Howdy, Stranger!

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

Question for EQ1 players

1356

Comments

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,831
    What I am hearing (reading) here is a ton of EQ1 nostalgia in a forum thread about another game entirely. Do fans feel Pantheon will recapture that same feeling EQ 1 did for you?
    If so what about Pantheon is recapturing that feeling?
    What concerns do you see?


    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • DagimirDagimir Member UncommonPosts: 20
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    I'm not sure you are remembering EQ correctly. Soloing was always done in the game.
    Asheron's Call and Ultima Online got more right than EQ did. EQ was the WOW of it's day. Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it was and was not. 
    I actually remember it very well and if you read my post you would see that I didn't say there was absolutely no soloing. Yes soloing was done to a very minimal extent and it was not nearly as effective as a team. The early days of everquest didn't have nearly the same abilities or gear that came with the first expansion in Kunark. Your super rare items and gear for max level characters were literally replaced by low end gear with expansions. In today's everquest a level 10 has better gear than a level 50 had back then. The power jumps with each expansion from  gear inflation, skills, and spells made soloing a much more viable option. 
    blueturtle13
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,831
    Dagimir said:
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    I'm not sure you are remembering EQ correctly. Soloing was always done in the game.
    Asheron's Call and Ultima Online got more right than EQ did. EQ was the WOW of it's day. Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it was and was not. 
    I actually remember it very well and if you read my post you would see that I didn't say there was absolutely no soloing. Yes soloing was done to a very minimal extent and it was not nearly as effective as a team. The early days of everquest didn't have nearly the same abilities or gear that came with the first expansion in Kunark. Your super rare items and gear for max level characters were literally replaced by low end gear with expansions. In today's everquest a level 10 has better gear than a level 50 had back then. The power jumps with each expansion from  gear inflation, skills, and spells made soloing a much more viable option. 
    "In original everquest you could not solo."
    is actually what you said ;)

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,418
    Dagimir said:
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    I'm not sure you are remembering EQ correctly. Soloing was always done in the game.
    Asheron's Call and Ultima Online got more right than EQ did. EQ was the WOW of it's day. Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it was and was not. 
    I actually remember it very well and if you read my post you would see that I didn't say there was absolutely no soloing. Yes soloing was done to a very minimal extent and it was not nearly as effective as a team. The early days of everquest didn't have nearly the same abilities or gear that came with the first expansion in Kunark. Your super rare items and gear for max level characters were literally replaced by low end gear with expansions. In today's everquest a level 10 has better gear than a level 50 had back then. The power jumps with each expansion from  gear inflation, skills, and spells made soloing a much more viable option. 
    "In original everquest you could not solo."
    is actually what you said ;)
    Of course you could solo wizards and druids were quad kiting and levelling solo. A necro can solo even a whole room in Guk and this was before Ruins of Kunark was out. I mean saying you could not solo isn't an accurate recollection of my own experience in EQ and I played from April 1999.
    blueturtle13Interitus
    image
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,862
    I hope it's not just a ,focused on a few things, copy of the wheel because there are plenty of wheels around already.  I enjoyed EQ when I played it for awhile but I've moved on.  They had better add something really unique to their game.
    blueturtle13MendelLokeroTorval

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,831
    cheyane said:
    Dagimir said:
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    I'm not sure you are remembering EQ correctly. Soloing was always done in the game.
    Asheron's Call and Ultima Online got more right than EQ did. EQ was the WOW of it's day. Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it was and was not. 
    I actually remember it very well and if you read my post you would see that I didn't say there was absolutely no soloing. Yes soloing was done to a very minimal extent and it was not nearly as effective as a team. The early days of everquest didn't have nearly the same abilities or gear that came with the first expansion in Kunark. Your super rare items and gear for max level characters were literally replaced by low end gear with expansions. In today's everquest a level 10 has better gear than a level 50 had back then. The power jumps with each expansion from  gear inflation, skills, and spells made soloing a much more viable option. 
    "In original everquest you could not solo."
    is actually what you said ;)
    Of course you could solo wizards and druids were quad kiting and levelling solo. A necro can solo even a whole room in Guk and this was before Ruins of Kunark was out. I mean saying you could not solo isn't an accurate recollection of my own experience in EQ and I played from April 1999.
    When I played I soloed with an Enchanter. A couple other classes I tried were a little too on the easy side so I found challenge with the Chanter. 
    Dagimir

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • NeanderthalNeanderthal Member RarePosts: 1,798
    What I am hearing (reading) here is a ton of EQ1 nostalgia in a forum thread about another game entirely. Do fans feel Pantheon will recapture that same feeling EQ 1 did for you?
    If so what about Pantheon is recapturing that feeling?
    What concerns do you see?



