Other Worlds Than These
by Loral on March 23, 2005
Time for an old-fashioned news roundup!
On the evening of 23 March, 2005, the powerful armies of Cestus Dei confronted and defeated the Overlord Mata Muram. This final boss of Omens of War marked a huge step in the progression of high-end Everquest raids. Cestus Dei is also responsible for the first defeat of Tunat Muram, the final boss of the Gates of Discord
expansion. I can't imagine the number of cross server recruitment requests they receive, but I bet it's a lot.
The strategy for defeating Mata Muram went quite far outside the traditional CH rotation / DPS strategies we grew used to in the times when raiding was young. Dei's description of the event paints the picture of a very unforgiving encounter that, while still requiring good equipment, requires extreme attention by every member of the raid force. No matter what your gear, this raid sounds like a nightmare of coordination. Here's a quote from Cestus Dei's website.
"On the surface, he's a pretty standard boss. He does damage that's more or less appropriate for a target at his stage of the game, and has two large instant-respawn minibosses with similar damage that must be controlled. Smaller adds spawn periodically that multiply themselves the longer they stay alive. Not all that bad on the face of it. His trick comes in the form of probably the most punishing mechanic that's ever been tried in this game: periodically, a single person on the raid gets an emote that only they can see. They have a few seconds to react to it and cast a spell just for the encounter- if they succeed, he's somewhat weakened. If they fail, he powers up the point where it might not guarantee a raid wipe, but in the few seconds that it even takes for everyone to realize someone has screwed up, probably everyone near him is dead."
"Mata Muram is a boss about pure disruption and chaos. He silences, knock-backs, stuns, fizzle-curses, slows cast time, mana drains, snares, and that's just getting started."
The Overlord's last words? "There are other worlds than these...".
Last week, SOE posted the infamous Class Re-envisioning document. Feedback, as you can imagine, was mixed. A few more interesting changes, like the Druid's state feature that switches between healer or blaster, got people quite excited. A lot of the agenda-wielding class voices will never be happy until their beloved class rises to the top of the 16.
A patch scheduled for early April will bring many of these changes to first light and then we can begin to see the true results, but a lot of the suggested fixes should be well received. Some, however, will never be happy no matter what SOE does.
For a long time, I felt that all classes at most levels should have some method to return quickly to safety when real life rears its ugly head. Newer games such as Worlds of Warcraft, Everquest 2, and Everquest Online Adventures give new players some method to return home. In the beginning of April, so will Everquest.
24 hours [update: it's been changed from 24 to 6 hours - even better!] after one logs out from Everquest, a "return home" button will appear on your character select screen. Pressing it returns your character safely home no matter what horrible place you camped out at. This meets the needs of players who, for many reasons, have to leave very shortly and don't have a good method to get home. Some bring up gate potions or the Origin AA as an argument against such a change, but those features are not available except to the rich or the powerful. Something had to be given to the level 35 ranger of Kaesora who had no other way out. This is a great change.
The change to six hours lets players return to play within a day of their previous play session. Six hours is long enough to make sure people don't replace real porting, but short enough to let players return home at 6pm when they logged out at 11pm the night before.
Another less useful feature restores a character to full hitpoints and mana after a character has been logged out for one hour. Considering most characters can restore much faster than that, even twice as fast now that we have the guild hottub, I don't see much of a purpose, but it will do little harm.
Last week began the month-long celebration for Everquest's sixth year. A new scavenger hunt quest across Kunark rewarded many with a new ten-charge 30-minute experience doubling potion. I'm convinced I will spend five clicks accidentally sitting in the hottub and another five just before my group wipes out.
With the anniversary comes fabled mobs. Over a hundred mobs, many in Kunark, grew greatly in powered and earned the title Fabled. Fabled Venril Sather tore down his opponents with a melee attack for somewhere around 5100. The Fabled Overking in Chardok dropped a 250 hp and mana breastplate with a clickable invis that had most clerics drooling like St. Bernards. A few players pontificated that six years from now, the Fabled Mata Muram will hit folks for somewhere in the 10 million range.
On 22 March, SOE began merging four of the blue servers down to two. Antonia Bayle and Kane Bayle merged down to Antonia Bayle. Solusek Ro and Bristlebane merged down to Bristlebane. I expect we will see more of these mergers in the future but the severity of such changes warrant a slower approach.
Time for a shamless plug. Over on Caster's Realm, I wrote an article called "Class, Equipment, and Encounter Balance" that discusses the complex balance between these three variables. My main conclusion is that class balance alone isn't a factor to be considered without levels, equipment, and encounters coming into play. Anyone who reads my pompous prose won't be surprised by the article. I expect to write a couple more articles for CR soon including "Why Soloing is Evil" and "Why Play Everquest?", a rewrite of an older article of mine that still makes the rounds once in a while.
And with that shameless plug out of the way, I leave you to enjoy this month's festivities and look forward to the changes coming soon. Remember: All things serve the beam.
Loral Ciriclight
24 March 2005
loral@loralciriclight.com
Comment Posted by: Naladini on March 25, 2005 12:47 AM
Nice writeup.
"Another less useful feature restores a character to full hitpoints and mana after a character has been logged out for one hour. Considering most characters can restore much faster than that, even twice as fast now that we have the guild hottub, I don't see much of a purpose, but it will do little harm."
Actually, this is quite useful, especially at lower levels when mana regen is not plentiful. Its a change that allows people to log in and start playing right away, regardless of how they might have left themselves the previous night.
