Starting cities..

Rydeson

     One thing that bothers me in newer games is the lack of starting locations..  Vanilla EQ had a ton..  Then we look at WoW that started off with 6 total.. But after that, it only seems to be a few or two, and just seems void of variety..  It would be a true shame for EQN to promote a vast world, but restrict starting cultural locations..

     Feel free to discuss your thoughts and opinions on starting locations.. And yes, the poll is flawed because I was limited to what I really wanted to do.. but anyways..  Please vote on your favorite, or must have starting location.. 

Rydeson

I voted all of the above because I really want them all to be in the game from the start.. But if I had to only pick one, and one only as my favorite.. I want Rivervale (The Shire) the most, with Halas as a close second

Kalahed

I think we are suffering from this idea that the population must not be spread too much at the beginning of the game lately. So to have all these old EQ starter cities is probably not realistic. That being said, Guild Wars 2 did offer a good variety of starting locations.

I think 5, 6 starting cities is a realistic number. You also have to keep in mind that nowadays players do not “build the story” as much as they want to go through a scenario. It means that for as many cities as you have you need to make a scenario for each city, which limits the number of cities you can have.

Let me clarify my thought a little bit. Back in the days, players were given different backgrounds depending on their race, class, god, alignment, along with lore, and then they were using their imagination to build the story of their character, so having different options for your character background was very important. But the city was just a canvas on which you could paint your own adventure, you did not have a lot of story driven quests, cut scenes, you just had lore through books, hailing NPCs and so on. This was the case for Everquest, Asheron’s Call, Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online, most of the 1999-2003 generation.
You could argue that Vanguard did the same thing but for me they failed exactly because they tried to please both the 1999 player and the 2007 players, by offering lots of starting locations and lots of story quest for each, but it ended up in a typical quantity over quality, and it’s probably one of the many reasons the game failed.

One of the first MMO I can recall of to really bring the storyline upfront correctly while still offering starting city choice is Final Fantasy XI. You had 3 cities to choose from, which gave you a nice background, with all a story driven questline for each city with cut scenes and all. This pattern was taken again in Final Fantasy XIV.
You then have of course World of Warcraft with 6 cities, and what Everquest II did with two major cities including suburbs to offer you some race specific background.

Overall, I’d say the developers know that your first few hours in the game are the most important and so they have to answer your expectations. I think 6 cities is as much as it can go while keeping a true quality. So as much as I love all Everquest starting cities, if I had to pick 6, the most defining cities of Everquest are:
Freeport, Qeynos, Neriak, Kelethin, Cabilis and Oggok.

SavageHorizon

Can't agree with the above post at all. Seems you would like the game dummed down from the beginning. Each race should have there unique starting cities. If we had it your way then they would say we are only having six race at the start of the game.

As for Vanguard which I played from beta till the shut down, starting cities were a strong point of the game and we're nothing to do with the failure.

So yes Op I would happily been born in anyone of the city's mentioned but obviously race dictates where you are born. I'm going to be a kitty lol so I'll be born somewhere on Odus.

rounner

If you look at VG, it had around 8-10 starting areas which gave great replay ability. Once the population dropped though the starter island was a way of bringing players together to do group content. So my response is it depends on population and ability for players to meet and group. 

Vrika

If EQ Next will have all the features advertised, it won't have any path with designed quests as much as a dynamic world.

With that in mind, I think it should have 0 starting locations. Some kind of tutorial island/newbie island that you play through for the first time you create a character, with introduction of the game's systems and mechanics. After that I think it would be better to just drop the characters to the world instead of worrying about starting locations.

Enrif

Multiple starting cities don't make sense in EQN lore.

Since the playable races were exiled from Norrath for a long time. It makes more sense if new characters start in the harbor citie of Qneos and than beginn their journey. That doesen't mean there are no racial capitals. But from the lore point they have to be build or conquered first.

Rydeson

     I've played some games where you have a starting island/zone so to speak, and that was ok from a tutorial point of view..  EQN could use this "multi" racial combine, as a starting refugee location, but then allow players to ship off the island after the tutorial phase to one of the many starting locations..  YES, this would allow humans to start in Rivervale if they so choose.. Granted their faction will still be neutral, or whatever, but for those Halfings that go back to Rivervale for example, they will be going home.. 

