I was probably more hyped for it than I was for Ragefire. Now? Daybreak can suck it.
1) John Smedley is still in charge, the man is the most toxic force in the MMO industry, with him remaining in charge I won't be playing any of their products. Not worth my time or money because of him alone.
2) All the devs were let go, there's no experience at the rudder, which means Smedley will micromanage and trash the game just like he did with EQ1 post-Verant, and then with EQ2.
3) Daybreak's owner, Columbus Nova, is an investment banking firm that buys out and guts companies to turn a profit, runs them into the ground, then disposes of them. Not the kind of company I want running a game I could potentially invest years of my life and hundreds/thousands of dollars into.
I'm hyped for John Smedley's funeral now, I'm eagerly awaiting his obit so I can spit on his grave while playing Pantheon over wi-fi on my laptop. No doubt he'll outlive me out of spite, though.
I am hyped about it a little due to the IP and the current drought effecting mmorpg's at this time. After dipping my toes into the free to play, and the sub with pay to win style...I am ready for another monthly sub game with honest developers just looking forward to delivering a rich fantasy playground with deep character customization and the ability to go out into the lands and create your own memories with friends and meet new ones.
Every game has a shelf life and there are reasons why gaming has changed over the years since EQ.
..............
On and on it goes. Basically games have evolved since 99 days and even EQ has evolved and taken almost all of those problems and dealt with them in one way or another.
We live in a time of uncertainty in the gaming world. Guildwars 2 was a success, however I am no fan of totally removing the trinity. I prefer the healer, pet classes, crowd controllers, tanks, stealthers, ranged, jack of all styles. Basically I can see the benefit of the class system EQN is trying for. I just hope each class has enough structure within it to be interesting on it's own and provide within it, future growth.
They obviously needed a lot more time to work on classes and balancing and all aspects of the game. It may actually not become reality until 2017. In the meantime I will be looking forward to a few other games we have all heard of that should be coming out later this year or sometime in 2016.
Not currently a fan of EQ/EQ2 then?
The OP asked for the attitude of fans and you replied?
Funny that, but join the throng of other posters in the same category.
However in your post your refer to classes and class balancing. You seem to have missed the stuff from SOE(now DBG) about how they were pretty much doing away with classes by allowing every character to have multiple classes, not quite to the point of every class but pretty nearly that. Of course this may have changed, but as they are not talking much at the moment so we have to go with what was said previously.
Not doing away with classes, allowing players to collect and earn the other classes. You'll only be able to play as one class at a time, albeit partially customizable. what this can mean (I say "can" because this depends on how they tune difficulty) players will not just need to be good at one "role" but maybe multiple ones. One of the great things about EQ was wanting to be good at a single role so you could get groups. If DGC does things right this may be the case on a greater level. As always, we'll have to see.
I was probably more hyped for it than I was for Ragefire. Now? Daybreak can suck it.
1) John Smedley is still in charge, the man is the most toxic force in the MMO industry, with him remaining in charge I won't be playing any of their products. Not worth my time or money because of him alone.
2) All the devs were let go, there's no experience at the rudder, which means Smedley will micromanage and trash the game just like he did with EQ1 post-Verant, and then with EQ2.
3) Daybreak's owner, Columbus Nova, is an investment banking firm that buys out and guts companies to turn a profit, runs them into the ground, then disposes of them. Not the kind of company I want running a game I could potentially invest years of my life and hundreds/thousands of dollars into.
I'm hyped for John Smedley's funeral now, I'm eagerly awaiting his obit so I can spit on his grave while playing Pantheon over wi-fi on my laptop. No doubt he'll outlive me out of spite, though.
You're feelings about Smedley are you're own but this post seems to be spurred by emotion and missing some key things. I think it's reprehensible that over a video game you would look forward to someone's death.
2 - All the devs were not let go for EQN, nor any DGC title. Someone made a list on Reddit if you want to go check it.
3 - Please provide proof that CN specifically does this. I know about the purchase/gut/selloff presumption some are making because they are an investment firm but look deep into almost any gaming company and you'll find similar investors. Probably the same type Brad is trying to get right now...
LOL .. Is this game ever gonna come out at all?! Or it's just SOE marketing research project?
There is a quite huge hype about it for good 2-3 years now ...
- EQLandmark is floating around (interesting, but nothing special) ..
- and THAT's it. All we hear is just talks about how EQN will relate to this, what others will think about it, and not much else.
New class announced ... wow! every game has char classes - so nothing new there.
+ almost every video in the news about EQN instead of some alpha or development footage shows a funny pony-tailed guy, who over excitedly talks about how great the game will be ... for 2 years straight now.
of course - it's jus how I'm starting to feel about it.
I am hyped about it a little due to the IP and the current drought effecting mmorpg's at this time. After dipping my toes into the free to play, and the sub with pay to win style...I am ready for another monthly sub game with honest developers just looking forward to delivering a rich fantasy playground with deep character customization and the ability to go out into the lands and create your own memories with friends and meet new ones.
Every game has a shelf life and there are reasons why gaming has changed over the years since EQ.
..............
On and on it goes. Basically games have evolved since 99 days and even EQ has evolved and taken almost all of those problems and dealt with them in one way or another.
We live in a time of uncertainty in the gaming world. Guildwars 2 was a success, however I am no fan of totally removing the trinity. I prefer the healer, pet classes, crowd controllers, tanks, stealthers, ranged, jack of all styles. Basically I can see the benefit of the class system EQN is trying for. I just hope each class has enough structure within it to be interesting on it's own and provide within it, future growth.
They obviously needed a lot more time to work on classes and balancing and all aspects of the game. It may actually not become reality until 2017. In the meantime I will be looking forward to a few other games we have all heard of that should be coming out later this year or sometime in 2016.
Not currently a fan of EQ/EQ2 then?
The OP asked for the attitude of fans and you replied?
Funny that, but join the throng of other posters in the same category.
However in your post your refer to classes and class balancing. You seem to have missed the stuff from SOE(now DBG) about how they were pretty much doing away with classes by allowing every character to have multiple classes, not quite to the point of every class but pretty nearly that. Of course this may have changed, but as they are not talking much at the moment so we have to go with what was said previously.
