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

24

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,138
    Zuljan said:
    Torval said:
    Dullahan said:
    DMKano said:
    Dullahan said:
    It should be simple risk versus reward to determine experience. The more dangerous a zone is, the better loot and/or experience it should yield. Basically, any area you can do with 1 or 2 people should be poor experience. The best exp should come from grouping, and the more challenging group content.

    Except in terms of actual challenge its usually a lot easier in a full group than 2 people or even solo.

    Ive been playing with the same core of players since 1999, so we just crush group content due to just knowing eachothers playstyle so well and extreme familiarity with mmorpgs.

    So full group content is usually more faceroll in terms of challenge
    That makes, quite literally, no sense. Group content is innately harder simply because it requires a group. The challenge at that point is not in combat mechanics, but by virtue of the quantity or strength of mobs, it demands more players.

    So a solo player who was killing mobs of the same level outside of a dungeon goes in, he gets wrecked in an area designed with a full group in mind... because it's harder.

    Yes, it is "easier" to do such content with a group, but that doesn't make that content easier than other content that you can do solo. It should be an assumed design that players approach massively multiplayer game content with a group.
    Wow, just no. That is not how challenge and difficulty works. If this game is only "challenging" due to numbers and ratios of them, then it's screwed from the get go.

    Challenge is all about combat mechanics. That's why many people understand that contrived "group" "solo" "small group" large group" "raid" content is inherently flawed with regards to challenge.

    I seriously doubt VR will shot themselves in the foot by making group content about numbers.
    You're both right honestly. Challenge isn't just about numbers - that's obviously true - but it's also true that in greater numbers requires greater challenge in the sense that instead of requiring just 1 or 2 people to react to mob abilities, kite, take adds, etc, you are required to have all 6 people or in EQ raids 72 people execute this same sequence. This would inherently also require a larger room, which then requires more positioning, more opportunities for mistakes, and other variables.
    With more people you have more variables, but also the more people the more specialized they become and less responsible for a variety of activities. So they can do that one thing really well and their biggest challenge is making sure they execute that within their window of opportunity. The more people there are generally the more people you can have go down without a wipe as well.

    Fewer people have fewer more consistent variation, but have to be responsible to carry out a wider range of tasks. I talk about Rift's Master Mode dungeons a lot. Those were like 5 person raid level instances. They had complex mechanics and each character had to do their primary role plus be able to carry out extra tasks. A single character death in a battle usually meant wipe and try again unless someone had instant battle rez's available - not every class/soul combo is stacked with those.

    That general thumbrule is true in EQ2, WoW, and LotRO.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,138
    Kyleran said:
    Torval said:
    Kyleran said:
    Torval neither wants to cooperatively play in a group nor play a MMO for more than 6 weeks at a time.

    Your arguments falls on deaf ears. ;)
    Wait what? You're speaking for me now? Oh, Is that your weak attempt to rattle me? I hope you have something better than that, like something of substance to add to the conversation.

    Harder to accomplish and challenge in combat aren't the same thing. It's not challenging for the solo player that PC mitigation and damage output doesn't compare to the mob.

    In a PvP battle a level 5 player isn't challenged by a level 50 player.

    Using damage numbers and health to define challenge means that the only thing needed is more people. In modern and old school raid mechanics using dps checks is the lowest common denominator as a challenge.

    Challenge is defined by the need for tactics and strategy in a possible scenario. If the scenario is impossible there is no challenge to it and the outcome is predictable.

    We weren't talking about numbers of mobs or environment before. We were talking about increasing the health and damage of a single mob.
    Actually I was making observations on your gaming preferences based on recent statements by you in these forums.

    He was trying to convince you about grouping and playing long term, neither of which you favor.

    As to the question of challenge from higher DPS of course one solution is to zerg it down, but on some games the diminishing return on rewards makes it undesireable.

    In DAOC my Mentalist can attack a low level green or blue mob and burn it down easily, but for very low reward. 

    Yellow con is more challeging, have to kite them for one cycle, but they normally go down unless the resist RNG demon comes into play.

    Orange cons are dicey, higher resist rates and HPs require several kite runs and every now and then go south, but they provide the maximum experience the cap will allow.

    Reds, well I won't do them solo, resist rates are too high, you end up burning too much mana which you have to sit off to regen and due to exp cap, usually not worth it.

