Howdy, Stranger!

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

Anyone starting to feel like EQ Next is still deep in concept phase?

2

Comments

  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405

    https://forums.station.sony.com/everquestnext/index.php?threads/what-are-you-most-interested-in-participating-in-at-soe-live-2014.404/  

     

    If you are like me and tired of hearing about Landmark in lieu of EQNext info, there is a thread on the main forums concerning SOE Live 14 and content of the event. Let them know you want to hear about EQN specifics.            

    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • LookwhostalkingLookwhostalking Member Posts: 63
    Have high hopes for this game. Time will show :)
  • NadiaNadia Member UncommonPosts: 11,798
    Originally posted by Karble

    These were all how long ago now? Last August??

    It's April 15th almost a complete 9 months since those videos.

    SOE Live 2014 is in four months - expect more info then

     

    http://www.vg247.com/2014/04/04/soe-live-2014-registration-opens/

    SOE Live 2014 registration is now open for those who wish to purchase passes to the 14th annual community fan event. It takes place at Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino in Las Vegas August 14-17.

    In addition to social events, SOE will also host developer panels and game-themed live events as well as new announcements and access to beta programs, tournaments, and more.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Originally posted by BBPD766
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa

    I think by sheer accident they stumbled upon landmark, said "Oh it'll be a holdover until EQ3" then realize, shit, this is going to make us WAY more easy money than EQ3, and now they're milking it for all its worth. 100 bucks for alpha access, jesus.

    There's no need to think this was an accident, they flat out admitted that they stumbled upon the concept of making Landmark into a game as an afterthought. This isn't a secret. Secondly, there is no such thing as EQ3 at this time. EQN is a reimagination of the original, not a continuation.

    As far as Landmark goes, why wouldn't they milk it for all it's worth? It's a decent game in it's own right. There was also a 60 dollar version to get into the alpha; both of which also got you unique in-game items. I dunno why it's surprising for you to grasp the concept of paying for early access to a game. 

    Agree.

    Making EQN:L was the answer to a question: "How can we (SoE) create content fast enough to keep up with the rate at which players consume it?" Brad has alluded to this issue multiple times.

    And from the answer - get players involved - stemmed the creation of an engine that "players" could use and the concept of "player created items" being bought for use in EQN.

    EQN:L "the game" however .... a change of direction, an accident - whatever. It wasn't part of the original plan. And I think the thing that changed the plan was Minecraft. The timelines of both games suggests that they were in development at the same time ... and then Minecraft, a world builder, became a big hit.

    In trying to turn EQN:L into a game in its own right however ......

    They clearly thought about the type of game that EQN should be and opted for F2P with micro-transactions. Which is fine. In - seemingly - deciding that EQN:L should have the same model. And in doing so I think they have stumbled. If they had simply decided to sell EQN:L as B2P they could have gotten down to the business of making EQN - and the extra money from EQN:L would have been a bonus.

    Instead it now seems to be about adding micro-transactions to EQN:L - and that will detract from people "running wild" and creating "stuff" that could be ported into EQN. Instead of tapping into a source of "free design labour" they have decided to charge said labour for the privilege.

    And there is a danger that EQN:L could "consume" EQN - it shouldn't but the more people will expect / want them to add. It will never be EQN but it could leave EQN as the runt of the litter. 

  • TibernicuspaTibernicuspa Member UncommonPosts: 1,199
    Originally posted by BBPD766
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa

    I think by sheer accident they stumbled upon landmark, said "Oh it'll be a holdover until EQ3" then realize, shit, this is going to make us WAY more easy money than EQ3, and now they're milking it for all its worth. 100 bucks for alpha access, jesus.

    There's no need to think this was an accident, they flat out admitted that they stumbled upon the concept of making Landmark into a game as an afterthought. This isn't a secret. Secondly, there is no such thing as EQ3 at this time. EQN is a reimagination of the original, not a continuation.

    As far as Landmark goes, why wouldn't they milk it for all it's worth? It's a decent game in it's own right. There was also a 60 dollar version to get into the alpha; both of which also got you unique in-game items. I dunno why it's surprising for you to grasp the concept of paying for early access to a game.

     I've more or less lost interest in EQNExt anyone, considering how insanely casual they're going with it, and the fact that it'll have instances, and the dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it.

    Im not sure how you can determine how casual they are going with the game as you state when limited info. has been released and nobody has seen anything of value about EQN yet. They did state the instances would be limited, but even that has yet to be determined as, once again, there is limited info. about what they have actually completed at this point.

    Dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it? LOL. Uhm, no. Dynamic means constant change. Just because YOU (yourself) are not there to see it doesn't mean the quest won't progress.

     

    That's just flat out wrong. They said in the first open talk about EQN that if no one is in an area, a quest won't progress, meaning its all artificial.

    And yes, we've seen their direction with Round Table videos, where the community says they want harsh nights, or race locked classes, and they say "Yeaah we know you like it, but no, we want things to be more accessible"

  • BBPD766BBPD766 Member UncommonPosts: 98
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa
    Originally posted by BBPD766
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa

    I think by sheer accident they stumbled upon landmark, said "Oh it'll be a holdover until EQ3" then realize, shit, this is going to make us WAY more easy money than EQ3, and now they're milking it for all its worth. 100 bucks for alpha access, jesus.

    There's no need to think this was an accident, they flat out admitted that they stumbled upon the concept of making Landmark into a game as an afterthought. This isn't a secret. Secondly, there is no such thing as EQ3 at this time. EQN is a reimagination of the original, not a continuation.

    As far as Landmark goes, why wouldn't they milk it for all it's worth? It's a decent game in it's own right. There was also a 60 dollar version to get into the alpha; both of which also got you unique in-game items. I dunno why it's surprising for you to grasp the concept of paying for early access to a game.

     I've more or less lost interest in EQNExt anyone, considering how insanely casual they're going with it, and the fact that it'll have instances, and the dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it.

    Im not sure how you can determine how casual they are going with the game as you state when limited info. has been released and nobody has seen anything of value about EQN yet. They did state the instances would be limited, but even that has yet to be determined as, once again, there is limited info. about what they have actually completed at this point.

    Dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it? LOL. Uhm, no. Dynamic means constant change. Just because YOU (yourself) are not there to see it doesn't mean the quest won't progress.

     

    That's just flat out wrong. They said in the first open talk about EQN that if no one is in an area, a quest won't progress, meaning its all artificial.

    And yes, we've seen their direction with Round Table videos, where the community says they want harsh nights, or race locked classes, and they say "Yeaah we know you like it, but no, we want things to be more accessible"

    Uhm. No. It isnt flat out wrong. He didnt say if NO ONE is in an area, he said, "the dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it." Just because HE isnt there doesnt mean others wont make the rallying calls progress; which, btw, is exactly what i said in my post. You have the option to participate or not, but that doesnt mean if YOU choose not to join that it wont progress.

    And of course it's artificial. It's a game after all. For those that want to, I dont see anything wrong with the rallying calls pointing you toward a storyline to help you get immersed; especially when there is several different options for you to be a part of it and yet you still have a choice not to get involved at all.

    Edit: Additionally, the fact that there are different outcomes to the rallying calls based upon the success or failure of the stages to be completed within it adds a nice variety.

  • TibernicuspaTibernicuspa Member UncommonPosts: 1,199
    Originally posted by BBPD766
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa
    Originally posted by BBPD766
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa

    I think by sheer accident they stumbled upon landmark, said "Oh it'll be a holdover until EQ3" then realize, shit, this is going to make us WAY more easy money than EQ3, and now they're milking it for all its worth. 100 bucks for alpha access, jesus.

    There's no need to think this was an accident, they flat out admitted that they stumbled upon the concept of making Landmark into a game as an afterthought. This isn't a secret. Secondly, there is no such thing as EQ3 at this time. EQN is a reimagination of the original, not a continuation.

    As far as Landmark goes, why wouldn't they milk it for all it's worth? It's a decent game in it's own right. There was also a 60 dollar version to get into the alpha; both of which also got you unique in-game items. I dunno why it's surprising for you to grasp the concept of paying for early access to a game.

     I've more or less lost interest in EQNExt anyone, considering how insanely casual they're going with it, and the fact that it'll have instances, and the dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it.

    Im not sure how you can determine how casual they are going with the game as you state when limited info. has been released and nobody has seen anything of value about EQN yet. They did state the instances would be limited, but even that has yet to be determined as, once again, there is limited info. about what they have actually completed at this point.

    Dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it? LOL. Uhm, no. Dynamic means constant change. Just because YOU (yourself) are not there to see it doesn't mean the quest won't progress.

     

    That's just flat out wrong. They said in the first open talk about EQN that if no one is in an area, a quest won't progress, meaning its all artificial.

    And yes, we've seen their direction with Round Table videos, where the community says they want harsh nights, or race locked classes, and they say "Yeaah we know you like it, but no, we want things to be more accessible"

    Uhm. No. It isnt flat out wrong. He didnt say if NO ONE is in an area, he said, "the dynamic quests won't progress unless you're there to see it." Just because HE isnt there doesnt mean others wont make the rallying calls progress; which, btw, is exactly what i said in my post. You have the option to participate or not, but that doesnt mean if YOU choose not to join that it wont progress.