Not doing away with classes, allowing players to collect and earn the other classes. You'll only be able to play as one class at a time, albeit partially customizable. what this can mean (I say "can" because this depends on how they tune difficulty) players will not just need to be good at one "role" but maybe multiple ones. One of the great things about EQ was wanting to be good at a single role so you could get groups. If DGC does things right this may be the case on a greater level. As always, we'll have to see.
.... and this differs from Rift's soul system how? If you can switch from tank to healer to dps to range dps in under a minute ...... Yep not doing away with classes at all. Sorry if your character can be anything then it is not a character it is just an icon.
I was probably more hyped for it than I was for Ragefire. Now? Daybreak can suck it.
1) John Smedley is still in charge, the man is the most toxic force in the MMO industry, with him remaining in charge I won't be playing any of their products. Not worth my time or money because of him alone.
2) All the devs were let go, there's no experience at the rudder, which means Smedley will micromanage and trash the game just like he did with EQ1 post-Verant, and then with EQ2.
3) Daybreak's owner, Columbus Nova, is an investment banking firm that buys out and guts companies to turn a profit, runs them into the ground, then disposes of them. Not the kind of company I want running a game I could potentially invest years of my life and hundreds/thousands of dollars into.
I'm hyped for John Smedley's funeral now, I'm eagerly awaiting his obit so I can spit on his grave while playing Pantheon over wi-fi on my laptop. No doubt he'll outlive me out of spite, though.
You're feelings about Smedley are you're own but this post seems to be spurred by emotion and missing some key things. I think it's reprehensible that over a video game you would look forward to someone's death.
2 - All the devs were not let go for EQN, nor any DGC title. Someone made a list on Reddit if you want to go check it.
3 - Please provide proof that CN specifically does this. I know about the purchase/gut/selloff presumption some are making because they are an investment firm but look deep into almost any gaming company and you'll find similar investors. Probably the same type Brad is trying to get right now...
LOL beat me to it, I could not agree with you more an investor is an investor and while they were pretty steep cuts and will lead to changes in scope it is not necessarily the 'death' of the game, but it may be much less than was promised in the hype or take much longer to be delivered.
John Smedley whose public persona is something I do not like, but to wish him dead is more than a step too far.
+ almost every video in the news about EQN instead of some alpha or development footage shows a funny pony-tailed guy, who over excitedly talks about how great the game will be ... for 2 years straight now.
Daybreak fired that guy (Dave Georgeson). Dave was in charge of the EQ franchise and running the show when the previous version of EQN was scrapped and the latest (3rd) redesign implemented. IMHO that was a huge vote of no confidence in his work.
Not a fan really, never really got in to EQ1/2 due to friends playing other titles and I joined them. Quite intrigued by some of the features that Georgeson and co spoke about though and if they can deliver it should be a wonderful game to get into. But they have to deliver.
Personally I believe it's a work in progress I've seen enough footage to have faith that it is a current and workable project. The companies track record isn't perfect, but I have yet to come across one that is. The truth to me is that it's the same company though but in different circumstances and with different backers. I'm not necessarily concerned about the dearth of information from the DB gang, they need to get their house in order after such a turbulent few months. To say I am not hungry for more would be a lie though.
Specifically I like the setting, I really like the character concepts and art and the idea of a truly dynamic world is very appealing to me. As a result I chose to invest in an early access pack for Landmark to help support the studio, I've logged a few hours and so far I am quite pleased with it as a beta title.
Fingers crossed that we get a decent press release at E3 concerning the game and the stage it's at.
I am hyped about it a little due to the IP and the current drought effecting mmorpg's at this time. After dipping my toes into the free to play, and the sub with pay to win style...I am ready for another monthly sub game with honest developers just looking forward to delivering a rich fantasy playground with deep character customization and the ability to go out into the lands and create your own memories with friends and meet new ones.
Every game has a shelf life and there are reasons why gaming has changed over the years since EQ.
..............
On and on it goes. Basically games have evolved since 99 days and even EQ has evolved and taken almost all of those problems and dealt with them in one way or another.
We live in a time of uncertainty in the gaming world. Guildwars 2 was a success, however I am no fan of totally removing the trinity. I prefer the healer, pet classes, crowd controllers, tanks, stealthers, ranged, jack of all styles. Basically I can see the benefit of the class system EQN is trying for. I just hope each class has enough structure within it to be interesting on it's own and provide within it, future growth.
They obviously needed a lot more time to work on classes and balancing and all aspects of the game. It may actually not become reality until 2017. In the meantime I will be looking forward to a few other games we have all heard of that should be coming out later this year or sometime in 2016.
Not currently a fan of EQ/EQ2 then?
The OP asked for the attitude of fans and you replied?
Funny that, but join the throng of other posters in the same category.
However in your post your refer to classes and class balancing. You seem to have missed the stuff from SOE(now DBG) about how they were pretty much doing away with classes by allowing every character to have multiple classes, not quite to the point of every class but pretty nearly that. Of course this may have changed, but as they are not talking much at the moment so we have to go with what was said previously.
Not doing away with classes, allowing players to collect and earn the other classes. You'll only be able to play as one class at a time, albeit partially customizable. what this can mean (I say "can" because this depends on how they tune difficulty) players will not just need to be good at one "role" but maybe multiple ones. One of the great things about EQ was wanting to be good at a single role so you could get groups. If DGC does things right this may be the case on a greater level. As always, we'll have to see.
Classes. I presume you've seen the mechanisms for changing classes, then? If you have, you must be some kind of privileged DGC insider, because I certainly haven't seen any hint of the equipment / inventory system in any of the official videos. If it is as simple as equipping a new weapon, as has been stated, why the hesitance to show that function in action? Is there some holdup, or is this functionality just not implemented yet? That would make this particular feature more promise and marketing hype than an actual mechanism, wouldn't it?
Multiple classes. I'm definitely not a fan of this direction. Making every player be good at multiple roles seems to be asking a lot from every individual player. I think this will promote a pile of players soloing in close proximity with a selective chat channel. And no matter how hard they try, there will be classes that are less fun to play. I expect we will hear players lamenting 'why do I have to be the [class] again?'. Either that or everyone will end up running the same dominant class all the time, no matter what the situation or group dynamic. I'm not a fan of 'everyone does everything' mechanisms, and everything stated (not demonstrated, mind you) seems to promote independence, not group-dependence.