    Every class is different in DAOC, Bards can't beat a blue solo at times, while pet classes such as chanters and necros can solo some low purples in the right scenario. (which they normally only do when powerleveling someone) But they don't kite, pets tank and they melee or blast mob down.

    So I see a lot of combat variance and possibility just from increasing the damage and DPS on a mob.

    As for randomness, if you had seen my guildmates and I struggle with a standard Bard lvl 50 Epic quest last night you'd understand how unpredictable the PVE from a 15 year old game could be.  We wiped hard for over 2 hours, they were still at it when I logged at midnight.

    Was descibed by some in ZAM back in 2003 as "too easy"  Guess we just suck.   ;)
    My gaming preferences, which depend on the game and who I am gaming with, and even more so your fairly rude condescending observations of them are completely irrelevant to the point. You can make underhanded personal jabs to try and strengthen your point but they don't actually matter to the argument.

    Class variance (relative strength/weakness regarding dps, mits, heals, cc, etc) really has nothing to do with scaling either. The post Distopia made about scaling sums it up. Scaling doesn't equate directly to challenge. It could be argued that there is an indirect correlation, but that really applies as it relates to simple dps/hps/mit timer/checks and those are about the crudest form of mechanics checks you can make in an encounter.

    Which goes back to the OPs point that simple mob encounters, single reward commodity based interactions with mobs, are something he would rather not see in Pantheon. Dullahan somehow correlated that with solo people should get bad rewards and groups should get good rewards because group mobs are harder.

    The entire argument revolves around the idea that merely adding health/damage to a mob doesn't make it harder if the group also scales in power the same way. Thus DMKano's point that groups are generally safer, easier, and faster at most everything. If that's true then why is easier play rewarded more if "risk vs reward" is the desired result? The answer I think is because the intended play is group based so you reward players for doing it how you want regardless of whether it's more challenging.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • ZuljanZuljan Member UncommonPosts: 123
    edited March 2017
    Torval said:
    Zuljan said:
    Torval said:
    Dullahan said:
    DMKano said:
    Dullahan said:
    It should be simple risk versus reward to determine experience. The more dangerous a zone is, the better loot and/or experience it should yield. Basically, any area you can do with 1 or 2 people should be poor experience. The best exp should come from grouping, and the more challenging group content.

    Except in terms of actual challenge its usually a lot easier in a full group than 2 people or even solo.

    Ive been playing with the same core of players since 1999, so we just crush group content due to just knowing eachothers playstyle so well and extreme familiarity with mmorpgs.

    So full group content is usually more faceroll in terms of challenge
    That makes, quite literally, no sense. Group content is innately harder simply because it requires a group. The challenge at that point is not in combat mechanics, but by virtue of the quantity or strength of mobs, it demands more players.

    So a solo player who was killing mobs of the same level outside of a dungeon goes in, he gets wrecked in an area designed with a full group in mind... because it's harder.

    Yes, it is "easier" to do such content with a group, but that doesn't make that content easier than other content that you can do solo. It should be an assumed design that players approach massively multiplayer game content with a group.
    Wow, just no. That is not how challenge and difficulty works. If this game is only "challenging" due to numbers and ratios of them, then it's screwed from the get go.

    Challenge is all about combat mechanics. That's why many people understand that contrived "group" "solo" "small group" large group" "raid" content is inherently flawed with regards to challenge.

    I seriously doubt VR will shot themselves in the foot by making group content about numbers.
    You're both right honestly. Challenge isn't just about numbers - that's obviously true - but it's also true that in greater numbers requires greater challenge in the sense that instead of requiring just 1 or 2 people to react to mob abilities, kite, take adds, etc, you are required to have all 6 people or in EQ raids 72 people execute this same sequence. This would inherently also require a larger room, which then requires more positioning, more opportunities for mistakes, and other variables.
    With more people you have more variables, but also the more people the more specialized they become and less responsible for a variety of activities. So they can do that one thing really well and their biggest challenge is making sure they execute that within their window of opportunity. The more people there are generally the more people you can have go down without a wipe as well.

    Fewer people have fewer more consistent variation, but have to be responsible to carry out a wider range of tasks. I talk about Rift's Master Mode dungeons a lot. Those were like 5 person raid level instances. They had complex mechanics and each character had to do their primary role plus be able to carry out extra tasks. A single character death in a battle usually meant wipe and try again unless someone had instant battle rez's available - not every class/soul combo is stacked with those.