     

    But that's exactly what's awful. It's so artificial and hand holding if there's no actual threat or danger in the world. It just pauses when no one's around? Why bother.

     

  • AwDiddumsAwDiddums Member UncommonPosts: 416
    Originally posted by muffins89

    no. the concept is Landmark except 'Next' will have content made in house and not by the players. if you want to know what 'Next' is. look at 'Landmark'. they've told us this several times.

    Exactly.

    I thought everyone who was interested in Next would have put 2 and 2 together and figured out that Landmark was going to be the testing ground for Next.

     

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,813
    Originally posted by AwDiddums
    Originally posted by muffins89

    no. the concept is Landmark except 'Next' will have content made in house and not by the players. if you want to know what 'Next' is. look at 'Landmark'. they've told us this several times.

    Exactly.

    I thought everyone who was interested in Next would have put 2 and 2 together and figured out that Landmark was going to be the testing ground for Next.

     

    Don't know if this is true anymore since the rebranding of EQN:L to just L. If it is true, it would mean EQN would not see Alpha until 2017.

    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,139
    Originally posted by Tibernicuspa

    But that's exactly what's awful. It's so artificial and hand holding if there's no actual threat or danger in the world. It just pauses when no one's around? Why bother.

    I'd assume that for things like Rallying Calls there will always be players around. They aren't going to create some day/week/month long event and toss it in the middle of no where. They will fit in the lore/story arch and players that are participating will play along. If by chance an entire server decides to not build Halas, then I guess we will see if they have anything planned for that outcome, but I highly doubt that will happen as most players sign up to do what the devs intended.

    These are games, they are artificial. Regardless of how "emergent" they make the the AI, it is still not real life. Threat/Danger does not exist in games. At least not any I've played. Even in games with permadeath, full looting, and whatever other "hardcore" features, you can always just start again. Threat and danger do not equal challenge to me. As this game seems to be shooting for bringing in the masses, I'm assuming there will be elements to entertain a wide variety of players.

    Beyond the Ralling Calls, they've mentioned one off moments (save the farmer from the orc, help the orc, or do nothing) which I'm assuming will have some degree of dynamic persistence, regardless if people are around or not. They've said the AI will move around and do what it wants within limits of tech-fun-point. So you may come across orcs attacking a farmer, while I might come through after they've already moved on.

    GW2 and other games already have these things on loops. If EQN can take it a step further and actually make these events seem dynamic and not just static events on timed loops, I will be happy. Maybe another farmer comes along and rebuilds the farm a few days later and players can then help them or whatever.

    As we no very little, we are all just assuming, but to jump to the conclusion that it will be very casual/hardcore or whatever is a bit early. Like I said, these are still games. They aren't hyper realistic. Maybe some day we will have the tech and freedom to do such things, but I think EQN is a good step in that direction.

  • SlyLoKSlyLoK Member RarePosts: 2,698
    I wouldnt be surprised if we see EQN Early Access late this year or early next year.. Probably around the time Landmark goes into open beta which is pretty much full release for f2p games.
  • UtinniUtinni Member EpicPosts: 2,200
    Don't expect to see this game until 2017. They are making a zombie game now, and will probably make a moba or something after. Whatever is popular they will try to make using forgelight. #cha$e
  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Member UncommonPosts: 1,237
    Originally posted by Foobarx

    The problem here is you people, yes, I do mean "you people" are getting excited about a game well before it even is slated to be released.  The developers, for some ungodly reason, seem to think we need to know about that little itch in their pants, and proceed to tell us about their glorious child before it has even been conceived.

     

    You people run out and start buying gifts for that baby on the notion that it will happen imminently.  Well months of trying go by before anything happens and you start wondering where that baby is.  Stop it already.  Both of you... and I'm talking to the developers here as much as the consumers.

     

    When the baby has been delivered, then tell us about it.  Really, all this clamoring about something that is going to happen x days or months or even years in the future is stupid.  When it's on the shelf, ready to buy, then it is a game.  Until then, it might as well still be an itch.  We don't need to know about your sex life.  When the baby is delivered, then you can brag.

     

    You people do this to yourself.  You fall for it every time.  No wonder half the games ever conceived are total crap... you'll accept anything at this point.