    I'm not a Pantheon fan but I could be under different circumstances. 

    The number one reason why I wish I could plan to play Pantheon is for the grouping.  Honestly, the gameplay wouldn't even need to be all that great as long as getting into groups with people who would actually talk to each other was standard operating procedure for a gaming session.  That is the main thing I miss from EQ.

    The reason I won't play Pantheon is because of the raiding.  Small, casual groups of people who are all equal I love.  Big raids where I'm a face in the crowd being told what to do by my "superiors" I hate.

    Pantheon is going to start out just like EQ did, with some soloing but grouping is more advantageous.  But then, just like EQ did, Pantheon will morph into a game which is all about big raids.  If you won't do that then tough luck, it's game over for you.  

    I hate big raids.  I know that's going to ultimately be the focus of the game.  Ergo, there is no point in me playing at all.
    blueturtle13
  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 223
    cheyane said:
    Dagimir said:
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    I'm not sure you are remembering EQ correctly. Soloing was always done in the game.
    Asheron's Call and Ultima Online got more right than EQ did. EQ was the WOW of it's day. Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it was and was not. 
    I actually remember it very well and if you read my post you would see that I didn't say there was absolutely no soloing. Yes soloing was done to a very minimal extent and it was not nearly as effective as a team. The early days of everquest didn't have nearly the same abilities or gear that came with the first expansion in Kunark. Your super rare items and gear for max level characters were literally replaced by low end gear with expansions. In today's everquest a level 10 has better gear than a level 50 had back then. The power jumps with each expansion from  gear inflation, skills, and spells made soloing a much more viable option. 
    "In original everquest you could not solo."
    is actually what you said ;)
    Of course you could solo wizards and druids were quad kiting and levelling solo. A necro can solo even a whole room in Guk and this was before Ruins of Kunark was out. I mean saying you could not solo isn't an accurate recollection of my own experience in EQ and I played from April 1999.
    When I played I soloed with an Enchanter. A couple other classes I tried were a little too on the easy side so I found challenge with the Chanter. 
    Yeah most every class in EQ could solo to some degree but if you wanted to go to the cool places or get the cool loot then you needed a group. In the time I played EQ, it was not hard to get a good group so not sure why you would want to solo. 
     In early EQ, it was more fun and rewarding to group. You gained experience faster and got better loot. 
     In many of the modern MMORPGs, you do as well if not better leveling solo and except for maybe a few raids. the loot reward is just as good.

    blueturtle13
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,895
    How do you beat an mmorpg ? 

    Well, my answer is by the amount of friends I have.  If my friends list is long, I'm winning. 

    In real life humans tend to be greedy, we all want things THEN we think of others.  But in a community mmorpg I get a trill from helping others.  What better way than playing a group style game. 

    Pantheon will be full with ALL OF US needing help in accomplishing goals.  I don't care about exp or loot, I care about fun.  If I really want something, I'll do it twice. 



    This contradicts my personality here.  Sorry, But I HATE what mmorpgs have become with a passion.  So that is why I am like I am here.   
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,564
    Rhoklaw said:
    Since Pantheon was first announced, fans of EQ were claiming it as a spiritual successor to EQ, which EQ2 kind of failed to do. Some claim EQ was the WoW of it's era, but WoW and it's horribly simple game design weren't introduced for another 4-5 years. If any EQ game was like WoW, it would be EQ2.

    All games back then were a bit more hardcore versus games today. To say UO or AC were hard but EQ was not is just biased nonsense and coming from a certain few, it doesn't surprise me you continue down that path.

    We get it. Some of you love the new easy mode MMO's that focus more on youthful twitch combat and pretty graphics. Well, there are some of us who prefer story, content and choice.

    Pantheon is very much like EQ and while Brad did point out it's NOT EQ's spiritual successor, is simply because he wants Pantheon to have it's own identity, which it does.