    That general thumbrule is true in EQ2, WoW, and LotRO.
    Yeah we are getting into a grey area that is sort of subjective, but it just comes down to math/statistics, making raiding more versatile/rewarding and I say difficult but difficult is subjective (you can make a fight hard by just making it a gear check or making the mob hit hard or whatever, or require synchronization of many more moving parts in a well-designed raid that would not require people to go idle as you say). Less people (single group) mean less options, smaller N for sample size, and ultimately this leads to volatility instead of a nice bell curve (this is why raids give miraculous 1% wipes or on the contrary downing Boss with only 1 person out of 42 or 72 standing). In group settings like this it basically plays as such: that "one thing" goes wrong or one person dies and you know automatically it is a wipe. It's a volatile feeling that will have you stopping after like 2/3 wipes. Raiding brings a variety of other feelings/dimension to encounters that group settings cannot, mathematically (in current designs).

  • ZuljanZuljan Member UncommonPosts: 123
    edited March 2017
    Mylan12 said:
    Zuljan said:
    Torval said:
    Dullahan said:
    DMKano said:
    Dullahan said:
    It should be simple risk versus reward to determine experience. The more dangerous a zone is, the better loot and/or experience it should yield. Basically, any area you can do with 1 or 2 people should be poor experience. The best exp should come from grouping, and the more challenging group content.

    Except in terms of actual challenge its usually a lot easier in a full group than 2 people or even solo.

    Ive been playing with the same core of players since 1999, so we just crush group content due to just knowing eachothers playstyle so well and extreme familiarity with mmorpgs.

    So full group content is usually more faceroll in terms of challenge
    That makes, quite literally, no sense. Group content is innately harder simply because it requires a group. The challenge at that point is not in combat mechanics, but by virtue of the quantity or strength of mobs, it demands more players.

    So a solo player who was killing mobs of the same level outside of a dungeon goes in, he gets wrecked in an area designed with a full group in mind... because it's harder.

    Yes, it is "easier" to do such content with a group, but that doesn't make that content easier than other content that you can do solo. It should be an assumed design that players approach massively multiplayer game content with a group.
    Wow, just no. That is not how challenge and difficulty works. If this game is only "challenging" due to numbers and ratios of them, then it's screwed from the get go.

    Challenge is all about combat mechanics. That's why many people understand that contrived "group" "solo" "small group" large group" "raid" content is inherently flawed with regards to challenge.

    I seriously doubt VR will shot themselves in the foot by making group content about numbers.
    You're both right honestly. Challenge isn't just about numbers - that's obviously true - but it's also true that in greater numbers requires greater challenge in the sense that instead of requiring just 1 or 2 people to react to mob abilities, kite, take adds, etc, you are required to have all 6 people or in EQ raids 72 people execute this same sequence. This would inherently also require a larger room, which then requires more positioning, more opportunities for mistakes, and other variables.
    Wow I am glad I left EQ before the time of 72 people raids.  I hope Pantheon keeps raids down in the 18 to maybe 24 people range. I also hope they have single group content that is real difficult to the point that it takes a well polished and experience group to be successful.
    heh heh, I agree 72 is unnecessary these days. I'm hoping for 48 man raids. I was in a top 5 world guild in EQ up until WoW (guild was leveling WoW during the day and still raiding 5 days a week in WoW). I bring this up because after Potime (difficult 72 man raid), it was Omen muramite proving grounds or the expansion right after/before that had single group trials that we couldn't even complete (we were fully Time/Quarm geared thousands of AAs etc) for a long time because of the execution required. They were onto WoW mechanics years ago, so I'm confident/hopeful there will be some awesome, newly designed group content with mechanics we haven't seen, but who knows.


  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,472
    Reading back to the OP I see this entire conversation has gone off into the weeds, so time to withdraw.

    Regarding the OP, I think making zones interesting across all levels and activities should be the focus of most MMOs. Hopefully this is a lesson long since learned by the Pantheon team.