Gone are the days of working yourself down to 0% mana just before bedtime, then making the painful decision as to whether or not you leave your character parked in a semi-dangerous hunting spot for an extra 5-10 minutes as sleep pulls you away from the keyboard, or just log out knowing you'll have to spend the time medding the next time you log in.
This change is an important precursor to people being able to accomplish things more quickly in EQ, while playing for shorter sessions.
Comment Posted by: on March 25, 2005 06:26 AM
Okay, I'm nowhere near the endgame at all, but that encounter design is freakin' brilliant. Absolutely clever. Not to blow sunshine off SOE's rear, but... I'm impressed.
And the ending is so much better than 'well you finished, time to bamph you back in time so this didn't happen, oh by the way I'm only a demigod and you killed everything more powerful than me.'
Comment Posted by: Apostate on March 25, 2005 12:07 PM
One thing I forgot to mention about Mata Muram is he sends his death message to all the OoW zones on the server when he dies. Pretty nice touch.:)
Comment Posted by: JahvahFV on March 25, 2005 01:02 PM
____________________________________
24 hours [update: it's been changed from 24 to 6 hours - even better!] after one logs out from Everquest, a "return home" button will appear on your character select screen. Pressing it returns your character safely home no matter what horrible place you camped out at. This meets the needs of players who, for many reasons, have to leave very shortly and don't have a good method to get home.
____________________________________
Well, this one's kind of bittersweet. It's great that now everyone can ghetto gate, but it's going to kill the gate potion market. It stings especially since I just got to where I could reliably make the stupid things. There is a solution for all the affected shamen out there, but I doubt SoE will do it:
Cut the cost of heliotropes.
Gate potions sell because their utility justifies the outlay of pp. However this change will severely damage the utility value of gate potions. If the cost of ingredients stays the same, no one will buy the finished potions even if they're sold at cost. If no one buys them, no one will make them. Thereby making gate potions a waste of code...not that that's ever been a problem with the devs regarding alchemy.
Ah well, at least my ranger alt can get out of sebilis free now.
Comment Posted by: Loral on March 25, 2005 02:17 PM
The problem was that the costs of gate potions made them prohibitive to lower level players.
The purpose of a gate potion and the use of this new feature are also fairly different. I might still carry a gate potion if I need to leave a hunt and get somewhere else right now. This new feature only lets me gate out six hours after I log out. It's great for a way to leave EQ without worrying where you are. It's not so good for returning home when you want to.
Just like Knowledge and the Soul Binders, the damage to the current game has to be compared to the convenience it gives players. If a feature can make the game more friendly to people, or perhaps make the game playable when it wouldn't normally be playable because of real life commitments, I think the change is justified.
Comment Posted by: on March 25, 2005 03:21 PM
I am typically pretty adamently against about the adding of 'dumbing down' features, but both of these seem like a simple and non-detrimental way of making the game better, instead of just making it easier.
While the concerns of shaman about gate potions may very well be valid, for most people potions were a last ditch effort to get out of something, not a convenience tool.
I've gone thru maybe 2 or 3 ten packs of gate/swamp potions, and all of them that I recall were used as last ditch effort to get out of PoFire or Solro tower if no porter was available or I went LD there and had no other way out. (being a monk I could usually FD my way to a safe spot to gate out)
Comment Posted by: on March 25, 2005 06:50 PM
Why soloing is evil? Now I agree it should be in no way as good as grouping, but evil? Tell that to the druid who can't find a group. Tell that to the rogue who just sits, and tell that to the people who don't have anyone around their level to group with... soloing is not good, but its bad, not evil.
Comment Posted by: Loral on March 25, 2005 07:21 PM
I haven't even written the article yet! jeezz
Comment Posted by: Solistic on March 25, 2005 07:55 PM
ROFL!!!!!! Now that was funny
Comment Posted by: Teremar on March 26, 2005 01:09 AM
Shall I write it for you Loral?
"Grouping is really the only fun way to play. But people are too stupid to figure that out and/or too lazy to do it on their own. That's why the game has to force them to group. It's for their own good, really!"
Am I close? If not it's certainly a sentiment that has been expressed before. I dislike the paternalism that's built into it.
No, I can't figure out why someone would want to spend most of their time soloing either, but given that it's a game, if they're having fun that's all that matters.
And if grouping is more fun, then people will do it. Period. If all the dire warnings we've heard over the years about what would happen if everyone could solo were true, then everyone would have rerolled as one of the classes that can solo long ago.
Now since I do think most people prefer grouping, including the relationships that come from grouping, it would be folly for a game to reward not grouping. And that does mean groups need to be compensated for all headaches that come with it, from time spent LFG to dealing with undesirable group members, so grouping is at least as good a choice as soloing. But a modest advantage in xp/hour, loot, etc. will take care of that just fine while keeping other playstyles viable for those who prefer them for whatever reason.
Comment Posted by: on March 26, 2005 01:35 AM
Good job Teremar you started out correctly but rapidly degraded into the old BS mindset of grouping is better.
Must be why WoW is blowing away the MMO market, you know all that forced grouping in it unlike EQ2. Must be why it is selling 6 to one over EQ2 yep that forced grouping in WoW is the reason since a group of cowards should always do better the a brave individual.
Comment Posted by: Loral on March 26, 2005 08:24 AM
"Am I close?"
Nope.
Trust me, none of my article will attack players. I don't think I ever called soloers lazy or stupid (them or anyone else). For their own good? Perhaps, but thats not exactly the way I would say it either.