     As much as I would love to see each race have their own starting city full of culture and perks.. 8 or more.. I would settle for 6 if I have to.. but I think anything less then that is just too small and lacks variety..  I would love a little Hobit size instanced home in which to enjoy gardening or whatever.. But then I wouldn't mind a cold Halas home (like EQ2) as well.. Freeport was nice as well.. etc etc etc.. 

     Maybe with Jeff and Georgie gone, they might reconsider starting locations.. Both of them were vocal against multiple starting locations, while Terry Michaels was a fan of variety..

 

azarhal

It's really depends on the game.

In the case of EQNext though, multiple starting cities to not make sense when the game launch. The player characters are all members of the Combine that just returned from an exile that lasted 500 years...and they all arrive where Qeynos is going to be build. The first Rallying Call is building Qeynos.

The other cities are going to be rebuild/taken over from whatever lives there overtime but not right away, we are probably talking years actually going by how Rallying Calls are supposed to last 2-3 months. The devs even said at some point that new characters would start near Rallying Calls. That might not even be near a city.

Also, EQNext lore is quite different from the previous games. 

 

Nanfoodle

EQN was only going to have 1 starting city but player feed back in this area was very heavy so they put that into development. There will be many starting cities. If they keep going in the direction they have been, it looks like one for every race. But there has been no official word on how many starting cities we will have. 

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by ReallyNow10

Originally posted by Nanfoodle
EQN was only going to have 1 starting city but player feed back in this area was very heavy so they put that into development. There will be many starting cities. If they keep going in the direction they have been, it looks like one for every race. But there has been no official word on how many starting cities we will have. 

I remember hearing that as well.  Only 1 starting city.  Seems EQN wasn't going to be anything EQ, except in free-range open world.

No so far we have 4 starting cities. Darkelf, Ogre, Kerran and Qeynos. If they keep in this direction there will be one for every race but that seems like a bit much so maybe they have plans for some Cities to have more then one race. But it is 4 so far. 

Aelious

Have they confirmed a change in lore? As End of said the only official word has been one shanty tow to rebuild at launch. The, over time things open up as the Combine retake what the Ring of Scale, or other such baddies, took over.

Where a player is dropped after player select was said to change as the "world story" evolved through Rallying Calls. I imagine that if someone creates a character a year after launch they may have multiple options of starting cities.

I honestly like the idea of playing in a world with a constantly evolving storyline, opening up options as time passes.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Aelious
Have they confirmed a change in lore? As End of said the only official word has been one shanty tow to rebuild at launch. The, over time things open up as the Combine retake what the Ring of Scale, or other such baddies, took over.

Where a player is dropped after player select was said to change as the "world story" evolved through Rallying Calls. I imagine that if someone creates a character a year after launch they may have multiple options of starting cities.

I honestly like the idea of playing in a world with a constantly evolving storyline, opening up options as time passes.

Been watching the videos and feedback on the player made buildings. Qeynos is a very new city about 20-30 years old and no signs of age, plaster should look new etc. Darkelf city is also very new but they never said how old. Ogre city was mentioned many times it should look older and weathered. Kerran builds they kept asking the building to be showing signs of weathering and age. Plaster should show signs of age etc. So I am not sure how that ties into the lore. 

Adjuvant1

You know, because of recent activity from the company, I'm fighting the urge to rail against the game, myself. The idea of multiple starting locations being a necessity for a decent game, however, isn't even on my radar. I think the argument is purely based on preference, without real logic or substance. I didn't vote because there's no option, "a couple cities is fine", because just as you have your opinion, this is mine.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Adjuvant1
You know, because of recent activity from the company, I'm fighting the urge to rail against the game, myself. The idea of multiple starting locations being a necessity for a decent game, however, isn't even on my radar. I think the argument is purely based on preference, without real logic or substance. I didn't vote because there's no option, "a couple cities is fine", because just as you have your opinion, this is mine.

You have to remember this is not a level based game. It has 4 tiers. So starting areas are not just for new players. Even a char tier 4 geared would come back to a tier 1 (starting area) to play. Its more about freedom of where you wana start but this game is the closest thing to a horizontal progression I have seen developed. 

centkin

It depends upon if you have a world or a themepark. 

With a themepark, the quicker you shuffle everyone into the same area, the less duplication of effort you need to make and the more uniform the product(the players) are.

If you have a world then yes, you get a LOT of duplication of effort with the starter zones.  You also have scarcity of resources at the beginning of the game because nobody can make it from point A to point B and the first traders to bring those minotaur axes to queynos will make some coin doing it.

