Zones were smaller in EQ than many zones nowadays, but the mobs were harder to kill. You couldn't just go crashing through those zones like an Oklahoma hay ride. So they felt bigger than they are.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I have a feeling that it still won't change the minds of some as for whatever reason despite all the irrefutable evidence and data people just dont change.
Example - flat earthers
Hmmm here is a game concept...
A planet in ANOTHER SOLAR SYSTEM (not the earth) that is shaped like a disc. The planet is fully inhabited with mountain ranges, fresh water, fertile soil, etc.
Then it is invaded by a tech superior race. They land in the middle and push the natives out to the edge of the world. They live in fear of literally being pushed off the edge to oblivion. However, the natives have started to learn about the tech's weapons and begin fighting back.
The Techs were left by a sub light ship that is huge and holds a billion techs that colonize the worlds they discover. Once the ship leaves, it will be 5 years before it returns with reinforcements, meaning the natives have 5 years to reclaim their land and adapt to the new technology of the invaders, making their coin shaped planet strong enough to repel the ship when it returns.
FLAT PLANET: LIVING ON THE EDGE
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
If you look at the list, many were starting cities, often small (Grobb or Rivervale) or starting cities with multiple zones (Neriak). Or, there were many zones that were underused or rarely used at all.
And, @Tanist, I’ve been following Pantheon since Brad’s tweet in 2013 - and I do recall Brad talking about Pantheon’s projected zone/content count vs EQ and he wanted it similar. He also said he would prefer more dungeons though versus overland/city type zones.
Regardless though, if Pantheon includes starting cities/newbie areas/newbie - low level areas as one large zone, they could release with 30ish “zones” and have similar content to EQ at launch.
In the end, it isn’t the zone count, but the content within them.
If you look at the list, many were starting cities, often small (Grobb or Rivervale) or starting cities with multiple zones (Neriak). Or, there were many zones that were underused or rarely used at all.
And, @Tanist, I’ve been following Pantheon since Brad’s tweet in 2013 - and I do recall Brad talking about Pantheon’s projected zone/content count vs EQ and he wanted it similar. He also said he would prefer more dungeons though versus overland/city type zones.
Regardless though, if Pantheon includes starting cities/newbie areas/newbie - low level areas as one large zone, they could release with 30ish “zones” and have similar content to EQ at launch.
In the end, it isn’t the zone count, but the content within them.
True. My point about zone count was the content as well. It is true EQ zones lacked a lot of detailed structure that exists in Pantheon, which is an important point concerning the amount of work they have per each zone.
You claimed the original EQ zones were "small" compared to games today. I am not sure that is the case. I mean, many games today have large open zone-less worlds, but they are still technically "zones" with seamless transition. WoW was basically a bunch of zones (areas or regions) with seamless transition. Vanguard was the same with "chunks".
So those of you saying the zones are bigger today, are you accounting for this issue?
You claimed the original EQ zones were "small" compared to games today. I am not sure that is the case. I mean, many games today have large open zone-less worlds, but they are still technically "zones" with seamless transition. WoW was basically a bunch of zones (areas or regions) with seamless transition. Vanguard was the same with "chunks".
So those of you saying the zones are bigger today, are you accounting for this issue?
I loved EQ's zones. I have not been critical of them for that. In hindsight they seem smaller than many other games I have played. See a list in my signature. But the technology was new at the time, so it's understandable.
I suppose we could go back and forth, comparing one zone to another. EQ no doubt has some large zones, and other games have some small ones. But I am speaking in general.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
You claimed the original EQ zones were "small" compared to games today. I am not sure that is the case. I mean, many games today have large open zone-less worlds, but they are still technically "zones" with seamless transition. WoW was basically a bunch of zones (areas or regions) with seamless transition. Vanguard was the same with "chunks".
So those of you saying the zones are bigger today, are you accounting for this issue?
I loved EQ's zones. I have not been critical of them for that. In hindsight they seem smaller than many other games I have played. See a list in my signature. But the technology was new at the time, so it's understandable.
I suppose we could go back and forth, comparing one zone to another. EQ no doubt has some large zones, and other games have some small ones. But I am speaking in general.
That wasn't my point though. EQ has very large zones (many are gigantic, sure... empty, but massive in size, Karanas for instance). EQ was "zone" based though, while WoW and a lot of modern games are open world with regions. Reality is though, they are ALL zoned based to a degree, they just transition without load times due to various implementations.
For instance, WoW transitions are fairly easy to tell (well in the early game) as each "region" you went into would display a message to you. Roughly speaking, that would be a zone transition. Within Vanguard, it was made up of "chunks" which allows seamless transition to give the appearance of a large open world.
Certainly I am simplifying it, as there is a lot of tech on how the content within the zone functions due to those transition areas (mobs in some games stopping at the transition line and returning or various localized effects stopping or dropping, etc...)
Point is, those are technically still "areas" of a given size. I found that most of those games tended to have much smaller "areas" than EQs original zones. Even WoW's barrens I think is partiioned and not a single area.
The only other games I knew which had very large zones were games around EQs time (Asherons Call, Anarchy Online, etc...)