Don't assume to know what I'll say. Why not pick apart my Class, Equipment, and Encoutner balance article instead? I've actually written that one.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on March 26, 2005 11:58 AM
Fair enough Loral. I'll read it. The trouble is that class, encounter and especially gear balance are all heavily dependent on the content of the latest expansion. I've never played in DoN, so I don't feel qualified to pick it apart.
On the other hand I suspect those now playing WoW have a better idea of what EQ would be like if more ability to solo were added than those playing only EQ.
In WoW, the dungeon quests are significantly more rewarding than soloing, giving everyone an incentive to get a group for each dungeon at least once to do the related quests. But you're free to return to a dungeon after doing the quests just to get xp from killing mobs and dropped loot, and those rewards are good enough that when I log on I feel like I can group if I want to or solo if I want to (or have to due to RL constraints) without jeopardizing my progress.
And yes, if the rewards were completely equivalent per time spent hunting, the unproductive time spent LFG or the probability of getting an MMORPG newbie in the group that ends up wasting everyone's time would push me to solo. That's why grouping needs slightly better rewards--not because it's "better" but because there are drawbacks to it that need to be compensated for.
I think that's a good model: incentives to try other playstyles (there are class quests and such that make more sense to do solo as well), but no pressure to adopt them if you don't like them.
Comment Posted by: Maitreya on March 26, 2005 01:07 PM
"Good job Teremar you started out correctly but rapidly degraded into the old BS mindset of grouping is better"
And what BS mindset is that? The mindset that those who spend the time to put a group together and risk grouping with udesirable members should be rewarded for it? Yeah . . . that's some BS there.
"a group of cowards should always do better the a brave individual."
So . . . people who group are cowards because they bring friends with them, instead of soloing? That's not just awesome logic, it's a load of personal attacks at once! By that logic, raiders would be the biggest cowards of all, because they attack in huge groups, instead of just small groups of 6? Is Apostate a coward, because he attacked Mata Muram with a guild, instead of solo?
Hm, I had a point, I think. It just go lost in my upset ranyness. Ah! Here we go: sure, grouping is safer, if you take on the same mobs you'd be taking on if you were solo. However, that usually isn't the case. If it is, groups kill a lot more, a lot faster. Also, as Teremar said, groups should be rewarded more for the headaches that come with putting one together.
The reason groupers should earn greater rewards than soloers is the same reason raiders should earn greater rewards than groupers. When soloing, the only person you have to worry about is you. When you group, you have 2 to 6 times as many people to worry about. And of course, the problems are multiplied yet again when you raid. Someone saying that they should be able to progress as good as a someone who groups through solo because that's their playstyle is the rough equivalent of a non-raider like myself saying I should be able to progress like a raider through grouping, becuase that's my playstyle. Obviously, this isn't the case.
To summarize: Raiding is harder that grouping is harder than soloing. And I'm not talking about in terms of killing mobs, I'm talking about organizing, and having to worry about people doiing their jobs. This means raiding should be more rewarding than grouping, which shold be more rewarding than soloing.
/ramble off
Comment Posted by: Teremar on March 26, 2005 06:16 PM
Actually I'm not looking for a bigger reward from a night of grouping. Just the same reward.
Say I have three hours to play, and if I solo I'll get three hours of solo xp.
If I group, suppose on average I have to spend half an hour putting a group together. And then there's some chance of getting a lame group--suppose on average that wastes another half hour a night (some nights none, some nights more). So I can really expect two hours worth of group xp.
If that's the case, the group xp per productive hour had better be 50% greater than the solo xp per hour, or I'm better off soloing. Of course those are made-up numbers, and on the high side (but they made for easy math).
But this is very different from saying that grouping is somehow better or harder and deserves a better reward. I make no such claim. In my ideal game, if someone logs in and asks themselves "Do I want to solo, group or raid tonight?" the answer will depend on what they most enjoy, because the expected reward from all three will be roughly the same.
Comment Posted by: N exus on March 27, 2005 12:16 AM
Loral you are an idoit! Why do you still play a dieing game with outdated graphics? Get a life and play a new game
Comment Posted by: Maitreya on March 27, 2005 03:15 AM
Yes, in retrospect my logic wasn't perfect, but that post right after years really annoyed me, and I sort of went of on a rant. I agree with you, but since I tend to derail myself, I'm just going to leave it at that and not go into detail.
Nexus . . . I don't know where to begin. I wasn't aware Loral played dying games with outdated graphics, he only tells me about EQ and EQ2. What games are you talking about? Making personal attacks against because you don't like the games they play? I can't begin to understand the logic behind that. And why should he find a new game? Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it bad. And why are your attacks directed at just him, and not the hundreds of thousands of people who still? Why am I still typing? I'm going to shutup before I make a bigger fool of myself than I probably have already.
Comment Posted by: Asky on March 27, 2005 10:47 AM
Is Cestus Dei the only guild that killed Mata Muram?
There seems to be another guild(Fama Volat?) too as Bladewhisper Chain Vest of Journeys is also found abit later.
Comment Posted by: Solistic on March 28, 2005 11:39 AM
I would like to reach back into the realms of Antiquity.
In the beginning there were two RPG's. Dungeon & Dragons, and Tunnels & Trolls. No one knows for sure which one started first, not even the authors.
D&D was pure group group. No solo'ing but only groups.
T&T was the first and one of the only that came up with Solo'ing. They produced adventures that you could play at anytime and incorperate those characters into the regular grouping games.
Now both of these games were as great as each other.
