Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

My Plea for EQN

VoqarVoqar Phoenix, AZPosts: 498Member

The MMORPG genre started out as a somewhat hardcore genre that featured a lot of grouping and a lot of challenge.  It was never a genre everybody could get into, because some people just can't handle it, or don't have the time for it.  And that's ok.

 

The early games like EverQuest itself, DAoC, and FFXI defined this genre and those games are STILL successful today, have always been successful, and have always been sub-based with P2P boxes and xpacs.

 

Since then we've had the fluke of WoW.  And since WoW, for reasons that defy any kind of reason, the genre has shifted away from the thing it does best, and the thing that's unique about the the genre, the grouping, and has shifted towards solo gameplay.  At the same time it has shifted away from challenge and reward towards giving away rewards for every trivial little action.

 

Achievement in the early MMORPGs meant something.  You really had to work at stuff and when you were done you felt good about it.  In MMORPGs now there are grinds - which are miserable - but the overall challenge just isn't there and rewards are handed out like candy for doing nothing. It's so much more hollow and shallow.  Worse yet, in F2P you can just buy your achievements for cash - nice sense of accomplishment there.  Where'd you get that cool XXX?  I bought it from the store.  Oh.  Nice.  You are so uber.

 

And all the clones that have come out with this formula of solo ez-mode?  Failures.  They pay for themselves, but ultimately they are failures because they fail to stay sub-based and fail to retain players.  Whereas the older MMORPGs had/have loyal players for years and years, the newer MMORPGs can't even keep people around for a whole year.  Because solo ez mode isn't worth a sub and there's no reason to stick around games where you exhaust the solo campaign in days and there isn't much else to do.

 

These games have to go F2P, which is an abomination and the worst thing to happen to (real) MMORPGs, but it's a model that works for solo/casual/light games that aren't worthy of a sub.  For real MMORPGs players, F2P games aren't even worth playing.

 

So.

 

I realize the EQN dudes want to do something different.  That can be good.  But how about as part of being different, you take the genre back to where it started WITH EVERQUEST, and return the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER to MMORPG.  Massively multiplayer isn't a bunch of soloists sharing a world and generating intelligence insulting public chat.  It's people doing things together.  Not PvE or PvP zergs.  Grouping.  Raids.  Community forged by grouping MOST OF THE TIME.  Developing player reputation.  Seeing the same people.  The stuff that made the original MMORPGs some of the best gaming ever.

 

Solo should be something you do when you have little time and can't group - and should be something that's horribly inefficient.  Grouping should be the way you get things done.  Like in the older MMORPGs.  Don't like it?  Don't play.  It's very simple.  A bazillion single players and every failed F2P MMORPG are there for ya.  Flip it around.  Most newer MMORPGs are like 90% solo and 10% optional grouping.  Lets flip it so that you group 95% of the time with solo barely being there.

 

 

This idiotic trend of making solo heavy MMORPGs boggles my mind.  There was never anything wrong with the early MMORPGs.  Why do MMORPG devs keep making MMORPGs that attempt to cater to everyone EXCPEPT the people who helped create the genre and who love the genre?  So many newer players just complain endlessly about the gameplay you mutilate to suit them - they don't even really like MMORPGs but you keep trying to suck them in.  Why keep chasing casuals and soloists when those types of games do not succeed and those players will not be loyal or stick around?

 

Sadly at this point it would be radical and different to make an MMORPG that is group heavy and anything but stupidly easy mode.  It's so sick and wrong that it's come to this.  But it's a chance for SOME dev...you know...like maybe the company that was part of establishing the genre in the first place, to return the genre to its roots and bring back the magic.

 

The other thing is that for that magic to work, you have to ditch the F2P travesty.  F2P is simply garbage for MMORPGs.  It works if you wanna make a game nobody gives a crap about and for players who flit between games and have no loyalty, or worse, are bottom feeders looking for a free ride.  F2P is good for casual games - and no truly good MMORPG has ever been casual.  Sub-based is the only way to create a truly quality gaming experience - and if you make a game WORTH a sub, people will pay.  They did in the early days and for those games that are actually worth a sub, they still pay.

 

Pay to win is shit.  All MMORPGs with F2P have some element of pay to win.  All players should be paying the same amount.  All cool stuff should be earned by playing, not paying extra.  All players should have equal potential to earn rewards by beating challenges - by playing - and where success is determined by how you play, not how much you're willing to pay.  That is how the genre started.  That is why those games are still the best the genre has produced.  You charge a sub so everyone is on the same footing for amount paid, and let the players forge a path from there BY PLAYING.

 

The solo ez mode games that are F2P cater to scrubs who want no challenge, reward for doing nothing, or to flat out buy their way thru games akin to having console cheat codes in single player games - except they're so much more losers that they'll pay to cheat.