By my count, EQ1 had 72-74 zones at launch. However, all zones weren't equal.
Some zones were huge physically, but had few quests. Western Karanas was one of the largest, but a vast majority of the "quests" there started in Qeynos proper (and other "quest hubs").
Many zones were part of starting cities -- did Freeport really need 3 zones? These functioned as "quest hubs" sending players all over the world. There was a lot of writing invested into these zones, but not much in the way of things to hunt.
A large number of the higher end zones were simply unfinished. I started around week 3 post launch, and was already hearing complaints that "Nothing in LGuk dropped any loot". The planes were pretty much an unplayable wreck even a year later. Fear was feared; Hate was hated; Sky was a vast emptyness overhead. The zones may have been physically present, but functionally inept.
Although EQ1's official launch date was 1999, it really didn't become complete until one or two rounds of loot/drop adjustments were made to a very large portion of the game. Some things were never fixed -- pick locks worked, but painfully few places required that skill.
To me, Pantheon appears to be following this model. Fix the low end areas as completely as possible, leave the high-level stuff until later. That should provide content for the low-level locusts to consume while they focus on fleshing out the details of higher level areas.
This is partly why I'm very skeptical of "features" such as climbing, environments and perceptions. These seem to be first in line of mechanics to be neglected/removed as the game matures. These may be a point of difference that can be sold, but how much commitment will the development team have to these features a couple of years post-launch. That will be telling.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You claimed the original EQ zones were "small" compared to games today. I am not sure that is the case. I mean, many games today have large open zone-less worlds, but they are still technically "zones" with seamless transition. WoW was basically a bunch of zones (areas or regions) with seamless transition. Vanguard was the same with "chunks".
So those of you saying the zones are bigger today, are you accounting for this issue?
I loved EQ's zones. I have not been critical of them for that. In hindsight they seem smaller than many other games I have played. See a list in my signature. But the technology was new at the time, so it's understandable.
I suppose we could go back and forth, comparing one zone to another. EQ no doubt has some large zones, and other games have some small ones. But I am speaking in general.
That wasn't my point though. EQ has very large zones (many are gigantic, sure... empty, but massive in size, Karanas for instance). EQ was "zone" based though, while WoW and a lot of modern games are open world with regions. Reality is though, they are ALL zoned based to a degree, they just transition without load times due to various implementations.
For instance, WoW transitions are fairly easy to tell (well in the early game) as each "region" you went into would display a message to you. Roughly speaking, that would be a zone transition. Within Vanguard, it was made up of "chunks" which allows seamless transition to give the appearance of a large open world.
Certainly I am simplifying it, as there is a lot of tech on how the content within the zone functions due to those transition areas (mobs in some games stopping at the transition line and returning or various localized effects stopping or dropping, etc...)
Point is, those are technically still "areas" of a given size. I found that most of those games tended to have much smaller "areas" than EQs original zones. Even WoW's barrens I think is partiioned and not a single area.
The only other games I knew which had very large zones were games around EQs time (Asherons Call, Anarchy Online, etc...)
Karanas are you talking about east karana, south karana, west karana, or north karana ?
Or grouping them together? They were decent size I guess but mostly empty of content.
EQ had some small ones too like highpass. Most people were on dialup at EQ release so they had to have for the most part either fairly content rich small zones or content light large zones. I not dishing EQ, they did great for the internet and slow computers we had back then.
Today they can have content rich large zones if they choose to make such.
Or I guess they could even have giant content light zones which I hope not to see unless they let me have a bard.
Yeah some games have sort of invisible zone lines like vanguard did, some have a bubble zones that move with the player and I am sure others may have even different ways of doing it.
As far as games released since EQ with traditional zones, Lotro zones seem to be bigger to me than early EQ but I not seen where anyone actually measured them and did a comparison.
You claimed the original EQ zones were "small" compared to games today. I am not sure that is the case. I mean, many games today have large open zone-less worlds, but they are still technically "zones" with seamless transition. WoW was basically a bunch of zones (areas or regions) with seamless transition. Vanguard was the same with "chunks".
So those of you saying the zones are bigger today, are you accounting for this issue?
I loved EQ's zones. I have not been critical of them for that. In hindsight they seem smaller than many other games I have played. See a list in my signature. But the technology was new at the time, so it's understandable.
I suppose we could go back and forth, comparing one zone to another. EQ no doubt has some large zones, and other games have some small ones. But I am speaking in general.
That wasn't my point though. EQ has very large zones (many are gigantic, sure... empty, but massive in size, Karanas for instance). EQ was "zone" based though, while WoW and a lot of modern games are open world with regions. Reality is though, they are ALL zoned based to a degree, they just transition without load times due to various implementations.
For instance, WoW transitions are fairly easy to tell (well in the early game) as each "region" you went into would display a message to you. Roughly speaking, that would be a zone transition. Within Vanguard, it was made up of "chunks" which allows seamless transition to give the appearance of a large open world.
Certainly I am simplifying it, as there is a lot of tech on how the content within the zone functions due to those transition areas (mobs in some games stopping at the transition line and returning or various localized effects stopping or dropping, etc...)