    Today's MMOs focus solely on action combat and flashy graphics for entertainment. I'm not talking about WoW either obviously, nor SWTOR, ESO, FFXIV, GW2 or EQ2. All of those games use traditional combat and the trinity system, except of course GW2. They are all however heavily focused on dungeon raids, crafting and story content. The games I'm referring to are the Asian F2P MMOs who have time and time again published the exact same crap over the past 5 years. From ArcheAge, Black Desert Online, Blade and Soul, Revelation Online and Bless Online. To me, those games are more like fantasy FPS, then an actual adventure focused, story driven type games.

    It's obvious we have plenty of mainstream and recent MMOs to suit any millennial gamer's palette. Pantheon is suited more towards veteran gamers who played D&D or table top games. Players who know what role-playing is. Players who play just as much for the social and grouping aspects as the individual tasks like crafting or exploration.
    WOW at launch did not have horribly simple game design.
    why do you take it as an insult? It isn't 
    No one said EQ was not hard. 
    No one said anything at all about twitch combat but you. 
    What story do you think Pantheon will have? Like EQs? ;)

    What content are you talking about? Statically placed mobs standing around waiting to get murdered?
    All while running on a terrible Unity engine? I'm not sure once you actually get your hands on the game you will feel the same ;)


    Also, why the shade on 30+ year old gamers? What do people younger than you have to do with Pantheon?
    So if they are in their 30's they are not veteran gamers who do not know how to roleplay? Wow friend, kind of a douche thing to think and say. I hope you are not the target audience for a game like Pantheon if that is how you really think and feel. 


    I think the fact you are playing dumb is cute. You are the one that claimed UO and AC did things better than EQ. You are the one that claimed EQ was the WoW of it's era. You are the one claiming fans of Pantheon don't know what it is they want or expect.

    I'm simply pointing out what Pantheon is NOT about, which is twitchy ADHD gameplay. Plenty of people still play P99 and official EQ. Plenty of people played private WoW servers too. I think for someone to continuously go on and on about how Pantheon isn't going to be what we expect it to be just sounds like an opinion. Which is funny because that's what my post was about. My opinion on what type of player IS interested in the game.

    I have no problem with what games you enjoy. We don't have to enjoy the same games for either of us to claim whether one will be successful or not. I just find it funny how you have constantly badgered Pantheon posts putting in your broken record rhetorical opinions. We get it dude, you don't like Pantheon.
    SensaiDemogorgonmmolou

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,036
    Do fans feel Pantheon will recapture that same feeling EQ 1 did for you?
    If so what about Pantheon is recapturing that feeling?
    What concerns do you see?


    It has the potential. I base my opinion primarily on the game's intentions and goals as expressed on the VR website, which are certainly consistent with EQ1. I base it further on their intent that Pantheon be a spiritual successor to EQ. And I have seen nothing in the streams to contradict it. There is also the fact that Brad is heavily involved, as he was with EQ1.

    But I can't know for sure by reading things and watching other people play. I will have to experience it first hand. 
    blueturtle13svann

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

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,831
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Since Pantheon was first announced, fans of EQ were claiming it as a spiritual successor to EQ, which EQ2 kind of failed to do. Some claim EQ was the WoW of it's era, but WoW and it's horribly simple game design weren't introduced for another 4-5 years. If any EQ game was like WoW, it would be EQ2.

    All games back then were a bit more hardcore versus games today. To say UO or AC were hard but EQ was not is just biased nonsense and coming from a certain few, it doesn't surprise me you continue down that path.

    We get it. Some of you love the new easy mode MMO's that focus more on youthful twitch combat and pretty graphics. Well, there are some of us who prefer story, content and choice.

    Pantheon is very much like EQ and while Brad did point out it's NOT EQ's spiritual successor, is simply because he wants Pantheon to have it's own identity, which it does.

    Today's MMOs focus solely on action combat and flashy graphics for entertainment. I'm not talking about WoW either obviously, nor SWTOR, ESO, FFXIV, GW2 or EQ2. All of those games use traditional combat and the trinity system, except of course GW2. They are all however heavily focused on dungeon raids, crafting and story content. The games I'm referring to are the Asian F2P MMOs who have time and time again published the exact same crap over the past 5 years. From ArcheAge, Black Desert Online, Blade and Soul, Revelation Online and Bless Online. To me, those games are more like fantasy FPS, then an actual adventure focused, story driven type games.