There was a lot of people that only played the solo adventures, which were fun in them selves. But most of the time it was only a stop gap between the actual GM'd adventures with their friends.
Is this true here, if Solo'ing was just a stop gap between groups or raids, and solo'ing game was mostly content instead of xp/grind, would that statisfy people?
Did you know that the artist for OoW and DoN, got his start doing artwork for Tunnels and Trolls?
Comment Posted by: Loral on March 28, 2005 12:21 PM
I never heard of Tunnels in Trolls but after moving away from college and out into the big world with only SUV driving yuppies for friends, I would have loved some sort of solo D&D. Luckily I found a D&D group and am having a lot of fun with that.
When I want to play solo D&D, I sit down and write a story instead. Story writing is its own form of solo roleplaying and the rules are a lot more lax.
I'm not against soloing. I don't think that there should be no solo options at all. Soloing should exist and should be supported, but not as a cure for being unable to find groups. There are a few ways SOE can improve grouping in EQ including the following:
- Allow invites across zones or from the LFG tool.
- Add some sort of mentor system so high levels can group with low levels.
- Add more missions to old world zones and dungeons.
- Improve the friends tool so we know when we added friends, see when that friend was last online, and write notes about that friend.
The new "Go Home" button that we should see in a couple of weeks helps people join a group and camp out deep in a nasty place if they have to leave right away.
I read recently about Warcraft's new "Meeting Stones", a method to autogroup players based on their archetype. That seems like something worth exploring.
There's a lot of ways to improve grouping that need to be considered before simply opening up the gates and adding all sorts of new solo options. Solo options are fine as long as they don't remove every player's desire to group. People should aways have a reason to group.
Comment Posted by: Naladini on March 28, 2005 01:36 PM
Loral,
Do you think you might include some analysis on the impact multi-boxing has on the solo-grouping discussion?
Currently, it seems to me that if you really want to "solo" in EQ, the best way to do so is to pick up a second account to help out your main.
Comment Posted by: Quesci on March 28, 2005 02:57 PM
Tunnels and Trolls was awesome in its day. It was the perfect thing for a kid who lived in a small town and couldn't find a regular D&D group. I was able to get to the "big city" to play D&D twice a month with a group, but T&T was always there.
It is still available, by the way:
http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/tandt.htm
Flying Buffalo Games made a ton of products for the solo player. They also made some really great card-based games. Not collectible cards like Magic. I mean games where turning over cards determined the results of actions. Anyone remember "Nuclear War"?
By the way, before D&D was available on computers there were solo modules published. Most of them used "choose your own adventure" style writing, although a number of them had hidden text that you uncovered with a special pen. In all of them, of course, you trusted yourself to not cheat and choose the most advantageous path.
Comment Posted by: Loral on March 28, 2005 03:48 PM
"Do you think you might include some analysis on the impact multi-boxing has on the solo-grouping discussion?"
Perhaps. I can state my feelings on multiboxing pretty plainly, though.
My good friend Scott Adams will certainly disagree with me, but I think if a game allows you to effectivly play two characters at once, there isn't enough for each character to do. This is why EQ2 has all of those buttons (my swashbuckler has five rows of them now) and the heroic opportunities. The hard part comes with balancing difficulty so that unskilled gamers can still be effective and have fun while not boring the powered-up legion of super-gamers.
I read up a little bit on Tunnels and Trolls but I can't understand why this would be better than reading a good book or writing a story yourself? It would seem you are always beating up against an immobile DM who cannot react as a human can. MMOs and other online games understand that the best competition or comrade is a live player, not a computer actor. Note the recent news that the Matrix Online hired live actors to act in-game.
Recently I have started doing my own quests for low level players. I'll find a level 10ish player who isn't already twinked and send them out to slay orcs in the name of the elven cities. When they bring me back enough proof, they get a Pyrilen whip. It's small but its fun. I'd love to see more ways to get players supporting other players in an RPG. That's one of the great strengths of D&D - your DM is human.
Comment Posted by: Scott Adams on March 28, 2005 04:34 PM
I have yet to find a MOG where One character had even enough to do! Even in EQ2 I run 3 characters.
1) I love the complexity in having to figure out how to do it must efficently
2) I love the utility of all those spells and abilities. I like being able to have the buffs, rezs, ports etc in my little hydra. In EQlive I really liked being able to buff and help strangers. EQ2 unfortunately doesnt lend itself well to that.
3) I am slightly nuts!
Comment Posted by: Jyve on March 28, 2005 04:54 PM
The server merges have brought some interesting dynamics to surface, and I thought one of the most amusing quotes was when a group from KB and AB were adventuring and explaining some of the shortcut codes we use;
"I never thought that you'd be able to tell where that person was from by their server accent"
Very amusing. I've played on a few different servers, but only for short times. To get 2 servers to merge fully with all their strange ways has unfortunatley not been an easy thing most times.
At first, I was overjoyed to see 180 people in PoK, the server population was invigorated. What I wasn't too pleased about was the terrible language that has been brought from KB.
Quick question;
What numbers do you use on your server to do a random?
AB is always;
/random 3 333
Comment Posted by: Teremar on March 28, 2005 05:34 PM
I've seen from boards how camps can have different names on different servers, but I've never thought about how far that might go and what would happen in a merge.
And just to prove it on Bertoxx it was /random 5 555.
Meeting stones have been underwhelming so far. I've always managed to put a group together the old fashioned way before the stone did anything at all. But the big mistake is that they are at the dungeon entrance, not in a central location. Some dungeons are far enough from civilization that going there in the hopes that maybe you'll find a group just isn't a good use of time. EQ's LFG window is definitely superior, and would be especially nice in WoW given WoW's ability to invite at any distance. Blizzard has dropped hints they may add more tools for finding groups, but nothing official or specific.