 

So yeah, make a game that's different.  Make a game worth a sub, that is group heavy, and that has nice amounts of challenge.  Put the MM back in MMORPG.  Return the genre to the glory of the early years.

 

The last thing the MMORPG genre needs is yet another steaming pile of F2P solo ez mode crap.

 

 

Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.

«1

Comments

  • goozmaniagoozmania chino, CAPosts: 145Member Uncommon
    You're a bit late, meng. They've already shown us that it is a predominately single player action game, and it will definitely be F2P... And, not only that, but they are pretty excited about that fact, too.
  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member

    Unfortunately, EQN won't be close to anything that made EQ1 popular.  It will be a watered down MMO, revolving around a cashshop, in which every player can be a hero, or buy their success, all without being P2W (because it's all PVE purchases, right?).

     

    EQN is a console game, frankly, best played on consoles.  No bother upgrading your system if you want to play it .. just buy a PS4.  There is enough buttons to do everything you want in an action adventure lobby game :P

     

     

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • shassshass leicesterPosts: 105Member

    Bang on post Vo - It amazes me why all the companies throw bucketloads of money at one failing project after another. Once a game is released they then start dumbing it down - aka Rift - until there is no longer any challenge or a reason to log in. A lot of a games longevity stems from players rolling Alts to try another class. Unfortunately, with today's generic one size fits all, we can do anything, characters - there is no point. One of the beauties of older game mechanics was the fact that some character abilities were unique, and a group needed their skills. This led to problems when that class was not available, but surely a better answer could be found than making everyone the same.

    Unfortunately EQnext looks like it follows the same route - bland. But with the added drawback of kiddie graphics. Why the mad rush for stylized graphics that are so childish? Apparently they date slower.... but my son used commonly available mods to make my old copy of Morrowind look amazing, so surely a deep and immersive MMORPG could be good looking and kept updated? I feel no desire to explore a cartoon world.

    Maybe one day someone will use the kickstarter system to take a risk and make something similar to what you suggest; no other company appears to understand anything other than a short term money making venture, aka wow clone but simpler, and it does not work.

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,657Member Uncommon

    While many could obviously care less what SOE has to say (yet they still follow their games), they have said that community and social connection will be very important in EQN.

    As there are no levels or vertical progression, P2W doesn't come easy, nor does soloing the entire game. Grouping and roles will be important.

    Subs (at least traditional) don't pay the bills anymore. EQ/EQ2 still have subs, just with cash shops tacked on, it's a win/win for SOE.

    EQ, DAoC, and Vanilla WoW were great times. I don't believe WoW was a fluke however. As it grew, all other games declined. If players preferred the styles of EQ/DAoC, they wouldn't of stuck around in WoW. Many people like being able to solo for 10 mins or 10 hours or group and do hard content with friends. WoW catered to this. It opened the mmo doors to millions that would most likely not made it past a few levels in EQ or DAoC. Does that make WoW crap, I don't think so.

    Many clones have tried to copy the formula and have failed, because they weren't as good, plain and simple. WoW's only downfall was itself and trying to compete with all the clones trying to compete with it. A race towards the bottom.

    EQ was a small game in comparison and while it had a lot of pros, it wasn't short of cons either. There were plenty of annoying people in 1999 EQ just as there were in 2007 WoW.

    For me, a game is what I make of it. If you try your hardest to not have fun and find all the flaws, you aren't going to enjoy yourself. If you make the best of it and make friends and play the game, you'll be happy.

    While I don't believe EQN is trying to rekindle some long forgotten magic, it is trying to break the cycle and go down it's own road. At this point, I think that is the best bet.

    Cloning EQ or some special formula from 15 years ago is not the answer. It worked back then do to a long list of factors. Those factors have all drastically changed. It's great to remember the good ole days, but those days are gone. Live in the moment and look forward to the future.

    I'm looking forward to EQN and most likely will have a great time in it for years, just as I did in EQ, DAoC, and WoW. All three previous games gave me completely different experiences. I hope EQN can match or even top them.

    People can choose to believe SOE or not, but it all boils down to just being another game. Some will love it and some will hate it. I believe SOE (for now) and that EQN will provide a challenge and a lot of long term entertainments without all the grind and hassle that has been the downfall of so many games. While "fun" is a bad word around here, I want to have fun. Be it for 30 minutes or 5 hours. Alone, with a few friends, an entire guild, or a decent chunk of the server. Games that can cater to everyone and do it well, will succeed. Games that continue to focus only on a few play styles (Wildstar, TESO) are doomed to repeat the same pattern that has been going on for years.

  • MattatronMattatron Dunlap, ILPosts: 226Member
    Originally posted by Voqar

    Solo should be something you do when you have little time and can't group - and should be something that's horribly inefficient.  Grouping should be the way you get things done.  Like in the older MMORPGs.  Don't like it?  Don't play.  It's very simple.  A bazillion single players and every failed F2P MMORPG are there for ya.  Flip it around.  Most newer MMORPGs are like 90% solo and 10% optional grouping.  Lets flip it so that you group 95% of the time with solo barely being there.