Point is, those are technically still "areas" of a given size. I found that most of those games tended to have much smaller "areas" than EQs original zones. Even WoW's barrens I think is partiioned and not a single area.
The only other games I knew which had very large zones were games around EQs time (Asherons Call, Anarchy Online, etc...)
Karanas are you talking about east karana, south karana, west karana, or north karana ?
Or grouping them together? They were decent size I guess but mostly empty of content.
EQ had some small ones too like highpass. Most people were on dialup at EQ release so they had to have for the most part either fairly content rich small zones or content light large zones. I not dishing EQ, they did great for the internet and slow computers we had back then.
Today they can have content rich large zones if they choose to make such.
Or I guess they could even have giant content light zones which I hope not to see unless they let me have a bard.
Yeah some games have sort of invisible zone lines like vanguard did, some have a bubble zones that move with the player and I am sure others may have even different ways of doing it.
As far as games released since EQ with traditional zones, Lotro zones seem to be bigger to me than early EQ but I not seen where anyone actually measured them and did a comparison.
Most of them individually were large. West was huge, South I would say was second to it, but a lot of the zones in EQ were very large. If you want to get an idea of dimension, you can head to EQAtlas to see the /loc numbers to get an idea.
Zone information is all client side, so that had no effect on network bandwidth, just your computers speed in loading. Network information of your location, NPCs location, your commands, etc... is the data that gets sent.
I played a lot of LotRO (well, up until around Mirkwood when I got tired of the mainstreaming and PTW garbage), and I went back a few times just to see how things are (they really destroyed that game). They do seamless transitions there as well. Pretty much most games do that these days. Not sure if they are bigger, I don't think so though, just "feels" that way when you have that type of implementation.
You claimed the original EQ zones were "small" compared to games today. I am not sure that is the case. I mean, many games today have large open zone-less worlds, but they are still technically "zones" with seamless transition. WoW was basically a bunch of zones (areas or regions) with seamless transition. Vanguard was the same with "chunks".
So those of you saying the zones are bigger today, are you accounting for this issue?
I loved EQ's zones. I have not been critical of them for that. In hindsight they seem smaller than many other games I have played. See a list in my signature. But the technology was new at the time, so it's understandable.
I suppose we could go back and forth, comparing one zone to another. EQ no doubt has some large zones, and other games have some small ones. But I am speaking in general.
That wasn't my point though. EQ has very large zones (many are gigantic, sure... empty, but massive in size, Karanas for instance). EQ was "zone" based though, while WoW and a lot of modern games are open world with regions. Reality is though, they are ALL zoned based to a degree, they just transition without load times due to various implementations.
For instance, WoW transitions are fairly easy to tell (well in the early game) as each "region" you went into would display a message to you. Roughly speaking, that would be a zone transition. Within Vanguard, it was made up of "chunks" which allows seamless transition to give the appearance of a large open world.
Certainly I am simplifying it, as there is a lot of tech on how the content within the zone functions due to those transition areas (mobs in some games stopping at the transition line and returning or various localized effects stopping or dropping, etc...)
Point is, those are technically still "areas" of a given size. I found that most of those games tended to have much smaller "areas" than EQs original zones. Even WoW's barrens I think is partiioned and not a single area.
The only other games I knew which had very large zones were games around EQs time (Asherons Call, Anarchy Online, etc...)
Karanas are you talking about east karana, south karana, west karana, or north karana ?
Or grouping them together? They were decent size I guess but mostly empty of content.
EQ had some small ones too like highpass. Most people were on dialup at EQ release so they had to have for the most part either fairly content rich small zones or content light large zones. I not dishing EQ, they did great for the internet and slow computers we had back then.
Today they can have content rich large zones if they choose to make such.
Or I guess they could even have giant content light zones which I hope not to see unless they let me have a bard.
Yeah some games have sort of invisible zone lines like vanguard did, some have a bubble zones that move with the player and I am sure others may have even different ways of doing it.
As far as games released since EQ with traditional zones, Lotro zones seem to be bigger to me than early EQ but I not seen where anyone actually measured them and did a comparison.
Zone information is all client side, so that had no effect on network bandwidth, just your computers speed in loading. Network information of your location, NPCs location, your commands, etc... is the data that gets sent.
There is no meaning at all to a zone's size other than it's pixel unit size,which yeah,means almost nothing.Zones are connected and often devs will make you zig zag through a zone to make it feel even bigger than it really is. IDK about anyone else but i login to game,not walk around a zone with a measuring stick. Yes i get it,if a zone is too small it just looks bad,example Trion's Rift zones were often way too small. What matters to me with zones is if there is enough room to support several parties because i can't stand everyone heading into a dungeon.The early days of a release is the toughest because everyone is in the same zone.Then people come to the forums..lag lag.
When FFXI started it was incredibly crowded but we had choice,3 different starting cities each with several zones of options.If the game has the entire server all in the same zone,then yeah it's a problem.I think that is why they were eluding to some kind of fake instancing,you still see other players but your sort of independent of each other.