    It's obvious we have plenty of mainstream and recent MMOs to suit any millennial gamer's palette. Pantheon is suited more towards veteran gamers who played D&D or table top games. Players who know what role-playing is. Players who play just as much for the social and grouping aspects as the individual tasks like crafting or exploration.
    WOW at launch did not have horribly simple game design.
    why do you take it as an insult? It isn't 
    No one said EQ was not hard. 
    No one said anything at all about twitch combat but you. 
    What story do you think Pantheon will have? Like EQs? ;)

    What content are you talking about? Statically placed mobs standing around waiting to get murdered?
    All while running on a terrible Unity engine? I'm not sure once you actually get your hands on the game you will feel the same ;)


    Also, why the shade on 30+ year old gamers? What do people younger than you have to do with Pantheon?
    So if they are in their 30's they are not veteran gamers who do not know how to roleplay? Wow friend, kind of a douche thing to think and say. I hope you are not the target audience for a game like Pantheon if that is how you really think and feel. 


    I think the fact you are playing dumb is cute. You are the one that claimed UO and AC did things better than EQ. You are the one that claimed EQ was the WoW of it's era. You are the one claiming fans of Pantheon don't know what it is they want or expect.

    I'm simply pointing out what Pantheon is NOT about, which is twitchy ADHD gameplay. Plenty of people still play P99 and official EQ. Plenty of people played private WoW servers too. I think for someone to continuously go on and on about how Pantheon isn't going to be what we expect it to be just sounds like an opinion. Which is funny because that's what my post was about. My opinion on what type of player IS interested in the game.

    I have no problem with what games you enjoy. We don't have to enjoy the same games for either of us to claim whether one will be successful or not. I just find it funny how you have constantly badgered Pantheon posts putting in your broken record rhetorical opinions. We get it dude, you don't like Pantheon.
    Of course it is my opinion based on my experience with the game ;)

    Your not 'simply' doing anything, you are being rude and bigoted towards people younger than you or those with different opinions than you. We get it dude. You don't like humans. 
    mmolou

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • asteldiancaliskanasteldiancaliskan Member UncommonPosts: 58
    Ridelynn said:
    Amathe said:
    For me "feeling real" meant i was fully immersed. I wasn't just playing the ranger class. I was a ranger. The woods were woods. The orcs were orcs. Mysteries abounded and I was fascinated by whatever was around the next corner. In much the same way a flight simulator can make you feel like you are really flying, I felt like I was a fantasy character in a fantasy world.

    A fair amount of that was because it was my first mmorpg. That part can never be recaptured.

    But the game itself played a big role too. I can still listen to the in game music and it carries me back to my adventures then. 
    I have to agree with this. WoW came very close a few times, but never quite got there.

    With EQ, the character and myself were interchangeable. The server was a community, and we all knew each other. There were entire families of people on there - both literally and figuratively, and I felt like I was a part of that.

    The game in and of itself was just there as a backdrop - we sat around on the hill in Overthere or down in yet another LDON run or wherever, and what we did became instinctual because we did it over and over again, but we didn't do it because the gameplay was fascinating, we did it because we were together.

    And that made the distinction between myself and my character blur considerably. I haven't played EQ in many years now, but I still will respond if someone says "gnome".
    That is the key element for me when talking about capturing EQ1s essence - the gameplay supported the gamestly of just playing for the love of playing, no real goal other than enjoying time spent with others. 

    People can talk about specific features, good and bad, but it was the above essence that made the game and is hard to define. Its not nostalgia, or first game bias because i fwlt the same in Vanguard which lets be honest, was hugely different to EQ1 and actually more in line with modern games (quest hubs, frequent loot upgrades etc.) Yet somehow still captured that feeling of comraderie, the fact there was nice loot or quest line at point X was just an excuse to go there and hangout with others rather than a goal you really cared about achieving.

    I cannot explain why other MMOs fail to cause that feeling (at least for me personally), i can point out what i dont like about them - but could do the same for EQ1 and VG (very different dislikes for each). Nor can i pinpoint what it was about VG and EQ1 that specifically caused the essence i mentioned earlier. But given that both games involved Brad, i have hope Pantheon will do the same, regardless of specific features are or are not implemented or argued about.
    delete5230
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,564
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Since Pantheon was first announced, fans of EQ were claiming it as a spiritual successor to EQ, which EQ2 kind of failed to do. Some claim EQ was the WoW of it's era, but WoW and it's horribly simple game design weren't introduced for another 4-5 years. If any EQ game was like WoW, it would be EQ2.