     

    I for one like the new model so far.  It is more fun and interesting being a part of (or at least transparent) to the development process as opposed to being delivered a black box final product.  I also know MMOs take years to develop as they are not normal games.  From a development perspective this is ingenious.  They are getting people (who openly want) to test their code for free and charging those who are dedicated for more access.  The outcome will be a heavily tested engine that would theoretically allow them to deliver something of serious quality on day one.

    The challenge is maintaining the balance of developing what they know will work versus interpreting the requirements of those who support you. 

    At the end of the day - it comes down what are they looking to deliver.  And whatever that is will never please everyone.

    My personal query is if I find EQN better than AA (or vice versa).  Both are getting very close to what I envision an MMO should be. I'll give a lot of money to support that.

    image
  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,139
    Originally posted by Utinni
    Don't expect to see this game until 2017. They are making a zombie game now, and will probably make a moba or something after. Whatever is popular they will try to make using forgelight. #cha$e

    As it will be F2P and they will have players "building" the world as time progresses (such as city building though Ralling Calls), they do not have to have what we have come to accept as a "finished" product. Do not need to have lvls 1-100 fully populated with gear and quest hubs to digest instantly. Sounds like they are working on classes/races/combat/AI and other aspects that make up a large part of the game. Procedurally generated content/world will cut off dev time as well. While looking at Landmark, it is obvious they still have a lot of work to do (Water for example) so while I doubt we'll see Alpha too soon, I guessing next year. Wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot to say at SOE Live later this year. Some sort of time table is bound to me announced.

    H1Z1 has it's own small team as well and so far looks to have no impact on EQN.

  • UtinniUtinni Member EpicPosts: 2,200
    Originally posted by Allein
    Wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot to say at SOE Live later this year. Some sort of time table is bound to me announced.

    Hopefully we don't hear the class panel devs say that no one wants to play  tank/healer/support. 

  • AldersAlders Member RarePosts: 2,206
    Originally posted by Utinni
    Originally posted by Allein
    Wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot to say at SOE Live later this year. Some sort of time table is bound to me announced.

    Hopefully we don't hear the class panel devs say that no one wants to play  tank/healer/support. 

     

    I have a gut feeling, and i really hope i'm correct, that they now realize how much of a mess not having group/party roles really is.  I think their initial intent was to go the GW2 route but i hope they've done a 180 on that now.  Not to say that i don't love aspects of GW2 but their PVE is just terrible in my opinion.

    I'm hoping for an expanded trinity system with support classes/roles but i'm not holding my breath on that one.  

  • GadarethGadareth Member UncommonPosts: 310

    If you want to keep an edge in the current MMORPG market you need to make sure the competition knows as little as possible about what your bringing to the table.

    One of the ways WOW for example manages to keep its lead is by nicking new ideas when it hears about them often releasing the new feature around the time of the new games launch.

    Another reason is the fanbase themselves the more you tell them what your working on the more expectations rise and things which you say MAY be included suddenly become in the mind of a fan an essential component and when you find later its not viable due to time/money or technology. you will suddenly find your being accused of lying.

    So I expect we probably wont get a lot of information released until just before Beta gets announced at which stage most major decisions will have been made and the testing would be more focused on optimization and balancing.

    Just my 2 cents

    Gadareth

     

     

     

  • mbrodiembrodie Member RarePosts: 1,504
    i personally think that landmark is a beta for the engine they're going to be using for next, testing out the capabilities and optimization and what they can and cant get away with.. then from there they will take the engine from landmark and use it to make eqn
  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,139
    Originally posted by Alders
    Originally posted by Utinni
    Originally posted by Allein
    Wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot to say at SOE Live later this year. Some sort of time table is bound to me announced.

    Hopefully we don't hear the class panel devs say that no one wants to play  tank/healer/support. 

    I have a gut feeling, and i really hope i'm correct, that they now realize how much of a mess not having group/party roles really is.  I think their initial intent was to go the GW2 route but i hope they've done a 180 on that now.  Not to say that i don't love aspects of GW2 but their PVE is just terrible in my opinion.

    I'm hoping for an expanded trinity system with support classes/roles but i'm not holding my breath on that one.  

    GW2 is a PVP game, not that it does PVP amazingly, but if you look at it as such, it makes more sense why PVE is poor. I know many never played GW1, but the amount of shock that some seem to have that GW2 focuses on PVP is odd to me. From the arenas (max lvl PVP character within 5 min of playing) to end game focusing on WvWvW, PVE was just a time sink although it has greatly improved from what I hear.