I don't like cheap fixes,i want the world and the choice of where to go in that world,several zones of choice.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You claimed the original EQ zones were "small" compared to games today. I am not sure that is the case. I mean, many games today have large open zone-less worlds, but they are still technically "zones" with seamless transition. WoW was basically a bunch of zones (areas or regions) with seamless transition. Vanguard was the same with "chunks".
So those of you saying the zones are bigger today, are you accounting for this issue?
I loved EQ's zones. I have not been critical of them for that. In hindsight they seem smaller than many other games I have played. See a list in my signature. But the technology was new at the time, so it's understandable.
I suppose we could go back and forth, comparing one zone to another. EQ no doubt has some large zones, and other games have some small ones. But I am speaking in general.
That wasn't my point though. EQ has very large zones (many are gigantic, sure... empty, but massive in size, Karanas for instance). EQ was "zone" based though, while WoW and a lot of modern games are open world with regions. Reality is though, they are ALL zoned based to a degree, they just transition without load times due to various implementations.
For instance, WoW transitions are fairly easy to tell (well in the early game) as each "region" you went into would display a message to you. Roughly speaking, that would be a zone transition. Within Vanguard, it was made up of "chunks" which allows seamless transition to give the appearance of a large open world.
Certainly I am simplifying it, as there is a lot of tech on how the content within the zone functions due to those transition areas (mobs in some games stopping at the transition line and returning or various localized effects stopping or dropping, etc...)
Point is, those are technically still "areas" of a given size. I found that most of those games tended to have much smaller "areas" than EQs original zones. Even WoW's barrens I think is partiioned and not a single area.
The only other games I knew which had very large zones were games around EQs time (Asherons Call, Anarchy Online, etc...)
Karanas are you talking about east karana, south karana, west karana, or north karana ?
Or grouping them together? They were decent size I guess but mostly empty of content.
EQ had some small ones too like highpass. Most people were on dialup at EQ release so they had to have for the most part either fairly content rich small zones or content light large zones. I not dishing EQ, they did great for the internet and slow computers we had back then.
Today they can have content rich large zones if they choose to make such.
Or I guess they could even have giant content light zones which I hope not to see unless they let me have a bard.
Yeah some games have sort of invisible zone lines like vanguard did, some have a bubble zones that move with the player and I am sure others may have even different ways of doing it.
As far as games released since EQ with traditional zones, Lotro zones seem to be bigger to me than early EQ but I not seen where anyone actually measured them and did a comparison.
Zone information is all client side, so that had no effect on network bandwidth, just your computers speed in loading. Network information of your location, NPCs location, your commands, etc... is the data that gets sent.
Yeah that is why they had large empty zones.
Yeah, I don't think that was the issue. MUDs/MUSHs dealt with numerous spam from users (ie people macroing pages of script ) and while you would get a lag on load, it still would get through fairly well.
The amount of data being sent back and forth from the client to server is actually minimal if you design properly and having very tight and efficient code was required back then. That still may have played a part, though I think it was a combination of things as to why the zones were less populated, including the fact that EQ was endurance based, long travel (large distances between zone to zone which mobs would chase to), slow travel (most NPCs could outrun a player unless they had run speed enhancements). If they packed mobs like they did with WoW and later games, it would be almost unplayable (even a group would have trouble taking on packs of mobs).
Personally, I liked it. In fact, I have subbed back to one of the TLPs with some friends to experience some of it again and I really like the empty zones, the feel of large areas that are vast and feel like the game is huge. I can't explain it exactly, but I even like the older look and feel of the games older zones (I don't care for the revamp they did to FP/Nek/Ro/EC. I prefer the older meshes, the plainness of the ground without being cluttered with al the grass and fauna. It just felt better, less busy.
I think zones need to be very large, and populations should be sparse (with clumps of mobs here and there or a lone straggler walking the empty space. The last thing I want to see in Pantheon is WoW populations where every 2 feet is a mob or something to do. While I like dense content in some games, in my MMOs, I prefer it to be sparse with hidden areas as it compliments the "mystery" in play of exploring. There were a lot of people who skipped areas, missed the secrets, etc.. because they assumed the areas were just vast nothingness.
Also, there are subtle elements of play that are important with very large zones that compliment each other. A large zone with slow travel, that is the run speed should be slow without spells, people should literally "feel" the distance as they travel and that speed should bring fear of encountering mobs they can not beat as they will likely die before they can get anywhere near a zone exit.
That alone will increase desire to find solutions to these dangers and issues. People will want speed spells, invis, snare/root, harmony, etc... each classes abilities becomes a pro/con of these issues.
Anyway, I am rambling, but like I said, empty zones aren't a bad thing, if they are properly balanced with hidden content and provide a means for dangerous experience.
There is no meaning at all to a zone's size other than it's pixel unit size,which yeah,means almost nothing.Zones are connected and often devs will make you zig zag through a zone to make it feel even bigger than it really is. IDK about anyone else but i login to game,not walk around a zone with a measuring stick. Yes i get it,if a zone is too small it just looks bad,example Trion's Rift zones were often way too small. What matters to me with zones is if there is enough room to support several parties because i can't stand everyone heading into a dungeon.The early days of a release is the toughest because everyone is in the same zone.Then people come to the forums..lag lag.
