that I will have to repeat myself. You are using two separate quotes of Smedley's to falsely infer a meaning that he never portrayed. He said the class system will be familiar to Everquest fans because it will resemble its roleplaying heritage. That's it. He said raids or high level content will exist but it won't resemble what we see today in themeparks.
And it seems i must repeat myself.
Nope in the fist question he mention nothing about classes, it's only later he mentions a druid having to prey to a deity for certain skills.
And nope he never even mentions the word themepark in the whole interview, he says that they will still include raids because that is what his fanbase wants. What the raids are like doesn't matter, the fact is that raids will be in and that is something the EQ fanbase can relate to.
As Smed said: EQN will still be very familiar to EQ players.
Oh come on. Now you're just spinning like a top, trying to cling to an argument you refuse to let go of. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, where there's no argument to be made.
And by the by, every seamless world MMO is divided up into chunks, hosted across different servers. The only reason you notice it in Vanguard is because they did a poor job of moving the player between servers as they cross from one chunk to another.
The raid bosses are not locked up in private instances. They're out in the open world. Hence open world, non instanced boss battles. How the world is managed or presented has nothing to do with it. The world could be contained in discrete zones (ie. FFXI, EQ1/2, etc) and it would still be "open world, non-instanced", because they're not locked up in private instances.
Another MMO that's done open world bosses for years is Lineage 2. Here's a map showing the locations of them. Anywhere you see a colored number is the location of a world raid boss.
FFXI has a number of world raid bosses that spawn openly out in the world zones, not in instances. You can see videos of them all over YT. Nidhogg, Tiamat, Jormungand, Serket and a number of others... all out in the open. You can be running through an area and find them standing there in front of you.
As I recall, Anarchy Online had them going at least way back to 2001 and also has a number of world Raid bosses, not locked up in private instances.
This isn't some bleeding edge, untested, theoretical technology. It's something that's been possible for over a decade now.
It's one thing to say "never been done", if you're not aware of any examples. But when it's demonstrated to you that it has been, and you continue to cross your arms, shake your head and say "Nope. Never been done", or "Can't be done", that's just intellectual dishonesty. You know you're wrong, you just refuse to admit it.
There's nothing wrong with saying "oh, okay, I was mistaken".
I'll be the first to agree that Smedley's word is as trustworthy as a used car salesman's. He has a history of not living up to his hype and always chooses his wallet over his word. So, whether he's being honest - or twisting the truth - when he says "no instances" is one thing. However, in saying that a non-instanced world can be done is not stretching the truth, because it can be done, and has been done.
I agree, Vanguard raid bosses or overland raid bosses are in the persistent world not some lock off instance.
www.daneslaw.com
@GamerKurisu
Awaiting Darkfall Unholy Wars
Skipping past all the argumenting in this thread, I want to put forward a couple points... first, in the case of the video, that is several years old, and while at one point they really wanted there to be no instancing, that doesn't mean that it is still possible. And even more important, and you need to keep this in mind always when dealing with John Smedley, is this... John Smedley is a liar. He will look you in the face and say whatever it is what you want to hear most, and he will lie. He will say whatever he has to for the benefit of his game. If no instancing is a feature that everyone wants, he will tell you that there is no instancing, even if the game will be sent out the door a week later filled to the brim with instancing, just as long as he gets a few more dollars for SOE from a few more people. Never trust a word that the man says.
have none of you in this thread played PS2?
It will be a seamless world, because it will not be rendering everybody in the location for you. There may be a 1000...but you're only going to see/interact with 100
It just shows you haven't actually fully comprehended what you quoted. When he says it isn't going to be a fully skill-based system, it means that the likelihood that it will have classes is high.
There you go again connecting two completely unrelated statements. He didn't say it would be familiar to EQ players because it will have raids, both statements are completely separate. The fighting a mob repeatedly for a chance at a piece of gear only for you to fight a tougher mob for a chance to get a piece of gear is a themepark feature. He specifically dispels those type of raids.A bunch of players getting together and fighting a powerful isn't exactly an Everquest only feature nor a themepark only feature.
Anyone trying to infer from this video whether there will be instanced raids is kidding themself.
I repeat: this video is not about instancing as a game design mechanic. It's describing the power of the engine.
All it's saying is that for the first time in franchise history, players won't see LOADING PLEASE WAIT as they run from Freeport to Qeynos.
So yeah i'm glad EQN will be new concepts but still familiar to EQ players, it's going to be a good move by Smed to still keep his current player base happy.
As for the PVP subject, well yes EQN will have PVP like EQ had but will he turn the EQ ip into a PVP ip where the game is built around PVP.
I really can't see it but we only have a a month to wait and all will be made clear.
It's going to be fun reading these forums on that day.
In many ways, I dislike instances. However, the term 'worlds biggest sandbox' and 'no instances' do not match up for me. I feel that comparing Planetside 2's capabilities with the hypothesized EQNext implementation is wrong. A FPS game benefits greatly from having no instances - just more people to shoot!
A sandbox game however will benefit greatly from players playing how they want, when they want. Until I hear otherwise, I feel there will be some form of instancing. Only August 2nd will tell.