    You answered your own post in this paragraph. Game production is about making money.

     

    Let's say I open a restaurant and the house specialty is "garlic and anchovy flavored meatballs". Customers can walk in, sit, and expect immediate delivery of garlic and anchovy flavored meatballs, while other dinners, like a cheeseburger, might take up to an hour to serve, while the delicate wafting scent of garlic and anchovy meatball lingers throughout the place and out the door. This would make huge fans of garlic and anchovy flavored meatballs particularly happy, maybe so much that they'd frequent the restaurant many times per week. People not-so-fond of the meatballs would likely steer clear, maybe even avoiding neighboring businesses if the smell bothers them.

     

    Now, add the fact my restaurant costs 50 million to 100 million dollars to open. I have a very specialized customer base, very happy with my product, but it's going to take me 1200 years to start making a profit. I only plan to live 900 years, so unfortunately the burden to run the restaurant will fall on my 700 year old children who, when I pass, might change the menu.

     

    It would be great if all production companies did things solely for the love of the genre or medium. It would be great if Publisher's Clearing House showed up at my door right now with a check. World peace would be great. I'd even go for a law stipulating every female 18-24 that resembled Jessica Alba in Sin City spend 1 hour a day in my bedroom half-clad. It's not going to happen. The sooner we accept it's not going to happen, we can move on.

  • donpopukidonpopuki Dearborn, MIPosts: 591Member
    The hardcoreness and massive multi player aspect of EQN is unknown. SOE explicitly stated they want to cater to the hardcore crowd but at the same time cater to casuals as well. IMO it is possible to do both and it makes better business sense.

    We don't know what the death penalties are, how hard mobs can be or what sort of progession there will be (there will be vertical progession of some sort but so far they refuse to talk about it).
  • EnrifEnrif PforzheimPosts: 151Member Uncommon

    "People are very very smart"

    "If you want to invade that dragon den, bring better a group"

    "If you want to invade the orcs  you don't do it alone or with a friend, but with a small army"

     

    satisfied?

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member

    Nowhere, anywhere have they said that this game will be only solo easy mode.  In-fact like the previous post what they have said is that there will be a mix of content including stuff for the solo crowd all the way up to the hard core bring an army crowd.  Just because there is something for you to do while you are soloing, maybe you can't commit more then 20 minutes but you want to do something, doesn't mean the game is less rich, less hardcore.  Go find the hard core areas and enjoy them.

    We haven't even seen a real combat demo yet so please hold your judgment at least until you have some facts to back up your rant.

  • RusqueRusque Las Vegas, NVPosts: 2,229Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Voqar

    Since then we've had the fluke of WoW.  And since WoW, for reasons that defy any kind of reason, the genre has shifted away from the thing it does best, and the thing that's unique about the the genre, the grouping, and has shifted towards solo gameplay.  At the same time it has shifted away from challenge and reward towards giving away rewards for every trivial little action.

    You can't fathom any kind of reason for the shift?

    Selective memories abound on MMORPG.com! WoW wasn't designed with some nefarious plot in mind to ruin all your fun. MMO gamers had been complaining about various issues and Blizzard listened. I know people like to pretend that imaginary gamers just showed up to play WoW, but the initial playerbase was EQ'ers who were fed up with EQ. "Why are there so few QUESTS in everQUEST?" If I had a nickel for every time I heard that I would be able to buy Blizzard.

     

    That's how businesses work, they see a demand, they fill that demand. Just because you don't agree with the direction something is taking doesn't mean it defies reason. The changes in the genre make perfect sense. Players asked for stuff, players got stuff, more players got interested. The MMO community was microscopic compared to what it is today.

    Games as bad as SWTOR have as many players as EQ did in it's prime. That shows you how many people are floating around the MMO industry looking for games.

     

    Whenever someone brings up games that currently could use players, DFUW, EVE, Vanguard, Wurm online . . . there's always  a list of reasons why a person isn't interested.  Then when a game like FFARR comes out, there's a line out the door of people trying to play.

    You tell me why developers aren't responding to these cries for a more old school approach. Because those of you who claim to want it aren't putting your money where your mouth is. You scream and whine all day, but heaven forbid you go out and support games that might encourage future development of games you want. You can clearly see that the other side of the MMO community (the non-"old school") are quite ready and willing to spend money - so games keep getting made for them. Shocking, I know.

     

    "Well it's not my job to spend money on something that isn't done to my standards, that's why I don't play those games."

    Yes, yes it is your job. As a consumer who wants a certain type of product, it falls on your shoulders to show the developers that you're worth developing for.