Two micro cases where I feel the development of this game is either off-base or simply not progressing as hoped.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The fact we've seen and heard nothing from them about it since DBG was formed is reason enough to just not care. Honestly with them, holding any type of hype is pointless and really just need to wait for the finished product. The day and age of founder packs and DLC/"Bonuses" announced before we even get gameplay makes it all the more worse. I'd like to be optimistic about EQN, but I just can't see it ever actually coming out.
I was probably more hyped for it than I was for Ragefire. Now? Daybreak can suck it.
1) John Smedley is still in charge, the man is the most toxic force in the MMO industry, with him remaining in charge I won't be playing any of their products. Not worth my time or money because of him alone.
2) All the devs were let go, there's no experience at the rudder, which means Smedley will micromanage and trash the game just like he did with EQ1 post-Verant, and then with EQ2.
3) Daybreak's owner, Columbus Nova, is an investment banking firm that buys out and guts companies to turn a profit, runs them into the ground, then disposes of them. Not the kind of company I want running a game I could potentially invest years of my life and hundreds/thousands of dollars into.
I'm hyped for John Smedley's funeral now, I'm eagerly awaiting his obit so I can spit on his grave while playing Pantheon over wi-fi on my laptop. No doubt he'll outlive me out of spite, though.
Thats a deep seeded kinda hate. You do get this is all over video games?
I am hyped about it a little due to the IP and the current drought effecting mmorpg's at this time. After dipping my toes into the free to play, and the sub with pay to win style...I am ready for another monthly sub game with honest developers just looking forward to delivering a rich fantasy playground with deep character customization and the ability to go out into the lands and create your own memories with friends and meet new ones.
Every game has a shelf life and there are reasons why gaming has changed over the years since EQ.
..............
On and on it goes. Basically games have evolved since 99 days and even EQ has evolved and taken almost all of those problems and dealt with them in one way or another.
We live in a time of uncertainty in the gaming world. Guildwars 2 was a success, however I am no fan of totally removing the trinity. I prefer the healer, pet classes, crowd controllers, tanks, stealthers, ranged, jack of all styles. Basically I can see the benefit of the class system EQN is trying for. I just hope each class has enough structure within it to be interesting on it's own and provide within it, future growth.
They obviously needed a lot more time to work on classes and balancing and all aspects of the game. It may actually not become reality until 2017. In the meantime I will be looking forward to a few other games we have all heard of that should be coming out later this year or sometime in 2016.
Not currently a fan of EQ/EQ2 then?
The OP asked for the attitude of fans and you replied?
Funny that, but join the throng of other posters in the same category.
However in your post your refer to classes and class balancing. You seem to have missed the stuff from SOE(now DBG) about how they were pretty much doing away with classes by allowing every character to have multiple classes, not quite to the point of every class but pretty nearly that. Of course this may have changed, but as they are not talking much at the moment so we have to go with what was said previously.
Not doing away with classes, allowing players to collect and earn the other classes. You'll only be able to play as one class at a time, albeit partially customizable. what this can mean (I say "can" because this depends on how they tune difficulty) players will not just need to be good at one "role" but maybe multiple ones. One of the great things about EQ was wanting to be good at a single role so you could get groups. If DGC does things right this may be the case on a greater level. As always, we'll have to see.
Classes. I presume you've seen the mechanisms for changing classes, then? If you have, you must be some kind of privileged DGC insider, because I certainly haven't seen any hint of the equipment / inventory system in any of the official videos. If it is as simple as equipping a new weapon, as has been stated, why the hesitance to show that function in action? Is there some holdup, or is this functionality just not implemented yet? That would make this particular feature more promise and marketing hype than an actual mechanism, wouldn't it?
How equipment works and effects your skills has been discussed in depth. Matter of fact the alpha side of that is already playable in Landmark. Time to go google and get caught up on the game you are bashing as this info is a year old.
Multiple classes. I'm definitely not a fan of this direction. Making every player be good at multiple roles seems to be asking a lot from every individual player. I think this will promote a pile of players soloing in close proximity with a selective chat channel. And no matter how hard they try, there will be classes that are less fun to play. I expect we will hear players lamenting 'why do I have to be the [class] again?'. Either that or everyone will end up running the same dominant class all the time, no matter what the situation or group dynamic. I'm not a fan of 'everyone does everything' mechanisms, and everything stated (not demonstrated, mind you) seems to promote independence, not group-dependence.
Two micro cases where I feel the development of this game is either off-base or simply not progressing as hoped.
Works great in Rift. No one forces anyone to play a class they dont want to but many people liked playing more then one class in that game. As you suggest that more people would solo over teaming was not the case at all. Finding healers and tanks was a short line up. Often when a dungeon would stump a team, people would switch classes to attack a boss from a different angle. There is no reason it wont work the same in EQN. Giving people options often lead to people playing more then one class.
Classes. I presume you've seen the mechanisms for changing classes, then? If you have, you must be some kind of privileged DGC insider, because I certainly haven't seen any hint of the equipment / inventory system in any of the official videos. If it is as simple as equipping a new weapon, as has been stated, why the hesitance to show that function in action? Is there some holdup, or is this functionality just not implemented yet? That would make this particular feature more promise and marketing hype than an actual mechanism, wouldn't it?
How equipment works and effects your skills has been discussed in depth. Matter of fact the alpha side of that is already playable in Landmark. Time to go google and get caught up on the game you are bashing as this info is a year old.
Discussion, not demonstration. There's a huge difference. How long must a game be in development before the development team feel comfortable enough to show a functional version of the ideas behind the game? It's been two years since the notorious 2013 Game of the Show award, and possibly a lot longer than that.
This again comes down to basic trust issues. Believe the developers discussion points or not. Let's face it, the SOE/DGC development team has little credibility with a larger section of the community than they would like. For you, it is easy to simply believe what is said. Others, like myself, would rather not trust their words, they have no 'face value' to me.
On Date_001, Developer_X said "TalkingPoint_001". That may be a factual statement, but the fact that someone said it doesn't mean TalkingPoint_001 is by itself factual. Let's see the implementation of TalkingPoint_001 in action. That's the basis of my stance, let's see what you've got, DGC. Don't tell me what you hope to do, or what is planned, or how this should work. Let the community see exactly where the EQ:N product is, what is (or isn't) implemented and how it does work.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by Mendel
<snip>
Multiple classes. I'm definitely not a fan of this direction. Making every player be good at multiple roles seems to be asking a lot from every individual player. I think this will promote a pile of players soloing in close proximity with a selective chat channel. And no matter how hard they try, there will be classes that are less fun to play. I expect we will hear players lamenting 'why do I have to be the [class] again?'. Either that or everyone will end up running the same dominant class all the time, no matter what the situation or group dynamic. I'm not a fan of 'everyone does everything' mechanisms, and everything stated (not demonstrated, mind you) seems to promote independence, not group-dependence.
