Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Another thing from EQ I don't want to see

124»

Comments

  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    It's so interesting that this game is drumming up so much discussion on both sides of the "old school" fence in every topic about it.
    It will be nice to have a definitive example to point to in a few years finally in regards to the "how an old school game would fare today" argument that is constantly brought up.
    As a backer I'm excited to get in there and give it a go, but as an mmo gamer I know that my tastes/desires have changed quite a bit from my EQ/FFXI days. 
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,635
    DMKano said:
    Dullahan said:
    Rhoklaw said:
     As much as I hate solo artists in MMO's, it doesn't hurt the game to allow people to level up by themselves.
    I strongly disagree, and when I say disagree, I mean that statement is factually incorrect based on all available evidence.

    The problem with people being able to level up entirely by themselves is that it detracts from the social challenge in the game, making everything easier. In the end, it's largely responsible for people being able to rush through quickly, and never becoming attached to the world itself or it's inhabitants (other players). Without that bond with the world when the player truly appreciates the challenge and the people required to overcome it, players simply jump to the next game as soon as it becomes available.


    Even in the early days soloing was possible in EQ.


    It was seldom as efficient as grouping, but it was possible.


    Bards who swarm kited were more efficient than any group.
    My Necro could solo with ease in PoP. The AI in Pantheon will make it harder to kite. VR devs have said some mobs would kite, others would run away and get help when their HP hit a set %, others would kite you by snaring you and doting, maybe nuking you. Soloing will take more thought then EQ1.
  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 281
    DMKano said:
    Dullahan said:
    Rhoklaw said:
     As much as I hate solo artists in MMO's, it doesn't hurt the game to allow people to level up by themselves.
    I strongly disagree, and when I say disagree, I mean that statement is factually incorrect based on all available evidence.

    The problem with people being able to level up entirely by themselves is that it detracts from the social challenge in the game, making everything easier. In the end, it's largely responsible for people being able to rush through quickly, and never becoming attached to the world itself or it's inhabitants (other players). Without that bond with the world when the player truly appreciates the challenge and the people required to overcome it, players simply jump to the next game as soon as it becomes available.


    Even in the early days soloing was possible in EQ.


    It was seldom as efficient as grouping, but it was possible.


    Bards who swarm kited were more efficient than any group.
    Yeap and it was boring as heck also. I grouped 99+% of of the time with my bard as it was certainly not hard to find a good group in those days. Good grouping was very efficient apparently as I made 50 ( which was max level in EQ at the time) over a month before any other bard on my server. 
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413
    Mendel said:
    One of the biggest things I recall from the early days of EQ1 involved the philosophy of designing zones.  For those that don't remember, zones were roughly divided into those with good loot (including gear) and those with good experience.  This pulled players in an extra couple of directions.  Do we go here for a chance at loot, or do we go there and try to gain a level or two?  The 'loot heavy' zones were nothing special, maybe a special weapon like the Runed Totem Staff, and 7g instead of 1g per mob.  That took an awful long time for players to make any money in an evening.

    The 'experience-heavy' zones were far more generous, and always crowded.  High Pass Keep was home to the orcs in the tunnels, and indoors was all about the small goblin camp.  Both were exceptional experience.  It wouldn't have been unusual for characters to gain 2-5 levels in an evening, depending on how much competition was in-zone at the time.  Some spots for high experience are still in game, like the undead gnoll reavers hill in East Karana, and are still superior experience for the level 13-18 crowd.

    Another issue was the existence of camps where both the experience and loot were superior.  Bandit sashes in West Karana was an excellent source of experience -- there were lots of bandits and they gave good experience.  They also dropped the Bandit sashes which could be turned in for bronze weapons, which sold for 1-3 platinum apiece (a fortune when similar mobs were dropping a few silver pieces).  These hot spots were popular camps, and tended to draw a disproportionate portion of the population.

    A balanced design philosophy eventually took over and experience and loot were balanced.  The paltry loot was bumped considerably, where it is now possible to easily earn 10-20 platinum in any of the starting zones while on the ride from 1st to 5th level.

    This is one aspect of the early games that not many people remember, and I hope doesn't reappear in Pantheon.  This design philosophy was left on the side of the road when the game evolved.


    I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.  The best loot AND XP was always in dungeons. Always.  Dungeons had zonewide XP bonuses whereas outdoor zones did not.

    Now, obviously the risk was much much higher, so if you died a lot and lost a lot of XP then your net gain might have been higher in an outdoor zone.  That being said if you were a good group and capable of doing the dungeon area, the rewards were there in both XP and loot.