    People love to talk about how great Vanguard is, then they say that it would be great if it had a development team behind it updating it. Why? Why should they do that? There is no proof that any of you would play it, simply because you don't play it. If Vanguard somehow found itself with 400-500k players tomorrow, you can bet SOE would take notice. It's not in a businesses interest to leave money on the table.

    But there is no money, because you (general 'you', referring to people who want these types of games)  don't support them.

     

    What defies reason, is the misguided belief that these pre-WoW style MMO's should be made. There's no proof that players will support it. You say you will, but what happens when something isn't to your liking? You leave it to gather dust. Don't you guys realize that there's no incentive to pursue people like yourselves?

  • solarbear88solarbear88 BathurstPosts: 73Member
    I have a strong suspicion that the areas around towns will be pretty easy but as you push into the wilderness you will need a small group to continue. That would be my ideal mmo.
  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Voqar

    ...

    I realize the EQN dudes want to do something different.  That can be good.  But how about as part of being different, you take the genre back to where it started WITH EVERQUEST, and return the MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER to MMORPG. 

     ...

    Well and that is wrong it started with UO, or even before.. and i really played enough DikuMUDs (from what EQ is based on).

    So, no thanks. I want my UO back.. and as funny it sounds EQN looks at the moment a lot more like UO instead of EQ.. and i do think that is a good thing.. Maybe they get some other influences from UO, too.

    And apart from influences from earlier games.. exactly that happend the last 15 years.. they very extremely similar to the game before it... and it is really time that we do something different, we do something new.. and i hail EQN for doing exactly that.

    Hopefully it turns out as a good and fresh experience, and not like another clone we have played the last 15 years.

  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAPosts: 925Member Uncommon

    Before the OP went on a thinly-disguised rant against the micro-transaction business model, there was a very good point about making MMORPGs more group-dependent.  I'll focus on that.

    In order for an MMORPG to be more group dependent, it needs to be hostile to solo play.   Combat needs to be difficult unless there are people to help.  It should be very dangerous with a high risk of death, even with a group of 3 or 4 others.  And that death needs to have some significance for the player, an in-game reason to avoid death.

    The OP mentions EQ as a group-dependent game.  To some degree, it was.  But even in the very early days, the core group mechanism showed signs of weakness.  EQ1 also had classes that were designed to be more solo-friendly.   Once the druid and necromancers discovered they could safely kite, these classes zoomed to level 40+ while the vast majority of players were hoping to reach the teens.   The xp from a mob was constant, and xp sharing in a group encouraged people to think they could get better experience without the group, because they would get all the xp (discounting the theoretical increase in kill-speed by a group).   The earliest major patches to EQ1 were to address these issues.   Necros were 'nerfed' and group bonuses added to attempt to rectify these problems.   The early game mechanisms simply rewarded the solo player more than the group mechanic, and the player base learned that lesson.

    Returning to a group-centric game will require solid game mechanics from the start.   A group should be just as necessary in the level 1 newbie area as in the max-level dungeon.  No character class could exist that is independent in combat, nor allow tactics to make them a stand-alone group, including pets (minions), hirelings, movement altering affects or other means.  The combat functions of absorb damage (tank), apply damage (DPS), and remove damage (heal) must be kept out of a single character, to any degree.  Subordinate roles (buffs in particular) should not unbalance these restrictions.   Class X should not be able to solo just because it has Buff Z from a higher level.

    Making a group-centric MMORPG is definitely possible, but the mechanisms must be clearly defined to keep the game controlled.  Maybe grouping is bad for business, or simply out of fashion, but that extra dedication to the group game appears to be lacking in current game developers.

     

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • solochoowookiesolochoowookie Redmond, WAPosts: 35Member
    Originally posted by Enrif

    "People are very very smart"

    "If you want to invade that dragon den, bring better a group"

    "If you want to invade the orcs  you don't do it alone or with a friend, but with a small army"

     

    satisfied?

    But, will they be able to make big trouble for Moose or Squirrel?   

  • flclimaxflclimax Hempstead, NYPosts: 92Member Common
    Originally posted by Rusque
    Originally posted by Voqar

    Since then we've had the fluke of WoW.  And since WoW, for reasons that defy any kind of reason, the genre has shifted away from the thing it does best, and the thing that's unique about the the genre, the grouping, and has shifted towards solo gameplay.  At the same time it has shifted away from challenge and reward towards giving away rewards for every trivial little action.

    You can't fathom any kind of reason for the shift?

    Selective memories abound on MMORPG.com! WoW wasn't designed with some nefarious plot in mind to ruin all your fun. MMO gamers had been complaining about various issues and Blizzard listened. I know people like to pretend that imaginary gamers just showed up to play WoW, but the initial playerbase was EQ'ers who were fed up with EQ. "Why are there so few QUESTS in everQUEST?" If I had a nickel for every time I heard that I would be able to buy Blizzard.