When FFXI started it was incredibly crowded but we had choice,3 different starting cities each with several zones of options.If the game has the entire server all in the same zone,then yeah it's a problem.I think that is why they were eluding to some kind of fake instancing,you still see other players but your sort of independent of each other.
I don't like cheap fixes,i want the world and the choice of where to go in that world,several zones of choice.
One of the many reasons for large zones is travel time and this affects the issues you are considering. Take a large zone, add in slow run speed, limited teleport abilities to traverse (even wiz and druid ports didn't eliminate the travel time, it still took a while to get places) and you end up with lots of subtle game play value.
If you have a lot of zones that are large, to where travel from one area to the other side of the world is a very large undertaking (it should take a few hours for a player to run without a run speed buff from one side of the world to the other) then it creates more of a "world" feel rather than just an area where arcade gaming is going on (many modern MMOs feel like a circus attraction where you walk along the games and see random people playing).
This is also why there has to be a wide selection of content (ie zones/areas of content) at release. If their zones are huge (and I will be clear, as you said, a zone is just a particular area of size) and there is sufficient content within each, then with proper population balancing, you will get "options" for people to experience the game without being thrust into a room filled with others.
EQ on release had "some" crowds, but nothing like modern MMOs are (granted that is because games today have a LOT more players than EQ did). EQ having a lot of content, they had NUMEROUS starting cities (around 13ish I think at start), which combined with large zones and long distant travel allowed for people to spread out.
What is also did is allow the explorers, the people who took risks, to find content. I remember as new expansions would come out, the sheep would rush off to the hot zones and they would be packed, even though the server had numerous areas of content at level. The beauty of this was those who were willing to search and explore would find nice camps, rares that people didn't even know exist. There were a lot of camps in EQ where it didn't look like anything was really there, but if you stayed, and worked the spawns, eventually something would pop, and of course word would get out and that area would be packed by the sheep.
My friends and I found numerous first rare spawns and locations because we would explore, not sheepish stand in line to camp the hot spots. I was one of the first people to get the sea house spine belt in Sirens Grotto because we chose to explore a zone that didn't appear to provide much return and was too dangerous for most to accept.
Modern MMOs channel everyone into the same zones and the game feels like an arcade room. So, again... zone size while just a basic measurement, is important in and of itself I think, just as there are tons of other subtle elements that people overlook to which provide value to the game.
Yeah, I don't think that was the issue. MUDs/MUSHs dealt with numerous spam from users (ie people macroing pages of script ) and while you would get a lag on load, it still would get through fairly well.
The amount of data being sent back and forth from the client to server is actually minimal if you design properly and having very tight and efficient code was required back then. That still may have played a part, though I think it was a combination of things as to why the zones were less populated, including the fact that EQ was endurance based, long travel (large distances between zone to zone which mobs would chase to), slow travel (most NPCs could outrun a player unless they had run speed enhancements). If they packed mobs like they did with WoW and later games, it would be almost unplayable (even a group would have trouble taking on packs of mobs).
Personally, I liked it. In fact, I have subbed back to one of the TLPs with some friends to experience some of it again and I really like the empty zones, the feel of large areas that are vast and feel like the game is huge. I can't explain it exactly, but I even like the older look and feel of the games older zones (I don't care for the revamp they did to FP/Nek/Ro/EC. I prefer the older meshes, the plainness of the ground without being cluttered with al the grass and fauna. It just felt better, less busy.
I think zones need to be very large, and populations should be sparse (with clumps of mobs here and there or a lone straggler walking the empty space. The last thing I want to see in Pantheon is WoW populations where every 2 feet is a mob or something to do. While I like dense content in some games, in my MMOs, I prefer it to be sparse with hidden areas as it compliments the "mystery" in play of exploring. There were a lot of people who skipped areas, missed the secrets, etc.. because they assumed the areas were just vast nothingness.
Also, there are subtle elements of play that are important with very large zones that compliment each other. A large zone with slow travel, that is the run speed should be slow without spells, people should literally "feel" the distance as they travel and that speed should bring fear of encountering mobs they can not beat as they will likely die before they can get anywhere near a zone exit.
That alone will increase desire to find solutions to these dangers and issues. People will want speed spells, invis, snare/root, harmony, etc... each classes abilities becomes a pro/con of these issues.
Anyway, I am rambling, but like I said, empty zones aren't a bad thing, if they are properly balanced with hidden content and provide a means for dangerous experience.
Ok I should have said large zones mostly empty of dynamic content. You could of course have as many trees and such as you wanted as those were client side.
Lag was a big issue in early EQ. Well I guess unless you were in the large empty (dynamic content wise) zones with a small group.
I never had the fear of encountering mobs in a large empty zone as well it was so empty that it was easy to avoid the few mobs. Zones with higher npc populations like Kithicor forest at night was what cause fear early on. Of course the biggest thing that causes fear of death is what you can lose at death. Minor loss = no fear.
I do agree that they don't need to make zones too crowded but they don't need to make them empty like the karanas were. I agree that I don't want it looking anything like WoW.