I think part of the problem these days is just how FAST we blitz through the low levels of the game.  If you are going from level 1 to 20 in a day, then it is an utter waste to have many beginning points UNLESS you are going to follow through with it and have different quests for each race and have the player constantly wanting to return to their hometown.

In the old days, you could play through the game without duplicating ANY effort with a second or third character(and this tended to end at endgame and in every expansion where everyone played the content together).  In more recent games, you can do it TWICE if it has factions. 

Actually expansions have really hurt this.  There is practically NEVER any point to playing expanded content twice.  It is the same or VERY SIMILAR even if you are on opposite faction sides.

It would be nice (but a lot more work) if expansions had different views of things and areas that an orc would want to go to but a gnome would have no reason to be in.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by centkin

It depends upon if you have a world or a themepark. 

With a themepark, the quicker you shuffle everyone into the same area, the less duplication of effort you need to make and the more uniform the product(the players) are.

If you have a world then yes, you get a LOT of duplication of effort with the starter zones.  You also have scarcity of resources at the beginning of the game because nobody can make it from point A to point B and the first traders to bring those minotaur axes to queynos will make some coin doing it.

I think part of the problem these days is just how FAST we blitz through the low levels of the game.  If you are going from level 1 to 20 in a day, then it is an utter waste to have many beginning points UNLESS you are going to follow through with it and have different quests for each race and have the player constantly wanting to return to their hometown.

In the old days, you could play through the game without duplicating ANY effort with a second or third character(and this tended to end at endgame and in every expansion where everyone played the content together).  In more recent games, you can do it TWICE if it has factions. 

Actually expansions have really hurt this.  There is practically NEVER any point to playing expanded content twice.  It is the same or VERY SIMILAR even if you are on opposite faction sides.

It would be nice (but a lot more work) if expansions had different views of things and areas that an orc would want to go to but a gnome would have no reason to be in.

Thats the beauty of this game, its Sandbox and horizontal progression, no levels. So starting cities are just where you start playing from. No matter how far you progress your char, coming back to a starting city you can play the content and team with new players. So friends that just join, can team with you right away. All content is relevant no matter how long you have been playing.

Rydeson

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by centkin

It depends upon if you have a world or a themepark. 

With a themepark, the quicker you shuffle everyone into the same area, the less duplication of effort you need to make and the more uniform the product(the players) are.  Yep, that is current formula with most games.. shuffle the sheep into chasing the carrot

If you have a world then yes, you get a LOT of duplication of effort with the starter zones.  You also have scarcity of resources at the beginning of the game because nobody can make it from point A to point B and the first traders to bring those minotaur axes to queynos will make some coin doing it. Yeah, this is tricky.. cuz if you don't watch out, what will happen is the "FIRST" group that achieves the task and quest will reap the rewards, and later players will lose out.. This was one disappointing problem in SWG, as with other games as well.. 

I think part of the problem these days is just how FAST we blitz through the low levels of the game.  If you are going from level 1 to 20 in a day, then it is an utter waste to have many beginning points UNLESS you are going to follow through with it and have different quests for each race and have the player constantly wanting to return to their hometown.  Agreed, progression needs to be slowed down, plus we need to STOP creating "new" tiered resources that make old resources obsolete.. I'm sorry, but cloth or steel should be relevant the entire game.. I like to view crafting like modern day chefs.. Bobby Flay still cooks with chicken, he just has access to better recipes and skills..

In the old days, you could play through the game without duplicating ANY effort with a second or third character(and this tended to end at endgame and in every expansion where everyone played the content together).  In more recent games, you can do it TWICE if it has factions.  True, older games gave you many paths to take in the progression ladder.. Today's games are like single line checkouts.. Zzzzz

Actually expansions have really hurt this.  There is practically NEVER any point to playing expanded content twice.  It is the same or VERY SIMILAR even if you are on opposite faction sides. Agree, today's expansion are very overpriced considering the amount of content you actually get, and it's very focused on the tip of the pyramid..

It would be nice (but a lot more work) if expansions had different views of things and areas that an orc would want to go to but a gnome would have no reason to be in.

Thats the beauty of this game, its Sandbox and horizontal progression, no levels. So starting cities are just where you start playing from. No matter how far you progress your char, coming back to a starting city you can play the content and team with new players. So friends that just join, can team with you right away. All content is relevant no matter how long you have been playing.