Two micro cases where I feel the development of this game is either off-base or simply not progressing as hoped.
Works great in Rift. No one forces anyone to play a class they dont want to but many people liked playing more then one class in that game. As you suggest that more people would solo over teaming was not the case at all. Finding healers and tanks was a short line up. Often when a dungeon would stump a team, people would switch classes to attack a boss from a different angle. There is no reason it wont work the same in EQN. Giving people options often lead to people playing more then one class.
When does changing classes on the fly deviate from an RPG for you? I can have a mix of units in an RTS and if a defender is immune from Unit_01's attack, I can simply attack with Unit_02. Does that mean changing tactics by changing my fundamental nature (by assuming another class) is really an RP activity? I don't.
I do want to play a role. Part of that comes down to a series of attributes, abilities and deficiencies the 'class' places on me. Changing classes, as a game mechanism, undermines my first in-game decision - what class do I play? If I suddenly switch roles mid-fight, how does that help me advance my primary aim -- to me the best Class_03 that I can? A rogue might need to dash around the battlefield to position themselves for their big attack, but an enchanter might choose a more stationary approach to buff and do their crowd control. If I'm in the mindset to play the enchanter, I don't want to face the necessity where the content dictates that I need to use a rogue's mindset. To me, that is almost the ultimate in breaking immersion.
Ever play Ryzom? The mechanism of building an ability there provides a similar 'feel'. It is possible to mix defense, attack, and healing, making everyone a very efficient soloing machine. But even in group settings, most players rely on their solo skill sets. A player may be the designated group tank, but he almost surely has his self-heal ability available. Grouping is partly an exercise in functional trust -- let the healer heal, the crowd controller lock down that extra mob, let the dps types blast the thing, while the tank holds the opponent's attention. If everyone does their job, the group is victorious. In situations like Ryzom, where it is possible for everyone to assume any of the roles at whim, the group dynamic is degraded. A mob gets loose, and the responsibility for tanking, mezzing, killing and healing shifts. Essentially, individual survival requires every player to be able to deploy each tactic as opposed to relying on a group member to provide that function. And that is essentially soloing in a group context.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Classes. I presume you've seen the mechanisms for changing classes, then? If you have, you must be some kind of privileged DGC insider, because I certainly haven't seen any hint of the equipment / inventory system in any of the official videos. If it is as simple as equipping a new weapon, as has been stated, why the hesitance to show that function in action? Is there some holdup, or is this functionality just not implemented yet? That would make this particular feature more promise and marketing hype than an actual mechanism, wouldn't it?
How equipment works and effects your skills has been discussed in depth. Matter of fact the alpha side of that is already playable in Landmark. Time to go google and get caught up on the game you are bashing as this info is a year old.
Discussion, not demonstration. There's a huge difference. How long must a game be in development before the development team feel comfortable enough to show a functional version of the ideas behind the game? It's been two years since the notorious 2013 Game of the Show award, and possibly a lot longer than that.
This again comes down to basic trust issues. Believe the developers discussion points or not. Let's face it, the SOE/DGC development team has little credibility with a larger section of the community than they would like. For you, it is easy to simply believe what is said. Others, like myself, would rather not trust their words, they have no 'face value' to me.
On Date_001, Developer_X said "TalkingPoint_001". That may be a factual statement, but the fact that someone said it doesn't mean TalkingPoint_001 is by itself factual. Let's see the implementation of TalkingPoint_001 in action. That's the basis of my stance, let's see what you've got, DGC. Don't tell me what you hope to do, or what is planned, or how this should work. Let the community see exactly where the EQ:N product is, what is (or isn't) implemented and how it does work.
Fact is what they are making is what they are making. You called it as no facts have been given when they have and working in Landmark. Go play it. How gear and skills work is currently in game and being built upon.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by Mendel
Multiple classes. I'm definitely not a fan of this direction. Making every player be good at multiple roles seems to be asking a lot from every individual player. I think this will promote a pile of players soloing in close proximity with a selective chat channel. And no matter how hard they try, there will be classes that are less fun to play. I expect we will hear players lamenting 'why do I have to be the [class] again?'. Either that or everyone will end up running the same dominant class all the time, no matter what the situation or group dynamic. I'm not a fan of 'everyone does everything' mechanisms, and everything stated (not demonstrated, mind you) seems to promote independence, not group-dependence.
Two micro cases where I feel the development of this game is either off-base or simply not progressing as hoped.
Works great in Rift. No one forces anyone to play a class they dont want to but many people liked playing more then one class in that game. As you suggest that more people would solo over teaming was not the case at all. Finding healers and tanks was a short line up. Often when a dungeon would stump a team, people would switch classes to attack a boss from a different angle. There is no reason it wont work the same in EQN. Giving people options often lead to people playing more then one class.
When does changing classes on the fly deviate from an RPG for you? I can have a mix of units in an RTS and if a defender is immune from Unit_01's attack, I can simply attack with Unit_02. Does that mean changing tactics by changing my fundamental nature (by assuming another class) is really an RP activity? I don't.
I do want to play a role. Part of that comes down to a series of attributes, abilities and deficiencies the 'class' places on me. Changing classes, as a game mechanism, undermines my first in-game decision - what class do I play? If I suddenly switch roles mid-fight, how does that help me advance my primary aim -- to me the best Class_03 that I can? A rogue might need to dash around the battlefield to position themselves for their big attack, but an enchanter might choose a more stationary approach to buff and do their crowd control. If I'm in the mindset to play the enchanter, I don't want to face the necessity where the content dictates that I need to use a rogue's mindset. To me, that is almost the ultimate in breaking immersion.