    From what I gather, EQN will still have "tank/healer/support" just not what most of us now associate with those terms. Offense/Defense/Support (probably don't even need to separate Support) can pretty much include all other variations of the trinity without making each individual class limited to only one role that it seems so many can't live without yet can't get behind in most games anymore. I think of it like football with Off/Def/Special Teams.

    I think their use of MOBAs is pretty spot on as a comparison. A class has multiple roles, having pros/cons in each and isn't limited to just being a "tank/healer/suport/dps." You still benefit greatly from team work and having XYZ, but if Y takes the night off, you can still play. I personally am so tired of the forced style where you "have" to have XYZ to win and basically just have to show up with the right combo to do so. No creativity or thinking outside the box on the players end. Unless you want to do XXX and take 50 times longer to beat a mob or whatever.

    Whatever they decide for classes/roles, it really comes down to AI, combat, and general gameplay mechanics. You can have super strict trinity or role less (GW2) style and still have crap PVE with both. Or the opposite with amazing PVE utilizing either or both styles.

  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,104

    I said it last year at ESO fan fair.  EQN will not be out till late 2016 at the latest.  The systems they are designing are unheard of.

     

    Give them time, I'm sure it will revolutionize the industry.  And after a sup par 7+ years of MMO gaming I can wait for someone to finally get it right.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,104
    Originally posted by Alders
    Originally posted by Utinni
    Originally posted by Allein
    Wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot to say at SOE Live later this year. Some sort of time table is bound to me announced.

    Hopefully we don't hear the class panel devs say that no one wants to play  tank/healer/support. 

     

    I have a gut feeling, and i really hope i'm correct, that they now realize how much of a mess not having group/party roles really is.  I think their initial intent was to go the GW2 route but i hope they've done a 180 on that now.  Not to say that i don't love aspects of GW2 but their PVE is just terrible in my opinion.

    I'm hoping for an expanded trinity system with support classes/roles but i'm not holding my breath on that one.  

    They never said they were going the GW2 route.  What they said was you wouldn't require rigid groups to down bosses and that roles were still very much a part of their group structure.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,139
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Originally posted by Alders
    Originally posted by Utinni
    Originally posted by Allein
    Wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot to say at SOE Live later this year. Some sort of time table is bound to me announced.

    Hopefully we don't hear the class panel devs say that no one wants to play  tank/healer/support. 

    I have a gut feeling, and i really hope i'm correct, that they now realize how much of a mess not having group/party roles really is.  I think their initial intent was to go the GW2 route but i hope they've done a 180 on that now.  Not to say that i don't love aspects of GW2 but their PVE is just terrible in my opinion.

    I'm hoping for an expanded trinity system with support classes/roles but i'm not holding my breath on that one.  

    They never said they were going the GW2 route.  What they said was you wouldn't require rigid groups to down bosses and that roles were still very much a part of their group structure.

    Seems most people blank over SOE specifically talking about GW2 and knowing it's issues and can't possibly accept that there could be more then 3 ways to design a game. To me, it seems they will attempt to do everything they can to think outside the box and approach the genre differently, while not forgetting the good/bad of the past in the process. Guess some can't get past the superficial similarities though. Then again, I doubt the majority of people that post around here have bothered to actually look into what the devs have said, especially at the reveal panels, and base everything off of what others state as fact on here.

  • NadiaNadia Member UncommonPosts: 11,798

    a refresher from last year SOE Live

    http://eqnexus.com/2013/08/soe-live-day-3-everquest-next-class-system/

     

    as much as some players disdain no taunt in GW2

    GW1 also had no taunt - and healing roles - and it worked fine

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536

    SOE has changed their minds so many times when developing EQN, I don't think even they know what they want it to be.  Maybe they've figured it out since last summer, but they've gone back to the drawing board several times on what they want to make.  Most recently with the choice to add a voxel engine.  Upon seeing what voxels were capable of, it seems to have caused them to rethink everything in order to make better use of this technology.  Now I think its gone to their head and instead of making a captivating fantasy game in the spirit of EQ, they want to  incorporate moba style classes and combat in a destructible sandbox world with an underlying philosophy more geared towards casuals than that of classic Evercrack.  Its mind boggling.

    They said we'd be playing EQ Next by the end of 2013, but now we haven't even seen a video of what the game has to offer outside of some very rough concept videos from E3.


  • CaldrinCaldrin Member UncommonPosts: 4,505

    Well the main thing was getting the engine up and running.. they are donig that by developing landmark and that is gonig qutie well..

     

    I am sure they have quite a big team worknig on content for EQN and I would think they have a working version for testing internally.. no need to rush things out tho..

Sign In or Register to comment.