     

    That's how businesses work, they see a demand, they fill that demand. Just because you don't agree with the direction something is taking doesn't mean it defies reason. The changes in the genre make perfect sense. Players asked for stuff, players got stuff, more players got interested. The MMO community was microscopic compared to what it is today.

    Games as bad as SWTOR have as many players as EQ did in it's prime. That shows you how many people are floating around the MMO industry looking for games.

     

    Whenever someone brings up games that currently could use players, DFUW, EVE, Vanguard, Wurm online . . . there's always  a list of reasons why a person isn't interested.  Then when a game like FFARR comes out, there's a line out the door of people trying to play.

    You tell me why developers aren't responding to these cries for a more old school approach. Because those of you who claim to want it aren't putting your money where your mouth is. You scream and whine all day, but heaven forbid you go out and support games that might encourage future development of games you want. You can clearly see that the other side of the MMO community (the non-"old school") are quite ready and willing to spend money - so games keep getting made for them. Shocking, I know.

     

    "Well it's not my job to spend money on something that isn't done to my standards, that's why I don't play those games."

    Yes, yes it is your job. As a consumer who wants a certain type of product, it falls on your shoulders to show the developers that you're worth developing for.

    People love to talk about how great Vanguard is, then they say that it would be great if it had a development team behind it updating it. Why? Why should they do that? There is no proof that any of you would play it, simply because you don't play it. If Vanguard somehow found itself with 400-500k players tomorrow, you can bet SOE would take notice. It's not in a businesses interest to leave money on the table.

    But there is no money, because you (general 'you', referring to people who want these types of games)  don't support them.

     

    What defies reason, is the misguided belief that these pre-WoW style MMO's should be made. There's no proof that players will support it. You say you will, but what happens when something isn't to your liking? You leave it to gather dust. Don't you guys realize that there's no incentive to pursue people like yourselves?

     

  • PlumpPlump Acushnet, MAPosts: 10Member

    I feel like EQN has become the litmus test for success or failure for future MMORPGS. Well traveled, seasoned MMORPG gamers are hanging all of the genre's hopes and aspirations on the success of EQN. This is essentially setting yourselves up for disappointment and failure. The nostalgia you experienced while playing your first serious MMORPG CANNOT be replicated. It was a unique equation that added to such levels of unprecedented stimuli. Some of the major factors include the emergence of massive human social interaction via an exciting new technological breakthrough mechanism...The Internet, a fresh and unsullied genre, new immersion, new gameplay interaction, and a younger, less reality-tainted version of YOURSELF.

     

    I feel your pain, I really do. I am also in dire need of a new time-sink. let's just put everything in context , that's all.

     

     

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,453Member Uncommon

    I agree with most of your post but you missed your own point about the fluke that was Wow.Why do you think so many games copy that simple game and it's cartoon graphics?Other devs believe that is the formula for success even though they see game after game fail doing the exact same thing.

    BTW Wow did not increase while other games declined,the population in other games was so low and there were very few games as is.There was no movement,Wow simply cashed in on the new wave of gamer's that got DSL. over the year or two prior.

    As to paying the bills,games do more than pay the bills,they make profits,that is why they keep making them.The cash shop is simply greed and abuse of it's loyal patrons.FFXI does not and Square Enix has never had any form of cash shop and it does just fine.

    My only plea for EQN would be to lose the cash shop,but i know 100% for fact that is not happening.It would not surprise me one bit ,if SOE tries to implement the cash shop during Landmark to have players fund the game lol.

     


    Samoan Diamond

  • ZorgoZorgo Deepintheheartof, TXPosts: 2,226Member
    @OP: Not that you are wrong necessarily; but what evidence do you have that it will be a solo friendly game on easy mode?
  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,752Member Uncommon

    EQN wont be anything like EQ was in its heyday....You dont have to look any further than EQ1 itself to know that is true......SOE is looking to make big bucks on this and you dont do that by making a hardcore game that appeals to a few....You make an entertaining, easy mode game that appeals to the masses.....I think what most people dont understand in 2013 is that most people aren't looking for a challenge: They are looking to be entertained.......It started with WoW in 2004 and has been the norm ever since....ITs kinda like hoping some new formed band turns out to be the next Led Zeppelin or Rolling Stones......It isnt gonna happen...This genre is about one thing and one thing only now: Making money.

  • ElikalElikal ValhallaPosts: 7,906Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by shass

    Bang on post Vo - It amazes me why all the companies throw bucketloads of money at one failing project after another. Once a game is released they then start dumbing it down - aka Rift - until there is no longer any challenge or a reason to log in. A lot of a games longevity stems from players rolling Alts to try another class. Unfortunately, with today's generic one size fits all, we can do anything, characters - there is no point. One of the beauties of older game mechanics was the fact that some character abilities were unique, and a group needed their skills. This led to problems when that class was not available, but surely a better answer could be found than making everyone the same.