Ever play Ryzom? The mechanism of building an ability there provides a similar 'feel'. It is possible to mix defense, attack, and healing, making everyone a very efficient soloing machine. But even in group settings, most players rely on their solo skill sets. A player may be the designated group tank, but he almost surely has his self-heal ability available. Grouping is partly an exercise in functional trust -- let the healer heal, the crowd controller lock down that extra mob, let the dps types blast the thing, while the tank holds the opponent's attention. If everyone does their job, the group is victorious. In situations like Ryzom, where it is possible for everyone to assume any of the roles at whim, the group dynamic is degraded. A mob gets loose, and the responsibility for tanking, mezzing, killing and healing shifts. Essentially, individual survival requires every player to be able to deploy each tactic as opposed to relying on a group member to provide that function. And that is essentially soloing in a group context.
Many people in Rift played one class and only one class. It does not change that fact your wrong. That type of class system dose not take away from teaming. In Rift and created more teams and when teams failed they could just regroup, switch things up and keep going. So again your just wrong. If you want to play a trinity game, stop reading up on this game and go find another because your getting no where here. Your looking for the wrong game.
Rift still held the player to an archetype but the idea is similar in a way regarding flexibility. The question is really what should be concrete after character creation? Who is your character? If you want to be Ted the Halfling Warrior from creation on I can respect that, play how you want. I want to be Ted the Halfling and be able to start as a Warrior but have the flexibility to be a Mage if I earn it. It's a matter of freedom to me and I don't see a reason to limit what I can learn to be, especially in a "sandbox style" MMO.
Mendel
The SoELive videos from '13 and '14 go pretty in depth about the class/itemization plans. If you want a demonstration you know that isn't out right now. As Nanfoodle said, Landmark shows how they are working with builds and roles.
Classes. I presume you've seen the mechanisms for changing classes, then? If you have, you must be some kind of privileged DGC insider, because I certainly haven't seen any hint of the equipment / inventory system in any of the official videos. If it is as simple as equipping a new weapon, as has been stated, why the hesitance to show that function in action? Is there some holdup, or is this functionality just not implemented yet? That would make this particular feature more promise and marketing hype than an actual mechanism, wouldn't it?
How equipment works and effects your skills has been discussed in depth. Matter of fact the alpha side of that is already playable in Landmark. Time to go google and get caught up on the game you are bashing as this info is a year old.
Discussion, not demonstration. There's a huge difference. How long must a game be in development before the development team feel comfortable enough to show a functional version of the ideas behind the game? It's been two years since the notorious 2013 Game of the Show award, and possibly a lot longer than that.
This again comes down to basic trust issues. Believe the developers discussion points or not. Let's face it, the SOE/DGC development team has little credibility with a larger section of the community than they would like. For you, it is easy to simply believe what is said. Others, like myself, would rather not trust their words, they have no 'face value' to me.
On Date_001, Developer_X said "TalkingPoint_001". That may be a factual statement, but the fact that someone said it doesn't mean TalkingPoint_001 is by itself factual. Let's see the implementation of TalkingPoint_001 in action. That's the basis of my stance, let's see what you've got, DGC. Don't tell me what you hope to do, or what is planned, or how this should work. Let the community see exactly where the EQ:N product is, what is (or isn't) implemented and how it does work.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by Mendel
Multiple classes. I'm definitely not a fan of this direction. Making every player be good at multiple roles seems to be asking a lot from every individual player. I think this will promote a pile of players soloing in close proximity with a selective chat channel. And no matter how hard they try, there will be classes that are less fun to play. I expect we will hear players lamenting 'why do I have to be the [class] again?'. Either that or everyone will end up running the same dominant class all the time, no matter what the situation or group dynamic. I'm not a fan of 'everyone does everything' mechanisms, and everything stated (not demonstrated, mind you) seems to promote independence, not group-dependence.
Two micro cases where I feel the development of this game is either off-base or simply not progressing as hoped.
Works great in Rift. No one forces anyone to play a class they dont want to but many people liked playing more then one class in that game. As you suggest that more people would solo over teaming was not the case at all. Finding healers and tanks was a short line up. Often when a dungeon would stump a team, people would switch classes to attack a boss from a different angle. There is no reason it wont work the same in EQN. Giving people options often lead to people playing more then one class.
When does changing classes on the fly deviate from an RPG for you? I can have a mix of units in an RTS and if a defender is immune from Unit_01's attack, I can simply attack with Unit_02. Does that mean changing tactics by changing my fundamental nature (by assuming another class) is really an RP activity? I don't.
I do want to play a role. Part of that comes down to a series of attributes, abilities and deficiencies the 'class' places on me. Changing classes, as a game mechanism, undermines my first in-game decision - what class do I play? If I suddenly switch roles mid-fight, how does that help me advance my primary aim -- to me the best Class_03 that I can? A rogue might need to dash around the battlefield to position themselves for their big attack, but an enchanter might choose a more stationary approach to buff and do their crowd control. If I'm in the mindset to play the enchanter, I don't want to face the necessity where the content dictates that I need to use a rogue's mindset. To me, that is almost the ultimate in breaking immersion.
Ever play Ryzom? The mechanism of building an ability there provides a similar 'feel'. It is possible to mix defense, attack, and healing, making everyone a very efficient soloing machine. But even in group settings, most players rely on their solo skill sets. A player may be the designated group tank, but he almost surely has his self-heal ability available. Grouping is partly an exercise in functional trust -- let the healer heal, the crowd controller lock down that extra mob, let the dps types blast the thing, while the tank holds the opponent's attention. If everyone does their job, the group is victorious. In situations like Ryzom, where it is possible for everyone to assume any of the roles at whim, the group dynamic is degraded. A mob gets loose, and the responsibility for tanking, mezzing, killing and healing shifts. Essentially, individual survival requires every player to be able to deploy each tactic as opposed to relying on a group member to provide that function. And that is essentially soloing in a group context.
I played a class type in EQ for years. It was called Druid.
Druid had within it the ability to change rolls to suit the group
1. Pet Class... charm a very tuff animal and provide several buffs to it and heal it.
2. AOE Kite....snare several mobs and run them in circles while casting mass aoe on them.
3. DOT kills....slowly kill with damage over times, root, and snare
4. Group Heals....provide healing duty and buffs along with heal over time.
5. Group Transport....spirit of the wolf/eagle. casting gate spells and evac spells.
6. Group CC...provide distractions for mobs while others are being killed.
That's 6 various rolls with just one class. I believe the devs have made it clear they are going for something similar through the ability to pick up extra classes (rolls).