    Never played EQ but in reading about it in these forums it seemed to have some peculiar mechanics which the team at Mythic managed to avoid.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • KrimzinKrimzin Member UncommonPosts: 687
    At the end of the day, I trust the developers. What a player wants is very different on the player you ask. Ive been following the game since the beginning. There has been absolutely nothing that makes me question their ability or the "vision" behind the game. I am simply sitting back patiently and waiting. Each bit of information only adds to reason for believing in the game. 

    Just because I'm a gamer doesn't mean I drive a Honda.
    Best Duo Ever

    Lets see your Battle Stations /r/battlestations
    Battle Station 
  • EstherOpalEstherOpal Member UncommonPosts: 19
    soloing zones is common for leveling a character, though i dont think it should be non existent. some people like the excitement of grinding through a zone alone, or alone and coming across a group that can help if needed, i think the zones should scale depending on your group size, or certain areas can only be done with 2 or more players bringing you back to having to find a group EVENTUALLY. i dont think the game should be focused around grouping, even though its a huge part of what makes an mmo fun, you must think of everyone and not just hardcore players or people that were hardcore EQ1 players. 
  • DagimirDagimir Member UncommonPosts: 20
    I would like to see loot appropriate for the mobs. Creatures not dropping weapons unless they were wielding them. Wolves not dropping body armor, etc.
  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Dagimir said:
    I would like to see loot appropriate for the mobs. Creatures not dropping weapons unless they were wielding them. Wolves not dropping body armor, etc.


    I agree.


    Keep loot relevant to the encounter.

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

  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    Dagimir said:
    I would like to see loot appropriate for the mobs. Creatures not dropping weapons unless they were wielding them. Wolves not dropping body armor, etc.
    Not that it's an MMO, but I found the Witcher 3 did a good job with this.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 8,731
    Dagimir said:
    I would like to see loot appropriate for the mobs. Creatures not dropping weapons unless they were wielding them. Wolves not dropping body armor, etc.
    Not that it's an MMO, but I found the Witcher 3 did a good job with this.
    They have already said unless the beast is big enough to eat someone whole, it wont drop that type of loot. Makes sense you would find an awesome sword stuck in the scales of a dragon but not in a wolf. 
  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 281
    Nanfoodle said:
    Dagimir said:
    I would like to see loot appropriate for the mobs. Creatures not dropping weapons unless they were wielding them. Wolves not dropping body armor, etc.
    Not that it's an MMO, but I found the Witcher 3 did a good job with this.
    They have already said unless the beast is big enough to eat someone whole, it wont drop that type of loot. Makes sense you would find an awesome sword stuck in the scales of a dragon but not in a wolf. 
    Yeah but that wolf could have some jewelry and small things that it consumed unless it was a real big wolf then maybe that sword. You be surprised what is found in dogs from time to time.
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,414

    This is a dangerous road to go down. Making literally every area that's equivalent in levels drop roughly equivalent loot is on the same road that got us to where we are today.

    As other have said, risk/reward is where it's at.  The problem you listed was moreso a matter of that the reward for the dungeons didn't outweigh the risk, which is why the bandit sash camps were always full, because they improperly tuned the reward vs the risk (reasonable reward, almost no risk).

    Again, homogenizing the loot tables just makes thing boring and bad, there is no incentive to go to one place or another because Sword A that drops in Zone X is roughly equivalent to Sword B that drops in Zone Y.

    WoW is a perfect example of this. There are 8 billion swords that have slight variations, one might be .7dps higher and have 2 more str and 2 less sta, or whatever. It's meaningless.

    "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

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Torval said:
    Kyleran said:
    Torval said:
    Kyleran said:
    Torval neither wants to cooperatively play in a group nor play a MMO for more than 6 weeks at a time.

    Your arguments falls on deaf ears. ;)
    Wait what? You're speaking for me now? Oh, Is that your weak attempt to rattle me? I hope you have something better than that, like something of substance to add to the conversation.

    Harder to accomplish and challenge in combat aren't the same thing. It's not challenging for the solo player that PC mitigation and damage output doesn't compare to the mob.

    In a PvP battle a level 5 player isn't challenged by a level 50 player.

    Using damage numbers and health to define challenge means that the only thing needed is more people. In modern and old school raid mechanics using dps checks is the lowest common denominator as a challenge.

    Challenge is defined by the need for tactics and strategy in a possible scenario. If the scenario is impossible there is no challenge to it and the outcome is predictable.