    All games back then were a bit more hardcore versus games today. To say UO or AC were hard but EQ was not is just biased nonsense and coming from a certain few, it doesn't surprise me you continue down that path.

    We get it. Some of you love the new easy mode MMO's that focus more on youthful twitch combat and pretty graphics. Well, there are some of us who prefer story, content and choice.

    Pantheon is very much like EQ and while Brad did point out it's NOT EQ's spiritual successor, is simply because he wants Pantheon to have it's own identity, which it does.

    Today's MMOs focus solely on action combat and flashy graphics for entertainment. I'm not talking about WoW either obviously, nor SWTOR, ESO, FFXIV, GW2 or EQ2. All of those games use traditional combat and the trinity system, except of course GW2. They are all however heavily focused on dungeon raids, crafting and story content. The games I'm referring to are the Asian F2P MMOs who have time and time again published the exact same crap over the past 5 years. From ArcheAge, Black Desert Online, Blade and Soul, Revelation Online and Bless Online. To me, those games are more like fantasy FPS, then an actual adventure focused, story driven type games.

    It's obvious we have plenty of mainstream and recent MMOs to suit any millennial gamer's palette. Pantheon is suited more towards veteran gamers who played D&D or table top games. Players who know what role-playing is. Players who play just as much for the social and grouping aspects as the individual tasks like crafting or exploration.
    WOW at launch did not have horribly simple game design.
    why do you take it as an insult? It isn't 
    No one said EQ was not hard. 
    No one said anything at all about twitch combat but you. 
    What story do you think Pantheon will have? Like EQs? ;)

    What content are you talking about? Statically placed mobs standing around waiting to get murdered?
    All while running on a terrible Unity engine? I'm not sure once you actually get your hands on the game you will feel the same ;)


    Also, why the shade on 30+ year old gamers? What do people younger than you have to do with Pantheon?
    So if they are in their 30's they are not veteran gamers who do not know how to roleplay? Wow friend, kind of a douche thing to think and say. I hope you are not the target audience for a game like Pantheon if that is how you really think and feel. 


    I think the fact you are playing dumb is cute. You are the one that claimed UO and AC did things better than EQ. You are the one that claimed EQ was the WoW of it's era. You are the one claiming fans of Pantheon don't know what it is they want or expect.

    I'm simply pointing out what Pantheon is NOT about, which is twitchy ADHD gameplay. Plenty of people still play P99 and official EQ. Plenty of people played private WoW servers too. I think for someone to continuously go on and on about how Pantheon isn't going to be what we expect it to be just sounds like an opinion. Which is funny because that's what my post was about. My opinion on what type of player IS interested in the game.

    I have no problem with what games you enjoy. We don't have to enjoy the same games for either of us to claim whether one will be successful or not. I just find it funny how you have constantly badgered Pantheon posts putting in your broken record rhetorical opinions. We get it dude, you don't like Pantheon.
    Of course it is my opinion based on my experience with the game ;)

    Your not 'simply' doing anything, you are being rude and bigoted towards people younger than you or those with different opinions than you. We get it dude. You don't like humans. 
    I think it's safe to say the generation of gamers from 1990's were just a bit more mature than today's gamers. It's the unfortunate side effect with the knowledge of anonymity. The whole tough guy syndrome behind a keyboard is the backbone of today's generation of gaming mentality. I don't recall a lot of leet speak and attitude during the first 4-6 years I played EQ. It's only gotten worse ever since. Of course, I'm sure we'll continue to see a lot of plausible deniability on your part. The whole, I was never there, so it didn't happen or doesn't exist routine.

    Anyways, I do love humans, just not all of them. I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,036
    EQ is like that old story about the four blind men each describing their experience of an elephant, which stories vary widely depending on whether they touched the head, the trunk, the sides, or the tail. 

    I knew people who just enjoyed "living" in the game world and hanging out with friends. I knew people for whom raiding was  essential. I knew crafters. I knew roleplayers. I knew explorers. I knew people like myself who were advancing, but slowly, and in no hurry. And yes, there were soloers too.