    Also, the two examples you give, things like bandit camps and crushbone belts, etc. Were really only for low levels and new players, there was nothing like that to my knowledge post level 20 ish, at least up to kunark.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,885
    I don't want dungeons unless they make sense and not just to house some Boss at the end of a  tunnel.
    I also don't want BEST of gear or best of anything,i want a diverse game that allows players choice in how they gear their player and NOT just best dps wins.
    While on the topic of loot,i don't want to see a repeat of several full loot bags every 2 hours needing an hour to clear out all the trash.
    Give us some useful reason to have trash items and not just to cash in to some vendor.In other words,make everything valuable,i hate trash items in games.

    At least we have a guy who is actually a lot better suited to game design than Smedley,whom could sink the Titanic before it was built,at least Brad waits until it hits the ocean lol.
    Joking aside i feel Brad will build the best game he can,problem is manpower and budget will not allow the best possible game let's hope it is good enough to keep us for 3+ years and not another fly by night like the rest.
    Dam i make good midnight sandwiches lol...mmmm



    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member RarePosts: 3,432
    edited March 2017
    Wizardry said:
    I don't want dungeons unless they make sense and not just to house some Boss at the end of a  tunnel.
    I also don't want BEST of gear or best of anything,i want a diverse game that allows players choice in how they gear their player and NOT just best dps wins.
    While on the topic of loot,i don't want to see a repeat of several full loot bags every 2 hours needing an hour to clear out all the trash.
    Give us some useful reason to have trash items and not just to cash in to some vendor.In other words,make everything valuable,i hate trash items in games.

    At least we have a guy who is actually a lot better suited to game design than Smedley,whom could sink the Titanic before it was built,at least Brad waits until it hits the ocean lol.
    Joking aside i feel Brad will build the best game he can,problem is manpower and budget will not allow the best possible game let's hope it is good enough to keep us for 3+ years and not another fly by night like the rest.
    Dam i make good midnight sandwiches lol...mmmm




    You talk some rubbish lol, EQ the fly by night is still going now and even Vanguard lasted 7 years. 

    This game will be more like those two games than you realise, after all who wants Ffxi copy lol, oh wait you do.

    There will always be a boss at the end of the tunnel but also bosses on the way to the end of the tunnel, stop playing mmo's if you can't handle that.  Some of the best dungeons in any mmo to date have come from Brad's games I doubt the wiz can school him on how to make interesting dungeons. 




  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Dullahan said:
    Rhoklaw said:
     As much as I hate solo artists in MMO's, it doesn't hurt the game to allow people to level up by themselves.
    I strongly disagree, and when I say disagree, I mean that statement is factually incorrect based on all available evidence.

    The problem with people being able to level up entirely by themselves is that it detracts from the social challenge in the game, making everything easier. In the end, it's largely responsible for people being able to rush through quickly, and never becoming attached to the world itself or it's inhabitants (other players). Without that bond with the world when the player truly appreciates the challenge and the people required to overcome it, players simply jump to the next game as soon as it becomes available.


    Even in the early days soloing was possible in EQ.


    It was seldom as efficient as grouping, but it was possible.

    The fact that only caster classes could do it effectively, and even for most of them it was less efficient, is why EQ was such a social mmorpg, and undoubtedly contributed largely to it's longevity as a game. The example of EQ only puts more weight behind my assertion.

    EQ was never designed for soloing. Content, especially after level 10, was intended to be entirely a group endeavor. The fact that there were ways to achieve some things solo was happenstance, and the byproduct of a good, open-ended design that did not entirely constrain the players.


  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Dullahan said:

    EQ was never designed for soloing. Content, especially after level 10, was intended to be entirely a group endeavor. The fact that there were ways to achieve some things solo was happenstance, and the byproduct of a good, open-ended design that did not entirely constrain the players.

    A game design I can only hope to see repeated. Good open-ended design that allows players to play the game in their own fashion.

    I don't ask that much content be specifically designated as solo. I do ask for players to be able to use alternate abilities and tactics to take on what would normally be group content.

    Yes, in EQ you could root rot, kite, or even pet tank, but it was seldom as efficient as killing the same mobs in a group. What it typically did do is allow a skilled player to progress alone when groups were not an option.


    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,218
    What it typically did do is allow a skilled player to progress alone when groups were not an option.


    Which is all that most people that want solo content included really want.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,635
    Dullahan said:

    EQ was never designed for soloing. Content, especially after level 10, was intended to be entirely a group endeavor. The fact that there were ways to achieve some things solo was happenstance, and the byproduct of a good, open-ended design that did not entirely constrain the players.

    A game design I can only hope to see repeated. Good open-ended design that allows players to play the game in their own fashion.

    I don't ask that much content be specifically designated as solo. I do ask for players to be able to use alternate abilities and tactics to take on what would normally be group content.

    Yes, in EQ you could root rot, kite, or even pet tank, but it was seldom as efficient as killing the same mobs in a group. What it typically did do is allow a skilled player to progress alone when groups were not an option.


     Always the divide between playing a class that solos well, that get over played or playing a class less played because it dose not solo well, that ends up needed more top lvls. 
Sign In or Register to comment.