    We weren't talking about numbers of mobs or environment before. We were talking about increasing the health and damage of a single mob.
    Actually I was making observations on your gaming preferences based on recent statements by you in these forums.

    He was trying to convince you about grouping and playing long term, neither of which you favor.

    As to the question of challenge from higher DPS of course one solution is to zerg it down, but on some games the diminishing return on rewards makes it undesireable.

    In DAOC my Mentalist can attack a low level green or blue mob and burn it down easily, but for very low reward. 

    Yellow con is more challeging, have to kite them for one cycle, but they normally go down unless the resist RNG demon comes into play.

    Orange cons are dicey, higher resist rates and HPs require several kite runs and every now and then go south, but they provide the maximum experience the cap will allow.

    Reds, well I won't do them solo, resist rates are too high, you end up burning too much mana which you have to sit off to regen and due to exp cap, usually not worth it.

    Every class is different in DAOC, Bards can't beat a blue solo at times, while pet classes such as chanters and necros can solo some low purples in the right scenario. (which they normally only do when powerleveling someone) But they don't kite, pets tank and they melee or blast mob down.

    So I see a lot of combat variance and possibility just from increasing the damage and DPS on a mob.

    As for randomness, if you had seen my guildmates and I struggle with a standard Bard lvl 50 Epic quest last night you'd understand how unpredictable the PVE from a 15 year old game could be.  We wiped hard for over 2 hours, they were still at it when I logged at midnight.

    Was descibed by some in ZAM back in 2003 as "too easy"  Guess we just suck.   ;)
    My gaming preferences, which depend on the game and who I am gaming with, and even more so your fairly rude condescending observations of them are completely irrelevant to the point. You can make underhanded personal jabs to try and strengthen your point but they don't actually matter to the argument.

    Class variance (relative strength/weakness regarding dps, mits, heals, cc, etc) really has nothing to do with scaling either. The post Distopia made about scaling sums it up. Scaling doesn't equate directly to challenge. It could be argued that there is an indirect correlation, but that really applies as it relates to simple dps/hps/mit timer/checks and those are about the crudest form of mechanics checks you can make in an encounter.

    Which goes back to the OPs point that simple mob encounters, single reward commodity based interactions with mobs, are something he would rather not see in Pantheon. Dullahan somehow correlated that with solo people should get bad rewards and groups should get good rewards because group mobs are harder.

    The entire argument revolves around the idea that merely adding health/damage to a mob doesn't make it harder if the group also scales in power the same way. Thus DMKano's point that groups are generally safer, easier, and faster at most everything. If that's true then why is easier play rewarded more if "risk vs reward" is the desired result? The answer I think is because the intended play is group based so you reward players for doing it how you want regardless of whether it's more challenging.
    Its an mmorpg. If you don't want to design the game to be harder by requiring more player, coordination and social interaction, developers should stick to making single player games. That and players have plenty of those games to choose from, we don't need another.

    It's also more than just scaling mobs health up. It can be tons of different mechanics that require group synergies and collaborative efforts, that otherwise cannot be overcome with less people or even multiple people of the same class in many cases.


  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,218
    I like the idea of choices, and not all camps being equal.  
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,465
    The issue of wolves dropping swords is not one that really bothers me. It's a loose thread that, if you tug on it, a million other things that are equally unrealistic in a world teeming with magic come undone also.

    Still, if the dev team has the time, there are work arounds. The wolf's tooth could serve as a dagger. A sword could be found on a humanoid body or chest located in the wolf's lair. And so on. The wolf can also drop useful, and even very valuable, crafting materials. I remember pelts that dropped off lions in EQ that were worth a great deal. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    I'd like to see realistic drops, and more materials and crafted related components from creatures, but it's pretty low on my priority list.


  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 8,731
    I would love to see maps come to the game but done in a way you have to earn them. Maybe make it like a trade skill everyone can have. By exploring the zone and finding important places you can work to creating a map that only you can use. Once you have made a map for that zone a location system could unlock for just that zone that you could share with others who have also made a map of the zone. 
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,218
    I dont want to see gear left on corpses.  Leave xp on the corpse, but not your gear.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 8,731
    svann said:
    I dont want to see gear left on corpses.  Leave xp on the corpse, but not your gear.
    Im sure I read somewhere that gear drop is a thing. 
  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    Hrimnir said:

    This is a dangerous road to go down. Making literally every area that's equivalent in levels drop roughly equivalent loot is on the same road that got us to where we are today.