    Unfortunately EQnext looks like it follows the same route - bland. But with the added drawback of kiddie graphics. Why the mad rush for stylized graphics that are so childish? Apparently they date slower.... but my son used commonly available mods to make my old copy of Morrowind look amazing, so surely a deep and immersive MMORPG could be good looking and kept updated? I feel no desire to explore a cartoon world.

    Maybe one day someone will use the kickstarter system to take a risk and make something similar to what you suggest; no other company appears to understand anything other than a short term money making venture, aka wow clone but simpler, and it does not work.

    It is because money can't buy you... (dramatic pause)... wisdom!

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • DracockDracock Eugene, ORPosts: 75Member

    @OP,

    I agree that MMORPG's need to return to the more group centered game play of the past.  However, there is a lot wrong with your whole screed. You probably would have been better off just leaving the "p2p" rant for another topic.

    I don't think it will be a huge problem if there are a few classes that can solo better than others. So long as it doesn't surpass group potential. Same goes for solo play in general. It doesn't have to be a waste of time. It just has to be substantially slower progress than grouping throughout the game.

    The reason people were fed up with the trinity-group-only nature of EQ, was because it resulted in a lot of time LFG. In 2013, does anyone really want to be spending a long time looking for a group? I (and everyone else) have better things to do with my time.

    This is why I think EQN is the perfect formula to bring back group centered games. Some of the main features we have heard the devs announce are: no levels, providing a lot of horizontal progression, and removing the tank/heal requirement of group play. These are all things that really made finding groups a pain sometimes.

    It seems right in line with the evolution of the genre. We addressed the problems with time sinks like "LFG." Now we need to address the problem with solo heavy games that encourages players to blow through 90-99% content in less than a month.

    Just like Free to play is the natural evolution of the business side of MMORPGs. There are a few things like bonus exp or bag space that you are going to want to buy if you play the game. But this amounts to actually less money than you would pay for a game box + subscription fees. Meanwhile, there are a lot of "fluff" items that people with dedication and a wallet can buy to pick up the slack and provide extra profit.

    The kind of "pay to play" format that people rant about of forums...i haven't seen in any SoE game, or game in general (besides Age of Wu Shu). There is no reason to suppose that is what is going to take place here. SoE Cash shops don't let you buy dps upgrades and progressed characters. That's what IGN and Ebay are for. And if you haven't noticed, game companies can't stop it. So I'd get over it.

     

  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Dracock

    @OP,

    I agree that MMORPG's need to return to the more group centered game play of the past.  However, there is a lot wrong with your whole screed. You probably would have been better off just leaving the "p2p" rant for another topic.

    I don't think it will be a huge problem if there are a few classes that can solo better than others. So long as it doesn't surpass group potential. Same goes for solo play in general. It doesn't have to be a waste of time. It just has to be substantially slower progress than grouping throughout the game.

    The reason people were fed up with the trinity-group-only nature of EQ, was because it resulted in a lot of time LFG. This day in age, does anyone really want to be spending a long time looking for a group? I (and everyone else) have better things to do with my time.

    This is why I think EQN is the perfect formula to bring back group centered games. Some of the main features we have heard the devs announce are: no levels, providing a lot of horizontal progression, and removing the tank/heal requirement of group play. These are all things that really made finding groups a pain sometimes.

    It seems right in line with the evolution of the genre. We addressed the problems with time sinks like "LFG." Now we need to address the problem with solo heavy games that encourages players to blow through 90-99% content in less than a month.

    Just like Free to play is the natural evolution of the business side of MMORPGs. There are a few things like bonus exp or bag space that you are going to want to buy if you play the game. But this amounts to actually less money than you would pay for a game box + subscription fees. Meanwhile, there are a lot of "fluff" items that people with dedication and a wallet can buy to pick up the slack and provide extra profit.

    The kind of "pay to play" format that people rant about of forums...i haven't seen in any SoE game, or game in general (besides Age of Wu Shu). There is no reason to suppose that is what is going to take place here. SoE Cash shops don't let you buy dps upgrades and progressed characters. That's what IGN and Ebay are for. And if you haven't noticed, game companies can't stop it. So I'd get over it.

     

    mainly in blue, but could be applied to the whole post I suppose.

     

    I think this is where games lose longevity.  Everything is accessible, there is no need for divisions, everyone can become a super hero.

     

    What I said there crosses many lines, including the horizontal progression theme.

     

    Some people are plumbers, some are train engineers, some are electricians, .. still more have a profession they "stick" with.  Giving everyone the power to be a jack of all trades and do it expertly IMO doesn't lend towards a long lasting game.  It removes the value of individuals and their worth, and instead creates a faux group that simple needs warm bodies to succeed.

     

    Accessibility is the worst enemy to longevity.  Of course, IMO.