Just like in EQ these rolls will only be able to be changed out of combat. There will also be a large roll for gear to play within various rolls via attribute and ability modifications.
They have said there will be a main roll which you choose based around weapon and sub rolls you can choose or not choose for your other hotbar abilities. In this way it does have similarity to guildwars 2. However I do not believe they will skip healer classes. Also it sounds as if there will not be attribute capping as big as it was in Guildwars 2 when you tried to stack certain attributes to get max effect. Another thing...I believe EQN is not planning the leveling down mechanic in GW2. I found the leveling down mechanic a bit tedious and it made for less feel of power as you level up since you are still met with a challenge by a bunch of level 6 mobs when you are level 30.....
We really need this game. An MMORPG with destructible terrain, potential for building bases, and altering the world with your guild of friends all hold a ton of potential. Out of the next gen MMOs, it fills a needed PvE role where games like Crow Fall will excel at PvP.
Originally posted by lobotaru We really need this game. An MMORPG with destructible terrain, potential for building bases, and altering the world with your guild of friends all hold a ton of potential. Out of the next gen MMOs, it fills a needed PvE role where games like Crow Fall will excel at PvP.
You are correct. This game will most likely show scope and depth in the pve space that pop focused games will gloss over since it's not a focus for those games. There was a reason why they called it everquest to begin with and wether it's scripted or simply a personal achievement....this brave new world will have many coming out of the woodworks to try it. Hopefully, whatever the finished product, it will have a hook with a sinker and a very, very long line so that everyone will grow an appreciation for it on the trip to getting caught in the web of fun for years to come.
Some aspects of it sound good. I like the fact they're bringing back the controller role. However, I think the problem lies in the action combat they're trying to emulate. Action combat wasn't the golden egg to save the genre everyone thought it was going to be a few years back. The aspect of EQ:Next that attracted people the most was the ability to shape and mold your surroundings, which is better harnessed in EQ Landmark. So unless they start to take advantage of the juju they built up in EQ Landmark and use some of it in EQ: Next, I don't see the game doing much better than what's already out there.
I'd love to play an MMORPG where some person doing a kill quest accidentally causes a horde of orcs to approach some town only to have the local woodcrafting players build wooden palisades to hold them off. That kind of reactive world sounds amazing, and that is the kind of game I'd love to play. Making craters with special moves or creating small obstructions like a temporary wall of ice using magic sounds nifty, but its not really taking advantage of what they're developing in a way that breaks free from what can be done elsewhere.
Some aspects of it sound good. I like the fact they're bringing back the controller role. However, I think the problem lies in the action combat they're trying to emulate. Action combat wasn't the golden egg to save the genre everyone thought it was going to be a few years back. The aspect of EQ:Next that attracted people the most was the ability to shape and mold your surroundings, which is better harnessed in EQ Landmark. So unless they start to take advantage of the juju they built up in EQ Landmark and use some of it in EQ: Next, I don't see the game doing much better than what's already out there.
I'd love to play an MMORPG where some person doing a kill quest accidentally causes a horde of orcs to approach some town only to have the local woodcrafting players build wooden palisades to hold them off. That kind of reactive world sounds amazing, and that is the kind of game I'd love to play. Erecting a wall of ice using a magic spell sounds nifty, but its not really taking advantage of what they're developing in a way that breaks free from what can be done elsewhere.
This is much of how I feel. Some of this game is awesome and if pulled off could really be, well, awesome. Other parts like the action combat, dont sound as good to me. I love EQ lore so for me thats a good move. The new AI they are trying to make to fit in a sandbox game also seems like a good move. The voxel world has some draw backs like the graphics seem like a step back but having a fully destructible world makes the gamer in me excited. But damn if I dont long for and want an old style trinity game with modern systems. I miss Tank, Support, CC style trinity games. I only know one game thats trying to do that and they are having huge finding problems. Makes me wonder if old school games like us dont have a place any more??
Some aspects of it sound good. I like the fact they're bringing back the controller role. However, I think the problem lies in the action combat they're trying to emulate. Action combat wasn't the golden egg to save the genre everyone thought it was going to be a few years back. The aspect of EQ:Next that attracted people the most was the ability to shape and mold your surroundings, which is better harnessed in EQ Landmark. So unless they start to take advantage of the juju they built up in EQ Landmark and use some of it in EQ: Next, I don't see the game doing much better than what's already out there.
I'd love to play an MMORPG where some person doing a kill quest accidentally causes a horde of orcs to approach some town only to have the local woodcrafting players build wooden palisades to hold them off. That kind of reactive world sounds amazing, and that is the kind of game I'd love to play. Making craters with special moves or creating small obstructions like a temporary wall of ice using magic sounds nifty, but its not really taking advantage of what they're developing in a way that breaks free from what can be done elsewhere.
I would love to play in a world like that too, but I wonder if people would be able to handle it. I should include the EQN devs, as what was originally announced as a sandbox quickly began to be described as a Theme Park with diggable dirt. I agree with your assessment that beyond the few nifty craters and icewalls it's pretty much the same thing as before.
I was a big opponent of action combat until i started playing ESO and finally found a system that made sense to me, as well as allowing people to play the trinity (or not). Overall though, MMO action combat feels weaker than an action game so those people don't like it, and too twitchy for long time MMORPG tab'n targetters who want to kind of relax and what not.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Some aspects of it sound good. I like the fact they're bringing back the controller role. However, I think the problem lies in the action combat they're trying to emulate. Action combat wasn't the golden egg to save the genre everyone thought it was going to be a few years back. The aspect of EQ:Next that attracted people the most was the ability to shape and mold your surroundings, which is better harnessed in EQ Landmark. So unless they start to take advantage of the juju they built up in EQ Landmark and use some of it in EQ: Next, I don't see the game doing much better than what's already out there.
I'd love to play an MMORPG where some person doing a kill quest accidentally causes a horde of orcs to approach some town only to have the local woodcrafting players build wooden palisades to hold them off. That kind of reactive world sounds amazing, and that is the kind of game I'd love to play. Making craters with special moves or creating small obstructions like a temporary wall of ice using magic sounds nifty, but its not really taking advantage of what they're developing in a way that breaks free from what can be done elsewhere.