    As other have said, risk/reward is where it's at.  The problem you listed was moreso a matter of that the reward for the dungeons didn't outweigh the risk, which is why the bandit sash camps were always full, because they improperly tuned the reward vs the risk (reasonable reward, almost no risk).

    Again, homogenizing the loot tables just makes thing boring and bad, there is no incentive to go to one place or another because Sword A that drops in Zone X is roughly equivalent to Sword B that drops in Zone Y.

    WoW is a perfect example of this. There are 8 billion swords that have slight variations, one might be .7dps higher and have 2 more str and 2 less sta, or whatever. It's meaningless.


    Nobody said anything about homogenizing loot tables.


    Tradeskill items as drops are one area where the original EQ got things right. Kill spiders for spider silk, kill wolves for wolf pelts, etc.

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

  • jimmywolfjimmywolf Member UncommonPosts: 277
    was nice since i loved making alts could still make PP selling silk  hope they find a way to keep low level crafting mats hold value that an HQ skins was good PP



  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    jimmywolf said:
    was nice since i loved making alts could still make PP selling silk  hope they find a way to keep low level crafting mats hold value that an HQ skins was good PP
    That's achieved by making lower level materials necessary for components in higher level recipes.


  • CaseyxCaseyx Member UncommonPosts: 15
    I hope I am not putting too much hope into RotF...

    One of the things I did like about EQ was having to run, jump and swim for your life to get to a sweet spot in some zones or dungeons because I KNEW that there was a chance that the piece of armor I really wanted would drop from a specific named mob.

    I WANT to know the name of a weapon or piece of armor. I couldn't tell you the last time I really cared about the name of a sword or bracer besides the quest to get Frostmourne in WoW (probably reminded me of SoulFire from EQ).

    It was such a challenge to get down into Lower Guk as a lower level Paladin, with a cleric and monk buddy. That was more than half the fun. Finding the mob we wanted was a bonus and if it dropped that item we wanted, we were ecstatic! The journey was just as important as the destination/reward. Realizing that it was past sundown when we got to Kithicor Forest and things were not like they were the last time we strolled thru during the afternoon yesterday...

    As others mentioned, some things were easier with the right duo or some combination of classes in a group. The other dynamic they will be throwing at us in RotF is certain magics won't work well in some areas. Who knows what kind of devious twists they will throw at us with those mechanics.

    On risk vs reward, I'd be happy to see some super bad-ass mobs (relative to the zones content) that roam the zone or just a section of it stomping on players not being attentive enough to avoid them. If I remember correctly, Choon and Froon in the Karanas didn't really have great loot other than one time quest item, most higher level people didn't bother with them, so they were generally walking around surprising us noobs.

    As much as I've played solo in most of the last decade of MMO's, I want to see it tougher on most classes to solo very much (I'm perfectly fine with imbalances in certain aspects of classes). That would have a serious impact on how much I could play, I have a family now, but I really believe that was part of the magic of EQ. A great group of guildies is probably going to be as important to me in RotF as some of the loot tables and mechanics.

    Caseyx

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,966
    edited March 2017
    I agree with the OP,i want a zone to not be a zone but a part a realistic part of the world and not some place that is only there to slap some Boss down for loot.

    On the same subject of zone creation,i find the effort put into zones in most games has been very sub par to looking like complete amateur work.

    A cave with rock textures is that all you have for me?Also i want the option to avoid some creatures,i should not be forced to fight every last mob along the way.
    My preference is very few zones,i want a map to look like a map not a zone.

    Then again i want zero hand holding and no ,markers of any kind,i want to see a npc like i would in the plausible real world,without a yellow exclamation marker over his head.In other words,i want discovery to FEEL like i am discovering on my own and not being hand held to the exact point ,then the game says grats,here is your free xp or whatever.

    Again on the zone idea but not only about zones but mob AI.I never liked the EQ series way of tying several mobs to a string,i want individual AI and various properties like some see better,some hear better,some are deaf,some are blind,some sense if you are injured/bleeding.

    I don't like seeing every last mob is aggro,if mobs are THAT aggressive,then why are they not attacking each other?On that motion,how about an Eco system to boot?

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

Sign In or Register to comment.