     

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • DracockDracock Eugene, ORPosts: 75Member
    Originally posted by Karteli
    Originally posted by Dracock

    @OP,

    I agree that MMORPG's need to return to the more group centered game play of the past.  However, there is a lot wrong with your whole screed. You probably would have been better off just leaving the "p2p" rant for another topic.

    I don't think it will be a huge problem if there are a few classes that can solo better than others. So long as it doesn't surpass group potential. Same goes for solo play in general. It doesn't have to be a waste of time. It just has to be substantially slower progress than grouping throughout the game.

    The reason people were fed up with the trinity-group-only nature of EQ, was because it resulted in a lot of time LFG. This day in age, does anyone really want to be spending a long time looking for a group? I (and everyone else) have better things to do with my time.

    This is why I think EQN is the perfect formula to bring back group centered games. Some of the main features we have heard the devs announce are: no levels, providing a lot of horizontal progression, and removing the tank/heal requirement of group play. These are all things that really made finding groups a pain sometimes.

    It seems right in line with the evolution of the genre. We addressed the problems with time sinks like "LFG." Now we need to address the problem with solo heavy games that encourages players to blow through 90-99% content in less than a month.

    Just like Free to play is the natural evolution of the business side of MMORPGs. There are a few things like bonus exp or bag space that you are going to want to buy if you play the game. But this amounts to actually less money than you would pay for a game box + subscription fees. Meanwhile, there are a lot of "fluff" items that people with dedication and a wallet can buy to pick up the slack and provide extra profit.

    The kind of "pay to play" format that people rant about of forums...i haven't seen in any SoE game, or game in general (besides Age of Wu Shu). There is no reason to suppose that is what is going to take place here. SoE Cash shops don't let you buy dps upgrades and progressed characters. That's what IGN and Ebay are for. And if you haven't noticed, game companies can't stop it. So I'd get over it.

     

    mainly in blue, but could be applied to the whole post I suppose.

     

    I think this is where games lose longevity.  Everything is accessible, there is no need for divisions, everyone can become a super hero.

     

    What I said there crosses many lines, including the horizontal progression theme.

     

    Some people are plumbers, some are train engineers, some are electricians, .. still more have a profession they "stick" with.  Giving everyone the power to be a jack of all trades and do it expertly IMO doesn't lend towards a long lasting game.  It removes the value of individuals and their worth, and instead creates a faux group that simple needs warm bodies to succeed.

     

    Accessibility is the worst enemy to longevity.  Of course, IMO.

     

    That kind of depends on how its done. People had 5 alts in EQ and could do every job as well. You probably can be all the different classes (or the vast majority of them) on one character. That doesn't mean you will be able to get them all tiered up and geared easily. I don't really see what making everyone pick between tank, healer, dps, has to do with longevity directly.

    The trinity or "jack of all trades" false dichotomy is kind of a separate issue. Generally it involves people that haven't played MOBAs or can imagine how there can be role versatility without a trinity.

  • ropeniceropenice Lake Worth, FLPosts: 587Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rusque
    Originally posted by Voqar

    Since then we've had the fluke of WoW.  And since WoW, for reasons that defy any kind of reason, the genre has shifted away from the thing it does best, and the thing that's unique about the the genre, the grouping, and has shifted towards solo gameplay.  At the same time it has shifted away from challenge and reward towards giving away rewards for every trivial little action.

    You can't fathom any kind of reason for the shift?

    Selective memories abound on MMORPG.com! WoW wasn't designed with some nefarious plot in mind to ruin all your fun. MMO gamers had been complaining about various issues and Blizzard listened. I know people like to pretend that imaginary gamers just showed up to play WoW, but the initial playerbase was EQ'ers who were fed up with EQ. "Why are there so few QUESTS in everQUEST?" If I had a nickel for every time I heard that I would be able to buy Blizzard.

     

    Wow did take some EQ players, but the vast majority of their player base came from outside the mmo genre. There were probably barely over a million mmo gamers between the few games that were out before wow and they took it to 12 million. Most that left for WoW probably just wanted to check it out because of it's buzz or because it was getting old and EQ2 had issues. I never heard anyone in EQ complain that there weren't quests. Those that played  long term enjoyed it over wow.

    Now as too EQN, I'm glad they are doing something different, but hoped they would've kept some things from EQ, like art style with better gfx). They are making some bold claims and promising some truly groundbreaking advances in mechanics and gameplay and if they can even pull of 75% of it, then it should be a game to capture old vets and new school players for years.

  • KarteliKarteli Providence, PAPosts: 2,646Member
    Originally posted by Dracock
    Originally posted by Karteli
    Originally posted by Dracock

    @OP,

    I agree that MMORPG's need to return to the more group centered game play of the past.  However, there is a lot wrong with your whole screed. You probably would have been better off just leaving the "p2p" rant for another topic.