I don't mind big zones but they need npc areas to be more than four orcs standing around a fire. Make a small orc town, fort or something.
As far as the less cluttered ground, in most games you can turn most of that stuff off and make the ground more plain. I often do this myself.
Yeah, I don't think that was the issue. MUDs/MUSHs dealt with numerous spam from users (ie people macroing pages of script ) and while you would get a lag on load, it still would get through fairly well.
The amount of data being sent back and forth from the client to server is actually minimal if you design properly and having very tight and efficient code was required back then. That still may have played a part, though I think it was a combination of things as to why the zones were less populated, including the fact that EQ was endurance based, long travel (large distances between zone to zone which mobs would chase to), slow travel (most NPCs could outrun a player unless they had run speed enhancements). If they packed mobs like they did with WoW and later games, it would be almost unplayable (even a group would have trouble taking on packs of mobs).
Personally, I liked it. In fact, I have subbed back to one of the TLPs with some friends to experience some of it again and I really like the empty zones, the feel of large areas that are vast and feel like the game is huge. I can't explain it exactly, but I even like the older look and feel of the games older zones (I don't care for the revamp they did to FP/Nek/Ro/EC. I prefer the older meshes, the plainness of the ground without being cluttered with al the grass and fauna. It just felt better, less busy.
I think zones need to be very large, and populations should be sparse (with clumps of mobs here and there or a lone straggler walking the empty space. The last thing I want to see in Pantheon is WoW populations where every 2 feet is a mob or something to do. While I like dense content in some games, in my MMOs, I prefer it to be sparse with hidden areas as it compliments the "mystery" in play of exploring. There were a lot of people who skipped areas, missed the secrets, etc.. because they assumed the areas were just vast nothingness.
Also, there are subtle elements of play that are important with very large zones that compliment each other. A large zone with slow travel, that is the run speed should be slow without spells, people should literally "feel" the distance as they travel and that speed should bring fear of encountering mobs they can not beat as they will likely die before they can get anywhere near a zone exit.
That alone will increase desire to find solutions to these dangers and issues. People will want speed spells, invis, snare/root, harmony, etc... each classes abilities becomes a pro/con of these issues.
Anyway, I am rambling, but like I said, empty zones aren't a bad thing, if they are properly balanced with hidden content and provide a means for dangerous experience.
Ok I should have said large zones mostly empty of dynamic content. You could of course have as many trees and such as you wanted as those were client side.
Lag was a big issue in early EQ. Well I guess unless you were in the large empty (dynamic content wise) zones with a small group.
I never had the fear of encountering mobs in a large empty zone as well it was so empty that it was easy to avoid the few mobs. Zones with higher npc populations like Kithicor forest at night was what cause fear early on. Of course the biggest thing that causes fear of death is what you can lose at death. Minor loss = no fear.
I do agree that they don't need to make zones too crowded but they don't need to make them empty like the karanas were. I agree that I don't want it looking anything like WoW.
I don't mind big zones but they need npc areas to be more than four orcs standing around a fire. Make a small orc town, fort or something.
As far as the less cluttered ground, in most games you can turn most of that stuff off and make the ground more plain. I often do this myself.
I never had issue with lag to be honest, even the raids were pretty smooth. Granted I was always running the top end machine and graphics cards for the time and worked with the owner of an ISP, so my connection was always pretty good.
Well, a lot of the fear was if you were camping something too far away from a zone and didn't have the ability to outrun or slow a mob down. Even so, doing the lowbie run was always dangerous due to the excessive agro range of high level mobs and all it took was not paying attention and having a mob pop on you are come up on you and the race was on, usually resulting in death and a VERY long walk back from your bind point.
As for the camps, I think a mix of different ones is good. Smaller camps allow smaller groups (duos/trios) to do content and larger towns are good for full groups. I like a range of them to be honest. For instance, South Karana and Lake near it had various roaming mobs, small groups, and larger villages. So there was something for everyone.
The karana's were a bit "too" empty, I agree, but they do need to have some sparseness, or it just ends up being a gimmick of exp AoEing. That is the one thing I hated about later EQ and most modern games, the need to get rid of trash or turn them into nothing but AOE fodder. I prefer the long, slow, careful grind thorough the trash to get to a named room. It made deep dungeons very dangerous, and kept those who wanted "easy" pretty much back at the zone line looking for easy groups.
I loved the Karanas. Speaking just for me, the large spaces, combined with the spooky music, really touched a nerve. I was always looking over my shoulder.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Yeah, I don't think that was the issue. MUDs/MUSHs dealt with numerous spam from users (ie people macroing pages of script ) and while you would get a lag on load, it still would get through fairly well.
The amount of data being sent back and forth from the client to server is actually minimal if you design properly and having very tight and efficient code was required back then. That still may have played a part, though I think it was a combination of things as to why the zones were less populated, including the fact that EQ was endurance based, long travel (large distances between zone to zone which mobs would chase to), slow travel (most NPCs could outrun a player unless they had run speed enhancements). If they packed mobs like they did with WoW and later games, it would be almost unplayable (even a group would have trouble taking on packs of mobs).