Comment Posted by: Naladini on March 28, 2005 05:54 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against multi-boxing at all, for those who want to do so. But by the same token, I get a sneaking suspicion that some changes can sometimes be held up by an anxious accountant who is worried about how many people won't "need" multiple accounts if true soloing is better supported.
Currently, anyone who really wants to solo can solo, they just need to learn how to play with multiple accounts simultaneously.
Comment Posted by: Solistic on March 28, 2005 06:35 PM
LOL I always got a kick, that the GM's are called GM's instead of DM's as they were called in Tunnels and Trolls.
Another advantage the T&T had over D&D, that is similar to EQ compared to other games. T&T took about 15 minutes to roll up everyone's characters and get the adventure rolling. It was a very adaptable game. The number of premade dungeons were extremely limited, so a good GM had to create, draw out, and make the story to go with the Dungeon from scratch. The manual itself had a tutorial on how to do this.
Back to solo'ing. Two nights ago I was at one of the Fable camps, on the list to get an item for my little BeastLord. Well after I got my item, I brought my Cleric and Warrior over to continue to help out.
There was about 6 clerics there, doing nothing but helping out and we got to talking.
Course I was there bragging (roleplay) how much better a Dark Elf cleric is over a High Elf (they can't jump) Cleric was, but we got on the conversation of Solo'ing. Out of the 6, three of us did tons of solo'ing as a cleric and feel that in a lot of zones they can solo as well as a druid, while the other three, could not grasp the concept.
It is interesting that solo'ing abilities of a class and race are there, but a lot of people complain and whine about how they can only group.
If Sony decides to put in more content and help for people to solo that is fine. BUT please not at the expense of making group play less desirable.
Please realise that there are tons of content and places that are already in the game for people to solo, and not get bored doing it.
Yes it is true I roleplay more the most of the people, and I create stories from my roleplaying, but still there is lot, already in the game, with out doing what I do.
ps. My DE cleric always tells High Elf clerics (High Elfs can't jump)
Comment Posted by: Glormane on March 29, 2005 07:41 AM
I'd like to comment on the Gear article by Lorel here as I cant access the boards from work. I think there is something in what you say. I play a Paladin. Paladins can't really solo in higher level content. I am level 70 and although I havent tried lately I dont think I can solo a mob in Nobles Causeway. I'd like to think my gear is ok, but my guild missed Ssra and VT and is currently breaking into the Elemental Planes. I am one flag short when they fix Rallos Zek. However I imagine an EP Pally would be able to solo in some zones where mobs are dark blue better than I. Sometimes its about the stuff you have thats not usual to your class, I have for example, the Coldain ring with an 8 ds, a 2 handed piercer that can slow by 20% etc. I have gone pretty much as far as I can with my equipment, before I break into the Planes. I have tried Ikkinz trials, and cant do them, I've tried MPG trials and cant do them. I've looked at the DoN gear and barring a few augs, the gear there has no improvements for me. There is a bit of a gap in gear that I cant seem to breach. Maybe as you say SoE should look at this, but try to be subtle about it. I still think there should be some slight class tweaks. I've seen some complaining about soloing and I think sometimes it is good to solo, and if EQ were to allow both group and solo experience to happen it would be a good thing. At one point, Mages and Druids were Solo kings (and Queens). For a variety of reasons SoE introduced summoning creatures. Were soloers hogging what should have been group content? Was there too many soloing and leaving classes without any form of xp as the soloers couldnt be lured to groups? Who knows, I think what SoE should think about is 2 things. 1 Solo instanced content. A chance to xp, but xp shouldnt be as good as grouping.
2. Change summon. Leave all raid mobs alone, they should summon. Either make summon resistable, or make mobs below the level of the player unable to summon them, i.e. a lvl 50 mob shouldnt be able to summon a 70 player. As a soloing Mage or Druid, you could find even Natimbi named hard or impossible as the mob will summon and tear through your armour, or 'dress' as I like to call it. As a Paladin I could solo him no trouble, summon? No problem I want to be up close and personal with the mob.
Again some Druids/Casters can solo summoning mobs, but you may find they have Qvic gear, which brings us back to the balancing of equipement.
By the way, the line you quoted by the Anguish boss, is also said by a Character in Stephen Kings Dark Tower Series. The quote is actually " Go then, there are other worlds than these", the character who spoke those words did reappear later in the story, is this a clue to future expansions?
Comment Posted by: on March 29, 2005 04:27 PM
whats happened to the eqclerics board?
Comment Posted by: on March 29, 2005 06:31 PM
The only problem I ever had with grouping that made me wish soloing was a viable route for experience (I'm not stubborn enough to ask for gear of any kind besides the bazaar variety), was the horrible lack of healers I would usually suffer in my level range, try to find a group that is willing to put up with THAT defeciency in a game, ANY game.
Comment Posted by: Moorgard on March 30, 2005 01:15 AM
If only I had trademarked the phrase "news roundup." I'd be rich, I tell ya!
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on March 30, 2005 04:02 AM
On another topic, SoE has decided to merge 36 servers, regardless if low population or not. Mayhem ensued on SoE boards. News at 10.
Comment Posted by: whatredsaid on March 30, 2005 06:40 AM
These server mergers suck. Big time.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on March 30, 2005 08:31 AM
Interesting article Loral. Good news too - it's cool to hear about what's happening in the actual game world now that I hardly make it in.