    Anyone who says that EQ was all about ___ (where ___ is something other than personal choice) is in my opinion mistaken, as it was many things to many people. For some people it absolutely was hardcore, and for others it was strictly casual. 




    blueturtle13TorvalKnytta

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

  • iatesandiatesand Member UncommonPosts: 91

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! That shows how broke they really are. 
    Didn't Brad learn from Vanguard not to use an off the shelf engine? 



    So, humor me here what exactly, in your opinion, is wrong with Unity?  SO far from what they have shown if the game, its looks fine. And there have been improvements every time they show it. 

    Yes the animations need work, but that is not a unity issue.  You know Unity  today isnt the same as Unity 5 years ago... right?
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,831
    iatesand said:

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! That shows how broke they really are. 
    Didn't Brad learn from Vanguard not to use an off the shelf engine? 



    So, humor me here what exactly, in your opinion, is wrong with Unity?  SO far from what they have shown if the game, its looks fine. And there have been improvements every time they show it. 

    Yes the animations need work, but that is not a unity issue.  You know Unity  today isnt the same as Unity 5 years ago... right?
    I have used Unity for 6 titles I have helped ship. I am fine with Unity as a gaming engine. I am not fine with Unity as a mmorpg engine. Many have tried and none have been able to use Unity for proper backend integration for an mmorpg.
     This has zero to do with graphics and animations. 

    mmolou

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,831
    Amathe said:
    EQ is like that old story about the four blind men each describing their experience of an elephant, which stories vary widely depending on whether they touched the head, the trunk, the sides, or the tail. 

    I knew people who just enjoyed "living" in the game world and hanging out with friends. I knew people for whom raiding was  essential. I knew crafters. I knew roleplayers. I knew explorers. I knew people like myself who were advancing, but slowly, and in no hurry. And yes, there were soloers too.

    Anyone who says that EQ was all about ___ (where ___ is something other than personal choice) is in my opinion mistaken, as it was many things to many people. For some people it absolutely was hardcore, and for others it was strictly casual. 



    Good point. When I began in mmos it was with NWN AOL (the first) and from there Lineage and there Asheron’s Call. All my experiences were so different than any other person who played those games. 
    We all had different motivations for playing. That is what fans of this genre all feel and love about the genre :) 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,711
    Well, here is my top 3 and they are all different types of games.  
    UO- Sandboxish, don't mind the 2d graphics still, not big on the direction it took under EA

    EQ - themeparkish (even though it wasn't anything like other stuff now.

    DAoC - RvR


    So....What did I love about EQ?  I liked the higher level roaming mobs that were in lower zones.  This made you have to be on guard....along with mobs that roamed.  Sure after time you learned paths, but not for a bit.

    Rare drops off of rare spawns, that turned into random boss type mobs spawning in random places for some content.

    Classes that felt much more specialized, yeah not everyone could solo good, but you had a role that only you or maybe you and 1 other class could maybe do.  Not like more modern mmos that everyone is about a dps/solo class with some flavor.  This is good or bad, depending.  I just think it had some of the best classes still (Necromancer is still my favorite class ever in a mmorpg).

    Risk....You lost xp if you did stupid stuff, corpse retrieval was a big thing for a bit.  Higher level dungeons would kill a non-tankish class in seconds if you screwed up and got agro and didn't have a way to lose it quick or a tank that wasn't good to get that taunt in quick and it be enough.  Most mmorpgs now, the squishier classes don't melt, like they did in EQ when things go bad.

    TRAINS!  You had to make sure to not train yourself, and be on the watch for other peoples trains.  The dungeons were OPEN WORLD and HUGE for the most part....not some instance that makes you feel like you are playing in a lobby game.

    Speaking of trains, you could challenge your group and push it, and the classes I mentioned earlier, if you had good players could handle 8-10 dangerous mobs.  My wife played a enchanter and she could keep 6-8 (cant remember, been a while) mobs mesmerized (they cant do anything, like a sleep) in a tight dungeon and remember the order and timers in her head....couple this with how dangerous the mobs were to a lot of classes, and having everyone stay alive was much more challenging and fun than a lot of stuff I have played since.

    Truly epic epic quests, could take 6-12 months for some people to accomplish.  This again is good or bad, some hated it.

