svann

About

Username
svann
Location
san jose, CA
Joined
Visits
1,171
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
406
Rank
Uncommon
Posts
2,022
Badges
34
  • Graphics

    Scolioz said:
    I played AC1 for 2 years before finally trying EQ.. The first impression I had of EQ when I first logged in was that the graphics were shit... the game moved slow as hell.. and the zoning sucked... 

    In AC1 your character ran like a jack rabbit on speed when you put tons of points into running skill..  everything felt quicker and more fluid..  EQ1 just felt like a retirement home in comparison..
    Thats probably because you went from a fully developed character with "tons" of point in running to a character that is just starting out, has no runspeed yet, and doesnt know how to get anywhere.
    jimmywolf
  • Collections

    Maybe collecting could be implemented in a good way, but shinies on the ground is bullshit.
    Mendel
  • Dev Stream of the 21th of November 2017

    its gorgeous
    Love the graphics, shadows, even grass and moss
    KilsinGyva02
  • Pantheon vs Wow Classic

    Gyva02 said:
    svann said:
    Gyva02 said:
    svann said:
    Wow beat eq for one reason - quests.  At the time eq was known as neverquest.  There is no way pantheon copies that classic mentality of constant camping no questing.
    If Pantheon is a quest hub to quest hub circus I'll be deeply saddened. But I don't think they are going that way. Did you miss the quests in EQ? You had to actually talk and hail people to get them. 

    https://wiki.project1999.com/Category:Quests
    It sounds like you are agreeing with me that some questing is warranted, as you argue that eq had quests. 

    However, the classic eq quest system was poorly implemented and effectively was not a part of the main game at all.  Many were broken, and almost none had rewards enough to motivate the population to want to do them.  Hence the common mockery "neverquest".

    Quest hub to quest hub is definitely not needed, but there does need to be enough working questing WITH rewards that it makes sense for the population to consider them part of the game.


    Actually having to read NPC dialog and having to actually interact with them and figure out their quest is "poor implementation"?
    No, poor implementation is a quest system where the quest is so poorly written that its not clear what keyword is needed to advance the quest, and when you finally finish the quest reward was a slap in the face.  Poorly implemented meaning so bad that almost no one used it.

    Dont get me wrong - Im not saying wow is superior, but at the time wow launched there was a hunger for something more than just camping forever and ever.  IMO that is the main reason people left eq at that point.  Thats all Im saying.


    Mendel
  • Pantheon vs Wow Classic

    Gyva02 said:
    svann said:
    Wow beat eq for one reason - quests.  At the time eq was known as neverquest.  There is no way pantheon copies that classic mentality of constant camping no questing.
    If Pantheon is a quest hub to quest hub circus I'll be deeply saddened. But I don't think they are going that way. Did you miss the quests in EQ? You had to actually talk and hail people to get them. 

    https://wiki.project1999.com/Category:Quests
    It sounds like you are agreeing with me that some questing is warranted, as you argue that eq had quests. 

    However, the classic eq quest system was poorly implemented and effectively was not a part of the main game at all.  Many were broken, and almost none had rewards enough to motivate the population to want to do them.  Hence the common mockery "neverquest".

    Quest hub to quest hub is definitely not needed, but there does need to be enough working questing WITH rewards that it makes sense for the population to consider them part of the game.


    ManWithNoTan