Here's a thought about the whole group vs. solo; WoW vs. EQ/EQ2 thing.
As players we really thrive on challenge to some extent. We want games to be challenging, it keeps us interested and keeps us playing. The problem is that some of us simply pick up on things faster than other players, thus the challenge of a single character varies depending on the player. MMO developers can't make solo play challenging enough to prevent some of us from getting bored without shutting out a bunch of other players who just aren't as quick to learn how to do the content or have a lower threshold for frustration. The solution to that is and always has been groups. Groups add challenge in a different way because now no matter how good you are at what you do, you need to have folks with you who do different things, and you have to coordinate with them.
So groups are a good thing, with them the game can be made more challenging and thus more fun - if the player is willing to tolerate the time required and the possibility of getting a bad group.
Most players these days seem to have a much lower threshold for frustration than players five years ago. I don't know if it's a consequence of mass-marketing or what. But basically people are much more inclined to solo than group now, because they just don't want to deal with other players.
WoW does a good job of making the solo game feel challenging without actually making it challenging, as in you feel like you're fighting for your life even though you know you'll win 8-=90% of the time. Even against "elite" mobs if you know what you're doing you can solo them. EQ/EQ2 are still very group-focused games even with the addition of "solo" content. There's lots of stuff that just can't be done by yourself.
As such I find that I enjoy EQ/EQ2 more, even though I get just as annoyed as anyone else when I have to deal with all the non-fun stuff that goes along with grouping. And on a limited play schedule, that means sometimes I only get anything accomplished one day a week.
To my mind what the game developers (all of them, not just SOE and Blizzard) need to start focusing on is ways to make the act of finding and forming a group easier. Current games isolate players because core content is much more individualized. and (individual) quests are much more prevalent. This is a good thing as it gives players a purpose but a bad thing because the quests aren't normally shared objectives with other players. Increasingly players are turning to out-of-game relationships such as RL friends or guilds from past games when they need help with something and in my opinion that's seriously threatening the internal communities that these games are supposed to build.
The lesson that any publisher should learn from EQ1 is that when you give players shared objectives, they will band together to do those, so the trick to having a game that people can enjoy for years is to have plenty of shared objectives, and to make the act of finding and forming a group quick, easy, and as pain-free as possible.
Right now I don't think EQ, EQ2, or WoW really does that well enough. EQ did at one point, but they lost that magic a few years back due to trivialization of content.
Anyway, gotta get to work. Something to think about.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on March 30, 2005 11:02 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that EQ players have had years to build social networks. It's going to take a long time to replicate those in other games. And people will solo more until they do.
I heartily agree that all MMORPGs should work very hard to provide more and better tools for forming groups.
And no, WoW's Meeting Stones aren't there yet. One finally did find a group for me--it put my rogue in a group which then consisted of two rogues and a hunter. Fortunately we were able to find a healer and a tank the old-fashioned way. Too bad the hunter then ninja looted the boss we killed--another issue that drives people to solo is all the MMORPG newbies who don't understand MMORPG ethics yet.
Comment Posted by: on March 30, 2005 02:53 PM
It's going to take a LOT longer to build those social networks BECAUSE people are soloing more there...
It's a viscious circle, which is probably why there is still a strong opposition to making it easier to solo in EQ.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on March 30, 2005 03:06 PM
That's exactly it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on March 31, 2005 01:11 AM
It's a tough call--let people solo and see some of them quit in six months because they haven't formed any real relationships? Or force them to group and see some of them quit in six weeks because RL constraints keep them from grouping or they just don't want to? I'm not sure anyone knows which will get you more subscribers in the long run.
It should be noted that as more and more people hit 60 in WoW, one complaint is that all the end-game content is for groups and raids. In other words, WoW does force you to group in the long run. Sounds like a lot of people will be happy to hear that; I'm ambivalent.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on March 31, 2005 04:06 AM
Well we know that the second option surely contributed to keep EQ alive for 6 years. There is no MMO I know that caters to solo the way WoW does that has any amount of years behind it to prove the same. So it's anyone guess at the moment.
It's also why people I know quit WoW. Blizzard gave them what they wanted from 1 to 60 but once at 60, they are pretty much stuck into the same game constraints because it's inherent to any social on-line game. At some point the player got to realize that spinning the wheel solo and only solo in a MMO lacks purpose. At some point to make it meaningful the company may end up providing true multiplayer content (the MM in MMO) which is what the genre is all about. At that time, everything that has been said against EQ, shows its ugly head and people either quit for lack of time or compain endlessly that they don't have the same path of progression than raiders. Which is the WHOLE point in a MMO. Social interaction. And if you don't provide raiding or group content which amount to about the same problems, you give what more to a MMO over a single offline game? I wonder.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on March 31, 2005 07:41 AM
One of the ways in which games like WoW could hold on to more solo-oriented players at the high end would be to add alternative "elder game" content. Something for those players to do that's different from the kill monster, get treasure, finish quest, get reward fare they've been doing for the past 60 levels. This would also be good for EQ/EQ2.
Examples of this kind of content include things like nobility/title systems, player cities, player-owned taverns, "master" crafting content (where players can craft unique, powerful items from ultra-rare materials), and so on. An alternative elder game might not appeal to every player but the majority of time-limited players don't seem to really mind so much what they're doing on those Sn-T days when they can only play an hour and a half as long as it's fun, and as long as they can be in the world, do whatever it is, and not have to waste a bunch of time to do it. In my experience solo players will actually be social, especially once they get the advancement done, they just want to be social on their terms and not have the game tell them that they have to be.