I would love to play in a world like that too, but I wonder if people would be able to handle it. I should include the EQN devs, as what was originally announced as a sandbox quickly began to be described as a Theme Park with diggable dirt. I agree with your assessment that beyond the few nifty craters and icewalls it's pretty much the same thing as before.
I was a big opponent of action combat until i started playing ESO and finally found a system that made sense to me, as well as allowing people to play the trinity (or not). Overall though, MMO action combat feels weaker than an action game so those people don't like it, and too twitchy for long time MMORPG tab'n targetters who want to kind of relax and what not.
Nope, they still making a sandbox game with AI thats never been done before. Events will unfold in the game in a way you as a player can impact to change the world. On a scale from server to server the game will be very different. This is a part of the game I love and hope they pull off. Its a tall order. What @lobotaru said they wanted to see happen where you can fortify a town from an invasion is just the type of game they are making. On another server the players will join the invasion and the town will no longer be there. Again, can they pull this off? <<<shrugs>>>
Comments
I was probably more hyped for it than I was for Ragefire. Now? Daybreak can suck it.
1) John Smedley is still in charge, the man is the most toxic force in the MMO industry, with him remaining in charge I won't be playing any of their products. Not worth my time or money because of him alone.
2) All the devs were let go, there's no experience at the rudder, which means Smedley will micromanage and trash the game just like he did with EQ1 post-Verant, and then with EQ2.
3) Daybreak's owner, Columbus Nova, is an investment banking firm that buys out and guts companies to turn a profit, runs them into the ground, then disposes of them. Not the kind of company I want running a game I could potentially invest years of my life and hundreds/thousands of dollars into.
I'm hyped for John Smedley's funeral now, I'm eagerly awaiting his obit so I can spit on his grave while playing Pantheon over wi-fi on my laptop. No doubt he'll outlive me out of spite, though.
Playing: Secret World: Legends
Waiting for: Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen
Not doing away with classes, allowing players to collect and earn the other classes. You'll only be able to play as one class at a time, albeit partially customizable. what this can mean (I say "can" because this depends on how they tune difficulty) players will not just need to be good at one "role" but maybe multiple ones. One of the great things about EQ was wanting to be good at a single role so you could get groups. If DGC does things right this may be the case on a greater level. As always, we'll have to see.
You're feelings about Smedley are you're own but this post seems to be spurred by emotion and missing some key things. I think it's reprehensible that over a video game you would look forward to someone's death.
2 - All the devs were not let go for EQN, nor any DGC title. Someone made a list on Reddit if you want to go check it.
3 - Please provide proof that CN specifically does this. I know about the purchase/gut/selloff presumption some are making because they are an investment firm but look deep into almost any gaming company and you'll find similar investors. Probably the same type Brad is trying to get right now...
LOL .. Is this game ever gonna come out at all?! Or it's just SOE marketing research project?
There is a quite huge hype about it for good 2-3 years now ...
- EQLandmark is floating around (interesting, but nothing special) ..
- and THAT's it. All we hear is just talks about how EQN will relate to this, what others will think about it, and not much else.
New class announced ... wow! every game has char classes - so nothing new there.
+ almost every video in the news about EQN instead of some alpha or development footage shows a funny pony-tailed guy, who over excitedly talks about how great the game will be ... for 2 years straight now.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
.... and this differs from Rift's soul system how? If you can switch from tank to healer to dps to range dps in under a minute ...... Yep not doing away with classes at all. Sorry if your character can be anything then it is not a character it is just an icon.
LOL beat me to it, I could not agree with you more an investor is an investor and while they were pretty steep cuts and will lead to changes in scope it is not necessarily the 'death' of the game, but it may be much less than was promised in the hype or take much longer to be delivered.
John Smedley whose public persona is something I do not like, but to wish him dead is more than a step too far.
Daybreak fired that guy (Dave Georgeson). Dave was in charge of the EQ franchise and running the show when the previous version of EQN was scrapped and the latest (3rd) redesign implemented. IMHO that was a huge vote of no confidence in his work.
Not a fan really, never really got in to EQ1/2 due to friends playing other titles and I joined them. Quite intrigued by some of the features that Georgeson and co spoke about though and if they can deliver it should be a wonderful game to get into. But they have to deliver.
Personally I believe it's a work in progress I've seen enough footage to have faith that it is a current and workable project. The companies track record isn't perfect, but I have yet to come across one that is. The truth to me is that it's the same company though but in different circumstances and with different backers. I'm not necessarily concerned about the dearth of information from the DB gang, they need to get their house in order after such a turbulent few months. To say I am not hungry for more would be a lie though.
Specifically I like the setting, I really like the character concepts and art and the idea of a truly dynamic world is very appealing to me. As a result I chose to invest in an early access pack for Landmark to help support the studio, I've logged a few hours and so far I am quite pleased with it as a beta title.
Fingers crossed that we get a decent press release at E3 concerning the game and the stage it's at.
Classes. I presume you've seen the mechanisms for changing classes, then? If you have, you must be some kind of privileged DGC insider, because I certainly haven't seen any hint of the equipment / inventory system in any of the official videos. If it is as simple as equipping a new weapon, as has been stated, why the hesitance to show that function in action? Is there some holdup, or is this functionality just not implemented yet? That would make this particular feature more promise and marketing hype than an actual mechanism, wouldn't it?
Multiple classes. I'm definitely not a fan of this direction. Making every player be good at multiple roles seems to be asking a lot from every individual player. I think this will promote a pile of players soloing in close proximity with a selective chat channel. And no matter how hard they try, there will be classes that are less fun to play. I expect we will hear players lamenting 'why do I have to be the [class] again?'. Either that or everyone will end up running the same dominant class all the time, no matter what the situation or group dynamic. I'm not a fan of 'everyone does everything' mechanisms, and everything stated (not demonstrated, mind you) seems to promote independence, not group-dependence.
Two micro cases where I feel the development of this game is either off-base or simply not progressing as hoped.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Thats a deep seeded kinda hate. You do get this is all over video games?
How equipment works and effects your skills has been discussed in depth. Matter of fact the alpha side of that is already playable in Landmark. Time to go google and get caught up on the game you are bashing as this info is a year old.
Works great in Rift. No one forces anyone to play a class they dont want to but many people liked playing more then one class in that game. As you suggest that more people would solo over teaming was not the case at all. Finding healers and tanks was a short line up. Often when a dungeon would stump a team, people would switch classes to attack a boss from a different angle. There is no reason it wont work the same in EQN. Giving people options often lead to people playing more then one class.