Personally, I liked it. In fact, I have subbed back to one of the TLPs with some friends to experience some of it again and I really like the empty zones, the feel of large areas that are vast and feel like the game is huge. I can't explain it exactly, but I even like the older look and feel of the games older zones (I don't care for the revamp they did to FP/Nek/Ro/EC. I prefer the older meshes, the plainness of the ground without being cluttered with al the grass and fauna. It just felt better, less busy.
I think zones need to be very large, and populations should be sparse (with clumps of mobs here and there or a lone straggler walking the empty space. The last thing I want to see in Pantheon is WoW populations where every 2 feet is a mob or something to do. While I like dense content in some games, in my MMOs, I prefer it to be sparse with hidden areas as it compliments the "mystery" in play of exploring. There were a lot of people who skipped areas, missed the secrets, etc.. because they assumed the areas were just vast nothingness.
Also, there are subtle elements of play that are important with very large zones that compliment each other. A large zone with slow travel, that is the run speed should be slow without spells, people should literally "feel" the distance as they travel and that speed should bring fear of encountering mobs they can not beat as they will likely die before they can get anywhere near a zone exit.
That alone will increase desire to find solutions to these dangers and issues. People will want speed spells, invis, snare/root, harmony, etc... each classes abilities becomes a pro/con of these issues.
Anyway, I am rambling, but like I said, empty zones aren't a bad thing, if they are properly balanced with hidden content and provide a means for dangerous experience.
Ok I should have said large zones mostly empty of dynamic content. You could of course have as many trees and such as you wanted as those were client side.
Lag was a big issue in early EQ. Well I guess unless you were in the large empty (dynamic content wise) zones with a small group.
I never had the fear of encountering mobs in a large empty zone as well it was so empty that it was easy to avoid the few mobs. Zones with higher npc populations like Kithicor forest at night was what cause fear early on. Of course the biggest thing that causes fear of death is what you can lose at death. Minor loss = no fear.
I do agree that they don't need to make zones too crowded but they don't need to make them empty like the karanas were. I agree that I don't want it looking anything like WoW.
I don't mind big zones but they need npc areas to be more than four orcs standing around a fire. Make a small orc town, fort or something.
As far as the less cluttered ground, in most games you can turn most of that stuff off and make the ground more plain. I often do this myself.
I never had issue with lag to be honest, even the raids were pretty smooth. Granted I was always running the top end machine and graphics cards for the time and worked with the owner of an ISP, so my connection was always pretty good.
Well, a lot of the fear was if you were camping something too far away from a zone and didn't have the ability to outrun or slow a mob down. Even so, doing the lowbie run was always dangerous due to the excessive agro range of high level mobs and all it took was not paying attention and having a mob pop on you are come up on you and the race was on, usually resulting in death and a VERY long walk back from your bind point.
As for the camps, I think a mix of different ones is good. Smaller camps allow smaller groups (duos/trios) to do content and larger towns are good for full groups. I like a range of them to be honest. For instance, South Karana and Lake near it had various roaming mobs, small groups, and larger villages. So there was something for everyone.
The karana's were a bit "too" empty, I agree, but they do need to have some sparseness, or it just ends up being a gimmick of exp AoEing. That is the one thing I hated about later EQ and most modern games, the need to get rid of trash or turn them into nothing but AOE fodder. I prefer the long, slow, careful grind thorough the trash to get to a named room. It made deep dungeons very dangerous, and kept those who wanted "easy" pretty much back at the zone line looking for easy groups.
Well I had the computer and such for the game but being in a rural area, my internet was dialup and far from the best. Fear, hate and sky were not bad lag wise but the early dragons were often lag fests.
Lady Vox was especially bad. We use to limit the vox raid to around 3 to 3 and half groups so we not get killed by lag.
My first character was a bard so I never experience the not being able to get away with him. I could make some massive trains though.
I recall the raid lag being so bad we all had to face the wall. All of us used to complain in 1999 playing Everquest. I don't recall anyone saying they did not have lag. We would drop out then hurry to log back in on dial up. All that would take hours and hours but we did it. Those were the days.
I recall the raid lag being so bad we all had to face the wall. All of us used to complain in 1999 playing Everquest. I don't recall anyone saying they did not have lag. We would drop out then hurry to log back in on dial up. All that would take hours and hours but we did it. Those were the days.
It was a different age, when men were men and women were...usually men
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
let me sum up Pantheon for everyone. it's vaporware. it will never make it to retail release. wait and see. it already a dead project and they know it. They will pull the plug on it. wait and see. over 6 years and they can't even get to alpha. it's Not happening. ever.
I too can naysay everything with a chance at being correct. When I’m wrong I ignore it or say it was a miracle, but when I’m right I’ll gloat like there’s no tomorrow and command everyone to grovel at my prophetic wisdom.
Wondering where VR is at in development progress 5+ years into the process is "a thought trap", but assuming that 10 entire zones are complete because we've seen portions of them in a video is a rational, logical thought process? This is the logic that the white knights cling to. Desperate times, indeed.