    I did not like the turn to instancing in EQ, and it was a major reason why I quit playing, but that did not happen for a long time.

    Sub based mmorpg…..I truly despise the newer models of f2p/p2w (not every mmorpg, but most are this way now).  Pantheon isn't supposed to be this way, was no cash shop, but they said at most would maybe be cosmetic (idea is kicked around).

    Faction system, making yourself non-kos, when you would be kos was something I liked.  Pantheon is supposed to expand on this.  This was also iffy, as you had so many different factions.  I would be good in Qeynos, expect for the paladins I think it was, so you had to know the couple spots to watch it as a dark elf there...  it added to game play.


    I could go on and on, and EQ wasn't my first mmorpg, I could give a big list for all three of the mmorpgs I listed.

    Admittedly they had bad crafting, no housing...

    EQ may not be for everyone, along with Pantheon....But I played WoW beta and me and my wife thought it was blah and easy...A lot didn't agree or didn't care and thought that was a plus.
    craftseeker
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,895
    Xthos said:
    Well, here is my top 3 and they are all different types of games.  
    UO- Sandboxish, don't mind the 2d graphics still, not big on the direction it took under EA

    EQ - themeparkish (even though it wasn't anything like other stuff now.

    DAoC - RvR


    So....What did I love about EQ?  I liked the higher level roaming mobs that were in lower zones.  This made you have to be on guard....along with mobs that roamed.  Sure after time you learned paths, but not for a bit.

    Rare drops off of rare spawns, that turned into random boss type mobs spawning in random places for some content.

    Classes that felt much more specialized, yeah not everyone could solo good, but you had a role that only you or maybe you and 1 other class could maybe do.  Not like more modern mmos that everyone is about a dps/solo class with some flavor.  This is good or bad, depending.  I just think it had some of the best classes still (Necromancer is still my favorite class ever in a mmorpg).

    Risk....You lost xp if you did stupid stuff, corpse retrieval was a big thing for a bit.  Higher level dungeons would kill a non-tankish class in seconds if you screwed up and got agro and didn't have a way to lose it quick or a tank that wasn't good to get that taunt in quick and it be enough.  Most mmorpgs now, the squishier classes don't melt, like they did in EQ when things go bad.

    TRAINS!  You had to make sure to not train yourself, and be on the watch for other peoples trains.  The dungeons were OPEN WORLD and HUGE for the most part....not some instance that makes you feel like you are playing in a lobby game.

    Speaking of trains, you could challenge your group and push it, and the classes I mentioned earlier, if you had good players could handle 8-10 dangerous mobs.  My wife played a enchanter and she could keep 6-8 (cant remember, been a while) mobs mesmerized (they cant do anything, like a sleep) in a tight dungeon and remember the order and timers in her head....couple this with how dangerous the mobs were to a lot of classes, and having everyone stay alive was much more challenging and fun than a lot of stuff I have played since.

    Truly epic epic quests, could take 6-12 months for some people to accomplish.  This again is good or bad, some hated it.

    I did not like the turn to instancing in EQ, and it was a major reason why I quit playing, but that did not happen for a long time.

    Sub based mmorpg…..I truly despise the newer models of f2p/p2w (not every mmorpg, but most are this way now).  Pantheon isn't supposed to be this way, was no cash shop, but they said at most would maybe be cosmetic (idea is kicked around).

    Faction system, making yourself non-kos, when you would be kos was something I liked.  Pantheon is supposed to expand on this.  This was also iffy, as you had so many different factions.  I would be good in Qeynos, expect for the paladins I think it was, so you had to know the couple spots to watch it as a dark elf there...  it added to game play.


    I could go on and on, and EQ wasn't my first mmorpg, I could give a big list for all three of the mmorpgs I listed.

    Admittedly they had bad crafting, no housing...

    EQ may not be for everyone, along with Pantheon....But I played WoW beta and me and my wife thought it was blah and easy...A lot didn't agree or didn't care and thought that was a plus.
    <Quote>   
    Classes that felt much more specialized. 

    Haven't played P1999 long enough to notice, but in Vanguard each class played unique to any other mmorpg and UNIQUE TO EACH OTHER.  Infact so unique their un-matched to this day in any modern game ! 