There are plenty of games out there that use alternative content types like the ones I listed above that do quite well, and in those games the solo/group divide usually isn't nearly as pronounced as it is in EQ/EQ2/WoW. Perhaps the answer to the problem is to try and balance your game between solo and group content, acknowledge that your combat-focused elder game is going to be group-focused, and implement alternative content for the time-limited folks and the dedicated soloers so they have something different to do after they hit the top.
It's not perfect, but then, nothing is.
Comment Posted by: Ogulbuk on March 31, 2005 08:29 AM
________________________________________________
The hard part comes with balancing difficulty so that unskilled gamers can still be effective and have fun while not boring the powered-up legion of super-gamers.
________________________________________________
Honestly, I think this waters thing down. If anyone can be efective skill goes unrewarded really. You DO have to have PLENTY of situations where unskilled conduct will lead to failure.
________________________________________________
I have yet to find a MOG where One character had even enough to do! Even in EQ2 I run 3 characters.
________________________________________________
Didn't you play City of Heroes??? How on earth can you play more than one character THERE?
Oh and dont try to say that solo ability is what makes WoW so successful.
Truth is WoW was entirely designed from the ground up to support a larger demographic, and this can be seen from it's low computer requirements to its full support for the Mac platform. There is way more than just "because you can solo". EQ2 on the other hand, just wont run on some top of the line computers.
Comment Posted by: on March 31, 2005 05:37 PM
"EQ2 on the other hand, just wont run on some top of the line computers"
Well if EQ2 had used graphics technology newer then EQ1 has maybe it would. The 5 year old version of Pixel Shader in EQ2 is so much less efficient then the one in EQ1. Also check out the load on a GPU with EQ2 vs EQ1. It will open your eyes to say the least.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on March 31, 2005 06:31 PM
No offense, but:
When posting opinions based on assumedly observed statistics, please do the following so that the rest of us don't dismiss your opinions out of hand.
1. Don't post anonymously - putting something in that Name field goes a long way
2. Include a link to these statistics or metrics that were presumably taken by a reputable organization involved in testing application load on computer hardware and not by some anonymous user who presumably ran load tests on the system he built in his garage and posted the results on a message board somewhere.
Establishing legitimacy and credibility is kind of important when making claims where you're going to cite statistics or metrics.
Thanks.
Comment Posted by: on March 31, 2005 07:02 PM
I've always wanted some type of load monitor for graphics cards, something similar to what the task manager for xp shows for cpu/network usage..
anyone know of something like that for nvidia cards?
Comment Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 1, 2005 04:20 AM
With the amount of success, and money that WoW is generating and will continue to generate, you can bet your ass that this is just the beginning. They'll add depth, they'll add more ways to be social, mark my anonymous words! The game is amazing.
And before you say I'm a fanboi, I'm actually playing EQ2 atm and enjoying the quirks of that game.
Too bad they spent all of that money on EQ2 instead of EQ1.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on April 1, 2005 04:23 AM
I'm all hears. How without provoking at least some of the critics concerning EQ. Exactly how will they.
Otherwise it's indeed just mindless fanboism. 0 facts to back it up.
Comment Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 1, 2005 04:39 AM
Please, it's "mindless and cowardly anonymous fanboi to you". Granted, I'm probably a voice in a sea of hundreds of thousands saying the same thing you've head 100s of times over.
People used to say I was a Verant fanboi too.
Those were the days.
Now is the hour of World of Warcraft. EQs golden age is over. Long live the king.
Comment Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 1, 2005 06:12 AM
Here's a link that explains what I wrote (to the utter disgust of many I'll wager) about WoW improving better than I could, and in a more critical way.
http://www.killerbetties.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=166
Laters.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 1, 2005 07:45 AM
Here's what it comes down to. I wrote about this in my brilliant and well-written article for Caster's Realm entitled "Is Everquest Dying?":
http://loralciriclight.com/001248.html
There is one factor that will show the decay and death of a massive online game: a lack of growth.
Whether a game has one million subscribers or ten thousand is irrelavant when you consider that we never see more people than any one server hosts.
As long as games continues to bring out new expansions, it will survive.
We focus on three MMOGs at the present time: EQ, EQ2, and WoW, but there are over a dozen other massive online games still surviving and thriving with populations much lower than these three. Certainly these three will continue as long as the companies hosting them continue to develop new expansions so that current players have something new to try out.
Although EQ plans to begin merging servers, they also plan to develop new expansions. If you're enjoying EQ, it will continue to be around a long long time and you have little to worry about.
Although World of Warcraft has a lot of solo content and players easily reached the highest level, Blizzard will continue to bring out new expansions and new content to keep people interestd. People who like WoW will continue to play.
Everquest 2 already has a mid-level adventure pack out, The Bloodline Chronicles, and they have plans to release two full expansions and two adventure packs a year. That's a significant amount of new content every three months.
All of this is good for us players. There's competition, there are choices, there's a huge pool of people all spending their working days to find new ways to entertain us in MMOGs and the really good ideas, like instanced content, missions, easier UIs, and quest journals, end up in all three games.
Everquest isn't dying. Warcraft isn't dying. Everquest 2 isn't dying. The world of massive online games is just beginning and these grandfathers will tell their tale for years to come.
Comment Posted by: Ogulbuk on April 1, 2005 10:00 AM
____________________________________________________
As long as games continues to bring out new expansions, it will survive
____________________________________________________
I have to correct you there. As long as the game continues to bring new PLAYERS in it will not die.