If they are so far along, why haven't we seen anything of substance in more than a year? June will mark two years since the announcement of PF, and yet there is no discernible progress on crafting, itemization, group finding, colored mana, perception, offline travel, acclimation, animations, the website etc, etc? And if you think passing off a skill window and prettifying the name "the living codex" is massive progress in 20 months, I don't know what to say.
And again, people will fall back on the "just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" argument, which holds absolutely zero water for anyone interested in forming an opinion based on actual critical thinking.
NOBODY wants the game to fail, but it's embarrassing and sad watching adults twist themselves into pretzels of self deceit over where this game is at.
Wondering where VR is at in development progress 5+ years into the process is "a thought trap", but assuming that 10 entire zones are complete because we've seen portions of them in a video is a rational, logical thought process? This is the logic that the white knights cling to. Desperate times, indeed.
If they are so far along, why haven't we seen anything of substance in more than a year? June will mark two years since the announcement of PF, and yet there is no discernible progress on crafting, itemization, group finding, colored mana, perception, offline travel, acclimation, animations, the website etc, etc? And if you think passing off a skill window and prettifying the name "the living codex" is massive progress in 20 months, I don't know what to say.
And again, people will fall back on the "just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" argument, which holds absolutely zero water for anyone interested in forming an opinion based on actual critical thinking.
NOBODY wants the game to fail, but it's embarrassing and sad watching adults twist themselves into pretzels of self deceit over where this game is at.
Oh those white knights always making ridiculous claims without evidence. How insane of them
Comments
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
A planet in ANOTHER SOLAR SYSTEM (not the earth) that is shaped like a disc. The planet is fully inhabited with mountain ranges, fresh water, fertile soil, etc.
Then it is invaded by a tech superior race. They land in the middle and push the natives out to the edge of the world. They live in fear of literally being pushed off the edge to oblivion. However, the natives have started to learn about the tech's weapons and begin fighting back.
The Techs were left by a sub light ship that is huge and holds a billion techs that colonize the worlds they discover. Once the ship leaves, it will be 5 years before it returns with reinforcements, meaning the natives have 5 years to reclaim their land and adapt to the new technology of the invaders, making their coin shaped planet strong enough to repel the ship when it returns.
FLAT PLANET: LIVING ON THE EDGE
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
https://everquest.fandom.com/wiki/EverQuest:_Original_Release
If you look at the list, many were starting cities, often small (Grobb or Rivervale) or starting cities with multiple zones (Neriak). Or, there were many zones that were underused or rarely used at all.
And, @Tanist, I’ve been following Pantheon since Brad’s tweet in 2013 - and I do recall Brad talking about Pantheon’s projected zone/content count vs EQ and he wanted it similar. He also said he would prefer more dungeons though versus overland/city type zones.
Regardless though, if Pantheon includes starting cities/newbie areas/newbie - low level areas as one large zone, they could release with 30ish “zones” and have similar content to EQ at launch.
I suppose we could go back and forth, comparing one zone to another. EQ no doubt has some large zones, and other games have some small ones. But I am speaking in general.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Yeah that is why they had large empty zones.
IDK about anyone else but i login to game,not walk around a zone with a measuring stick.
Yes i get it,if a zone is too small it just looks bad,example Trion's Rift zones were often way too small.
What matters to me with zones is if there is enough room to support several parties because i can't stand everyone heading into a dungeon.The early days of a release is the toughest because everyone is in the same zone.Then people come to the forums..lag lag.
When FFXI started it was incredibly crowded but we had choice,3 different starting cities each with several zones of options.If the game has the entire server all in the same zone,then yeah it's a problem.I think that is why they were eluding to some kind of fake instancing,you still see other players but your sort of independent of each other.
I don't like cheap fixes,i want the world and the choice of where to go in that world,several zones of choice.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Lag was a big issue in early EQ. Well I guess unless you were in the large empty (dynamic content wise) zones with a small group.
I never had the fear of encountering mobs in a large empty zone as well it was so empty that it was easy to avoid the few mobs. Zones with higher npc populations like Kithicor forest at night was what cause fear early on. Of course the biggest thing that causes fear of death is what you can lose at death. Minor loss = no fear.
I do agree that they don't need to make zones too crowded but they don't need to make them empty like the karanas were. I agree that I don't want it looking anything like WoW.
I don't mind big zones but they need npc areas to be more than four orcs standing around a fire. Make a small orc town, fort or something.
As far as the less cluttered ground, in most games you can turn most of that stuff off and make the ground more plain. I often do this myself.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
They will pull the plug on it. wait and see.
over 6 years and they can't even get to alpha. it's Not happening. ever.
If they are so far along, why haven't we seen anything of substance in more than a year? June will mark two years since the announcement of PF, and yet there is no discernible progress on crafting, itemization, group finding, colored mana, perception, offline travel, acclimation, animations, the website etc, etc? And if you think passing off a skill window and prettifying the name "the living codex" is massive progress in 20 months, I don't know what to say.
And again, people will fall back on the "just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" argument, which holds absolutely zero water for anyone interested in forming an opinion based on actual critical thinking.
NOBODY wants the game to fail, but it's embarrassing and sad watching adults twist themselves into pretzels of self deceit over where this game is at.
...