     We really don't have solid "in stone" details about how the world is going to be.. They have talked about tiers (1-5?), and if you are tier 5 a new friend can NOT join you in the higher tiers, but you can go play with them at the lower ones..  We do not have details yet how OP a tier 5 character will be in tier 1, and if their are any resources or XP worth counting..  Technically I can group up with a friend in WoW in the newbie zone, but why would I want to? 

     Plus now that is SB is toast, I'm sure this will have a major effect on how NPC will react to the world, and the content will be used..  I would not be surprised if EQN doesn't turn back into a linear style breadcrumb trail.. 

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Rydeson

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by centkin

It depends upon if you have a world or a themepark. 

With a themepark, the quicker you shuffle everyone into the same area, the less duplication of effort you need to make and the more uniform the product(the players) are.  Yep, that is current formula with most games.. shuffle the sheep into chasing the carrot

If you have a world then yes, you get a LOT of duplication of effort with the starter zones.  You also have scarcity of resources at the beginning of the game because nobody can make it from point A to point B and the first traders to bring those minotaur axes to queynos will make some coin doing it. Yeah, this is tricky.. cuz if you don't watch out, what will happen is the "FIRST" group that achieves the task and quest will reap the rewards, and later players will lose out.. This was one disappointing problem in SWG, as with other games as well.. 

I think part of the problem these days is just how FAST we blitz through the low levels of the game.  If you are going from level 1 to 20 in a day, then it is an utter waste to have many beginning points UNLESS you are going to follow through with it and have different quests for each race and have the player constantly wanting to return to their hometown.  Agreed, progression needs to be slowed down, plus we need to STOP creating "new" tiered resources that make old resources obsolete.. I'm sorry, but cloth or steel should be relevant the entire game.. I like to view crafting like modern day chefs.. Bobby Flay still cooks with chicken, he just has access to better recipes and skills..

In the old days, you could play through the game without duplicating ANY effort with a second or third character(and this tended to end at endgame and in every expansion where everyone played the content together).  In more recent games, you can do it TWICE if it has factions.  True, older games gave you many paths to take in the progression ladder.. Today's games are like single line checkouts.. Zzzzz

Actually expansions have really hurt this.  There is practically NEVER any point to playing expanded content twice.  It is the same or VERY SIMILAR even if you are on opposite faction sides. Agree, today's expansion are very overpriced considering the amount of content you actually get, and it's very focused on the tip of the pyramid..

It would be nice (but a lot more work) if expansions had different views of things and areas that an orc would want to go to but a gnome would have no reason to be in.

Thats the beauty of this game, its Sandbox and horizontal progression, no levels. So starting cities are just where you start playing from. No matter how far you progress your char, coming back to a starting city you can play the content and team with new players. So friends that just join, can team with you right away. All content is relevant no matter how long you have been playing.

     We really don't have solid "in stone" details about how the world is going to be.. They have talked about tiers (1-5?), and if you are tier 5 a new friend can NOT join you in the higher tiers, but you can go play with them at the lower ones..  We do not have details yet how OP a tier 5 character will be in tier 1, and if their are any resources or XP worth counting..  Technically I can group up with a friend in WoW in the newbie zone, but why would I want to? 

     Plus now that is SB is toast, I'm sure this will have a major effect on how NPC will react to the world, and the content will be used..  I would not be surprised if EQN doesn't turn back into a linear style breadcrumb trail.. 

Its tiers 1-4 at this point. We dont know if tier 1 char can goto a tier 4 area but we know for fact they are trying to make all tiers worth playing when wearing rier 4 gear and earned all your skills. Its what they are shooting for and is still the same plan with SB devs no longer working in the building. All work done with SB devs is still retained with DGC, their words. They are moving forward from here in house. Question is the same as it was before they dropped SB. Will they pull off what they are shooting for? No one knows, not even DGC. This is new ground and most of their game is effected by RD development. Even old systems that are easy to port are touching the RD content in many cases. We will see.

Sovrath

I'm of the mind that a starting city doesn't have to be a beginner city, just a city where beginners can start and still learn the game.

so, essentially , a city just has to be a city. It's a shame that these games have "starter" cities that quickly become defunct once the population goes down.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Sovrath

I'm of the mind that a starting city doesn't have to be a beginner city, just a city where beginners can start and still learn the game.

so, essentially , a city just has to be a city. It's a shame that these games have "starter" cities that quickly become defunct once the population goes down.