Discussion, not demonstration. There's a huge difference. How long must a game be in development before the development team feel comfortable enough to show a functional version of the ideas behind the game? It's been two years since the notorious 2013 Game of the Show award, and possibly a lot longer than that.
This again comes down to basic trust issues. Believe the developers discussion points or not. Let's face it, the SOE/DGC development team has little credibility with a larger section of the community than they would like. For you, it is easy to simply believe what is said. Others, like myself, would rather not trust their words, they have no 'face value' to me.
On Date_001, Developer_X said "TalkingPoint_001". That may be a factual statement, but the fact that someone said it doesn't mean TalkingPoint_001 is by itself factual. Let's see the implementation of TalkingPoint_001 in action. That's the basis of my stance, let's see what you've got, DGC. Don't tell me what you hope to do, or what is planned, or how this should work. Let the community see exactly where the EQ:N product is, what is (or isn't) implemented and how it does work.
When does changing classes on the fly deviate from an RPG for you? I can have a mix of units in an RTS and if a defender is immune from Unit_01's attack, I can simply attack with Unit_02. Does that mean changing tactics by changing my fundamental nature (by assuming another class) is really an RP activity? I don't.
I do want to play a role. Part of that comes down to a series of attributes, abilities and deficiencies the 'class' places on me. Changing classes, as a game mechanism, undermines my first in-game decision - what class do I play? If I suddenly switch roles mid-fight, how does that help me advance my primary aim -- to me the best Class_03 that I can? A rogue might need to dash around the battlefield to position themselves for their big attack, but an enchanter might choose a more stationary approach to buff and do their crowd control. If I'm in the mindset to play the enchanter, I don't want to face the necessity where the content dictates that I need to use a rogue's mindset. To me, that is almost the ultimate in breaking immersion.
Ever play Ryzom? The mechanism of building an ability there provides a similar 'feel'. It is possible to mix defense, attack, and healing, making everyone a very efficient soloing machine. But even in group settings, most players rely on their solo skill sets. A player may be the designated group tank, but he almost surely has his self-heal ability available. Grouping is partly an exercise in functional trust -- let the healer heal, the crowd controller lock down that extra mob, let the dps types blast the thing, while the tank holds the opponent's attention. If everyone does their job, the group is victorious. In situations like Ryzom, where it is possible for everyone to assume any of the roles at whim, the group dynamic is degraded. A mob gets loose, and the responsibility for tanking, mezzing, killing and healing shifts. Essentially, individual survival requires every player to be able to deploy each tactic as opposed to relying on a group member to provide that function. And that is essentially soloing in a group context.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Fact is what they are making is what they are making. You called it as no facts have been given when they have and working in Landmark. Go play it. How gear and skills work is currently in game and being built upon.
Many people in Rift played one class and only one class. It does not change that fact your wrong. That type of class system dose not take away from teaming. In Rift and created more teams and when teams failed they could just regroup, switch things up and keep going. So again your just wrong. If you want to play a trinity game, stop reading up on this game and go find another because your getting no where here. Your looking for the wrong game.
Rift still held the player to an archetype but the idea is similar in a way regarding flexibility. The question is really what should be concrete after character creation? Who is your character? If you want to be Ted the Halfling Warrior from creation on I can respect that, play how you want. I want to be Ted the Halfling and be able to start as a Warrior but have the flexibility to be a Mage if I earn it. It's a matter of freedom to me and I don't see a reason to limit what I can learn to be, especially in a "sandbox style" MMO.
Mendel
The SoELive videos from '13 and '14 go pretty in depth about the class/itemization plans. If you want a demonstration you know that isn't out right now. As Nanfoodle said, Landmark shows how they are working with builds and roles.
I played a class type in EQ for years. It was called Druid.
Druid had within it the ability to change rolls to suit the group
1. Pet Class... charm a very tuff animal and provide several buffs to it and heal it.
2. AOE Kite....snare several mobs and run them in circles while casting mass aoe on them.
3. DOT kills....slowly kill with damage over times, root, and snare
4. Group Heals....provide healing duty and buffs along with heal over time.
5. Group Transport....spirit of the wolf/eagle. casting gate spells and evac spells.
6. Group CC...provide distractions for mobs while others are being killed.
That's 6 various rolls with just one class. I believe the devs have made it clear they are going for something similar through the ability to pick up extra classes (rolls).
Just like in EQ these rolls will only be able to be changed out of combat. There will also be a large roll for gear to play within various rolls via attribute and ability modifications.
They have said there will be a main roll which you choose based around weapon and sub rolls you can choose or not choose for your other hotbar abilities. In this way it does have similarity to guildwars 2. However I do not believe they will skip healer classes. Also it sounds as if there will not be attribute capping as big as it was in Guildwars 2 when you tried to stack certain attributes to get max effect. Another thing...I believe EQN is not planning the leveling down mechanic in GW2. I found the leveling down mechanic a bit tedious and it made for less feel of power as you level up since you are still met with a challenge by a bunch of level 6 mobs when you are level 30.....
You are correct. This game will most likely show scope and depth in the pve space that pop focused games will gloss over since it's not a focus for those games. There was a reason why they called it everquest to begin with and wether it's scripted or simply a personal achievement....this brave new world will have many coming out of the woodworks to try it. Hopefully, whatever the finished product, it will have a hook with a sinker and a very, very long line so that everyone will grow an appreciation for it on the trip to getting caught in the web of fun for years to come.
No, not anymore. nothing to see, nothing to try, nothing to read, nothing to say about EQN
NEXT !
I'd love to play an MMORPG where some person doing a kill quest accidentally causes a horde of orcs to approach some town only to have the local woodcrafting players build wooden palisades to hold them off. That kind of reactive world sounds amazing, and that is the kind of game I'd love to play. Making craters with special moves or creating small obstructions like a temporary wall of ice using magic sounds nifty, but its not really taking advantage of what they're developing in a way that breaks free from what can be done elsewhere.
I was a big opponent of action combat until i started playing ESO and finally found a system that made sense to me, as well as allowing people to play the trinity (or not). Overall though, MMO action combat feels weaker than an action game so those people don't like it, and too twitchy for long time MMORPG tab'n targetters who want to kind of relax and what not.