    I hope for Pantheon they can pull it off again.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,831
    One of the concerns of extremely specialized classes is the ‘we can’t run X content because we don’t have X class’ Brad even voice this concern himself as did Clover
     (the real brains behind EQ1 and Vanguard.)
    In theory it works well but it requires a large and diverse population to pull off among other things.
    Even then it can create challenges for the player base. Hopefully Pantheon and all the other class based mmos  coming out can avoid those pitfalls. 
    Torval

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • asteldiancaliskanasteldiancaliskan Member UncommonPosts: 58
    One of the concerns of extremely specialized classes is the ‘we can’t run X content because we don’t have X class’ Brad even voice this concern himself as did Clover
     (the real brains behind EQ1 and Vanguard.)
    In theory it works well but it requires a large and diverse population to pull off among other things.
    Even then it can create challenges for the player base. Hopefully Pantheon and all the other class based mmos  coming out can avoid those pitfalls. 
    Always a risk, but i think that is why while each class has a defined role, they all bring some utility. Even in EQ smart play meant you did not have to have an enchanter, admittedly in later lvls it was nearly a must to have a slower, but even then you had the choice of bard and shaman. In Pantheon, with all the ghetto cc around, the only risk is again how essential slow becomes (and in EQ it was a few years before it was too vital...PoP i think)
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 21,576
    One of the concerns of extremely specialized classes is the ‘we can’t run X content because we don’t have X class’ Brad even voice this concern himself as did Clover
     (the real brains behind EQ1 and Vanguard.)
    In theory it works well but it requires a large and diverse population to pull off among other things.
    Even then it can create challenges for the player base. Hopefully Pantheon and all the other class based mmos  coming out can avoid those pitfalls. 


    I personally love Rifts solution - allow every base class to fulfill any role via changing what spec skill trees they use.

    Have a group with 2 tanks but no healer - no problem - have one switch spec to healer


    immodiumblueturtle13
  • t0nydt0nyd Member UncommonPosts: 504
    edited October 2018
    DMKano said:
    One of the concerns of extremely specialized classes is the ‘we can’t run X content because we don’t have X class’ Brad even voice this concern himself as did Clover
     (the real brains behind EQ1 and Vanguard.)
    In theory it works well but it requires a large and diverse population to pull off among other things.
    Even then it can create challenges for the player base. Hopefully Pantheon and all the other class based mmos  coming out can avoid those pitfalls. 


    I personally love Rifts solution - allow every base class to fulfill any role via changing what spec skill trees they use.

    Have a group with 2 tanks but no healer - no problem - have one switch spec to healer


     For some reason I dislike changing specs with a button click. I enjoy creating characters more than actually playing most rpg. I dislike how everyone can do everything. Id rather make a character thats either good at one thing or ok at most things. If I run into something hard, I hate being able to click a button to change my build, then defeat that mob or player. 

     I do like that with Rift, every class can do nearly everything. I just dont like being able to change a characters role on the fly or really at all. 
    craftseeker
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 21,576
    edited October 2018
    t0nyd said:
    DMKano said:
    One of the concerns of extremely specialized classes is the ‘we can’t run X content because we don’t have X class’ Brad even voice this concern himself as did Clover
     (the real brains behind EQ1 and Vanguard.)
    In theory it works well but it requires a large and diverse population to pull off among other things.
    Even then it can create challenges for the player base. Hopefully Pantheon and all the other class based mmos  coming out can avoid those pitfalls. 


    I personally love Rifts solution - allow every base class to fulfill any role via changing what spec skill trees they use.

    Have a group with 2 tanks but no healer - no problem - have one switch spec to healer


     For some reason I dislike changing specs with a button click. I enjoy creating characters more than actually playing most rpg. I dislike how everyone can do everything. Id rather make a character thats either good at one thing or ok at most things. If I run into something hard, I hate being able to click a button to change my build, then defeat that mob or player. 

     I do like that with Rift, every class can do nearly everything. I just dont like being able to change a characters role on the fly or really at all. 


    You pretty much have to go for flexibility (any class can change to the desired role) - avoids having to waste time to find every role for a party (in low pop games this can be a real issue - looking to find  a healer for hours)

    OR

    Uniqueness - every class has 100% defined role - but lack of flexibility can be a real downer for groups in situations where you are missing that one group member


    Can't have it both ways sadly - longterm IMO flexibility wins out as far as longevity of the game.
    Mendel
Sign In or Register to comment.