    I don't think it will be a huge problem if there are a few classes that can solo better than others. So long as it doesn't surpass group potential. Same goes for solo play in general. It doesn't have to be a waste of time. It just has to be substantially slower progress than grouping throughout the game.

    The reason people were fed up with the trinity-group-only nature of EQ, was because it resulted in a lot of time LFG. This day in age, does anyone really want to be spending a long time looking for a group? I (and everyone else) have better things to do with my time.

    This is why I think EQN is the perfect formula to bring back group centered games. Some of the main features we have heard the devs announce are: no levels, providing a lot of horizontal progression, and removing the tank/heal requirement of group play. These are all things that really made finding groups a pain sometimes.

    It seems right in line with the evolution of the genre. We addressed the problems with time sinks like "LFG." Now we need to address the problem with solo heavy games that encourages players to blow through 90-99% content in less than a month.

    Just like Free to play is the natural evolution of the business side of MMORPGs. There are a few things like bonus exp or bag space that you are going to want to buy if you play the game. But this amounts to actually less money than you would pay for a game box + subscription fees. Meanwhile, there are a lot of "fluff" items that people with dedication and a wallet can buy to pick up the slack and provide extra profit.

    The kind of "pay to play" format that people rant about of forums...i haven't seen in any SoE game, or game in general (besides Age of Wu Shu). There is no reason to suppose that is what is going to take place here. SoE Cash shops don't let you buy dps upgrades and progressed characters. That's what IGN and Ebay are for. And if you haven't noticed, game companies can't stop it. So I'd get over it.

     

    mainly in blue, but could be applied to the whole post I suppose.

     

    I think this is where games lose longevity.  Everything is accessible, there is no need for divisions, everyone can become a super hero.

     

    What I said there crosses many lines, including the horizontal progression theme.

     

    Some people are plumbers, some are train engineers, some are electricians, .. still more have a profession they "stick" with.  Giving everyone the power to be a jack of all trades and do it expertly IMO doesn't lend towards a long lasting game.  It removes the value of individuals and their worth, and instead creates a faux group that simple needs warm bodies to succeed.

     

    Accessibility is the worst enemy to longevity.  Of course, IMO.

     

    That kind of depends on how its done. People had 5 alts in EQ and could do every job as well. You probably can be all the different classes (or the vast majority of them) on one character. That doesn't mean you will be able to get them all tiered up and geared easily. I don't really see what making everyone pick between tank, healer, dps, has to do with longevity directly.

    The trinity or "jack of all trades" false dichotomy is kind of a separate issue. Generally it involves people that haven't played MOBAs or can imagine how there can be role versatility without a trinity.

    I'm not an altaholic, though I understand some people are.  You are right in that a particular character can't do everything though.  The "easily" part on gearing up I guess is funny .. not because of what you said, but because of how accessibility has allowed this to happen.  It was in no way "easy" to gear up alts in EQ1 or WoW Vanilla.

     

    The trinity adds to the value someone feels on their character.  Melee is hard.  Healing is a bitch.  DPS is tricky to get decent results.  Making everyone able to do everything just dumbs down the system, because now Melee is easy, healing is a breaze, and dps requires no skill.  Above all, lack of a trinity requires no sincere organization to what is being done.  But that is also a product of accessibility, which means everyone wins, regardless of skill ..

     

    In light of the last sentence, the MOBA angle becomes slightly more humorous :-)

     

    Side Note:

    Separate elements, treat them separately.  There is no "or".

     

     

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • ropeniceropenice Lake Worth, FLPosts: 587Member Uncommon
    O

    Just like Free to play is the natural evolution of the business side of MMORPGs. There are a few things like bonus exp or bag space that you are going to want to buy if you play the game. But this amounts to actually less money than you would pay for a game box + subscription fees. Meanwhile, there are a lot of "fluff" items that people with dedication and a wallet can buy to pick up the slack and provide extra profit.

    The kind of "pay to play" format that people rant about of forums...i haven't seen in any SoE game, or game in general (besides Age of Wu Shu). There is no reason to suppose that is what is going to take place here. SoE Cash shops don't let you buy dps upgrades and progressed characters. That's what IGN and Ebay are for. And if you haven't noticed, game companies can't stop it. So I'd get over it.

     

    I find this statement to be false or at least, unprovable. The reason the F2P has become so prevalent is that so many games lately were just not that good (unpolished, lacking promised features) or had no staying power due to lack of content/single-player focus, so couldn't retain sub numbers and f2p solved this lack of game quality, but this by no means show that a natural evolution of pay model, just a shift that will probably shift back or to some else of time. The change didn't come about because people refuse to pay subs, but that games weren't good enough to justify one.

    And don't be fooled into thinking xp and bags will be the only things in the CS. With full f2p, they will have to get people in the shop and will be intrusive.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.