As I posted above, starting cities are not level content. Its just where you start playing. Top tier players will be coming back to starting areas to play content thats still relevant even at their skill set. Thats the plan so far. Waiting to see if they can pull it off. 

Aelious

I would like to start in some backwoods shanty town, maybe a randomized location. It would make the trek to a major town/city that much better, an achievement in it's own right.

Rydeson

Originally posted by Sovrath

I'm of the mind that a starting city doesn't have to be a beginner city, just a city where beginners can start and still learn the game.

so, essentially , a city just has to be a city. It's a shame that these games have "starter" cities that quickly become defunct once the population goes down.

Agreed.. Look at what WoW did.. each new content patch gave us a "new" central city.. Why?  Because of the lack of NPC's in the older cities, the original cities often became nothing more then auction towns   

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

As I posted above, starting cities are not level content. Its just where you start playing. Top tier players will be coming back to starting areas to play content thats still relevant even at their skill set. Thats the plan so far. Waiting to see if they can pull it off. 

I'm sure the plan has changed now with all that has happen.. Remember the statement by DGC, "Finding our direction".. So obviously the direction has changed since Jeff and Georgie left..and they publicly admitted they will not discuss it at this time.. 

Originally posted by Aelious
I would like to start in some backwoods shanty town, maybe a randomized location. It would make the trek to a major town/city that much better, an achievement in it's own right.

That I do agree..  That reminds me of Surefall Glades which was the starting location for my half elf character in EQ.. I had to find my way to Qeynos.. I loved it.. I'm also fan that, "NOT everything needs to be available everywhere" from the NPC's..  That was one of the better things I liked about EQ, was the finding of items, spells, recipes.etc etc from NPCs. I do believe that if you go to a location like Surefall, it should have some goods and services NOT found elsewhere.. Give every character regardless of level a reason to visit and USE worldwide locations..

 

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Rydeson

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

As I posted above, starting cities are not level content. Its just where you start playing. Top tier players will be coming back to starting areas to play content thats still relevant even at their skill set. Thats the plan so far. Waiting to see if they can pull it off. 

I'm sure the plan has changed now with all that has happen.. Remember the statement by DGC, "Finding our direction".. So obviously the direction has changed since Jeff and Georgie left..and they publicly admitted they will not discuss it at this time.. 

And in the latest video they said all plans for the game are the same. The team is still 4 out of 7 of the same devs that started this game. They clearly said, emergent AI is still the plan and they have retained all the work they did with Storybricks to this point and are now doing this part of the game in house. Spin it any way you want but the fact is this is the plan till they tell us different, not because you make stuff up. 

Rydeson

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Spin it any way you want but the fact is this is the plan till they tell us different, not because you make stuff up. 

OH but they did..  Go look at the most recent twitch video of the conference session..  At the end, they said one of the reason's they refused to answer all the question is due to "Finding their direction"..  Call it what you want.. I see that as a nice big fat FREUDIAN SLIP of the tongue..  Obviously there is a new direction different from the one they had the past 2 years.. Most of us saw that twitch video for what it truly was.. DAMAGE control..  I'm very confident the game will be changed in the future to meet the demands of those that call the shots..

PS edit.. anyways.. this thread is about "Starting Cities" or locations..

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Rydeson

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

And in the latest video they said all plans for the game are the same. The team is still 4 out of 7 of the same devs that started this game. They clearly said, emergent AI is still the plan and they have retained all the work they did with Storybricks to this point and are now doing this part of the game in house.Spin it any way you want but the fact is this is the plan till they tell us different, not because you make stuff up. 

 

Originally posted by Rydeson

OH but they did..  Go look at the most recent twitch video of the conference session..  At the end, they said one of the reason's they refused to answer all the question is due to "Finding their direction"..  Call it what you want.. I see that as a nice big fat FREUDIAN SLIP of the tongue..  Obviously there is a new direction different from the one they had the past 2 years.. Most of us saw that twitch video for what it truly was.. DAMAGE control..  I'm very confident the game will be changed in the future to meet the demands of those that call the shots..

PS edit.. anyways.. this thread is about "Starting Cities" or locations..

You cant take one line out to the twitch stream out of context to mean one thing when they said 30 things that say something else. Emergent AI is still on the table. As they said the plans they set out for the game are the same. If there is changes they will tell us. The plan is still the plan. If your going to stir the pot and make stuff up, do it with someone who didnt watch the video and has watched every video they have put out on the subject. Have fun with that =-)