Yes, expancions help with it, as they bring new shelf life to the game, but if the game starts loosing players faster than it gains them, sooner or later you will find that the production cost of an expancion actually becomes loss and not an investment with a return. It would only take 2 expancions that became losses instead of wins (balancing the new/returning players + sales of expancion vs the prodution costs) before they start cutting edges.
I presume SoE may go for lower investment on the expancions before going for longer times in between if forced to. Altough many players may scream about it, it would be the wisest choise, sadly. Even so, a point will come where the fact that expancions dont bring new players or returning players comes and it will be the lack of player count that will kill the expancions, not the lack of expancions that will kill the player cont.
(sorry for any typos, English not first language)
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 1, 2005 10:24 AM
We, as players, have no real idea how many players enter or leave the game. Our only real measure for the health of the game comes from the changes SOE invests. While the total number of paying subscribers is the factor SOE looks at for the health of the game, as a player, my only concern comes from my own entertainment which is continually renewed with new content.
Comment Posted by: Perc the Shadow Bard on April 1, 2005 10:41 AM
Ogul, great post. What I think was said previously though was the point that there are many other MMORPGs out there that have much smaller populations. Yes, they will begin to spend less money on expansions if the players begin to leave and others fail to take their place. However, this doesn't mean lower quality expansions (at first). It would begin with less "new" bells and whistles. ex: the bandolier buttons for EQ. While that's all nice and pretty, SOE can save money on that stuff and keep up the new cool expansions. It will become less "we have this now, please come back" and more "try this out and stay with us." Both will bring in new players, but it will be a long time before the actually quality of expansion dissipates. (like GoD before OoW) Just my opinion. Long live nachos.
Comment Posted by: Solistic on April 1, 2005 01:21 PM
When Loral mentioned smaller MMOG's made me think of the games that my fiance and I take breaks playing.
They are small third person, low graphic games, but with lots of content. They are usually free for a period, or if you want to get into the better stuff. One game I started playing before EQ a long time ago. It is still around and I go back to it every once in a while. It has low population, low graphics, and few upgrades in the last five years. But it has a tiny following and keeps on going.
So I agree population does not really have much to do with the death of a game. It has a lot to do with it being the "King of the Hill" and making a lot of money for the Company.
Comment Posted by: Ogulbuk on April 1, 2005 01:33 PM
Population may not have a big impact on MANY games, but in the case of comersial games like EQ, where profit is esential, it is.
True, they can go a long way down before they can't cut more corners to stay profitable, and until that day comes, the game will keep going, but dont expect that the constant new content that has become a norm trough expancions to keep going forever.
Many would had quit a long time ago had the game never gained content beyond Kunark, no matter how many say they would play the game even more happily if it was so, truth is they would had borded sooner or later of the same content.
EverQuest wont die any time soon, that is a fact. but it WILL die sooner or later, and unlike Meridian 59, I doubt SoE will be willing to sell the defunct game to anyone so the game keeps going.
Comment Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 1, 2005 03:38 PM
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone say on this page that Everquest is dying. I don't believe it is, I simply said that the golden age is over for the game.
An 'age' for a fantasy piece of fiction could be 1000s of years. For modern times, 100s of years. For computer games, it's months! EQ changed it, started out with 25,000 ... grew to 450,000. We saw expansions increase our expectations of the game every time. Each expansion was a huge jump in what we came to expect... until after Planes of Power. I think the game reached its peak then.
Thats when Sony released Legacy of Ykesha. My god, what have they done? The expansions lack the grandeur of previous expansions and the game is on the decline.
GoD gave us more bugs and game inbalances, like most mmorpg expansions, but most of all it took away the fun.
Omens was a good expansion, and it should have been released right after PoP - balanced for the lower gear of course. But by then it's too late. The new breed of mmorpgs is just around the corner.
The reason for this decline? Why have sony failed at keeping to keep game growing? There was a point where it was getting more popular all the time. What the hell was Legacy of Ykesha. Why is DoN so tiny? Where the hell is the fun. I
I'll tell you what happened. While these expansions of lesser quality were being churned out the company's energy was being directed elsewhere. Everquest 2. Why did they have to make this game. It still plays like EQ1, fecking levelling and grinding. So it has slightly different classes, I'm still doing the same bloody thing that I did in EQ1. Feels like a different flavour of EQ to me.
WHY ! Don't tell me the games had different budgets, that's rubbish. They should have spent that money on EQ1 so the game got better looking and with better content. They could have done amazing things with EQ1.
Why couldn't they put player housing in EQ1? Why couldn't they completely revamp the low end game and balance classes when they were broken. Why did they nerf a class like a monk because they could tank rampage better than a warrior at the top %1 of the game, and then change it back years later.
They had the chance to make EQ1 grow forever or at least maintain a stable population. But they got greedy, they got franchises and they lost sight on what was important.
The golden age is over for EQ1. They're not even trying to compete with the mmorpgs like they used to do, they're just keeping it going and carved a niche for it.
Grrr.
I used to love EQ.
I hope blizzard don't do the same in 3 years time.
Damn it.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 1, 2005 04:01 PM
"Many would had quit a long time ago had the game never gained content beyond Kunark, no matter how many say they would play the game even more happily if it was so, truth is they would had borded sooner or later of the same content."
You and I agree completely. The thing that drives the health of a MMOG is new and evolvoing content and features.
"Thats when Sony released Legacy of Ykesha. My god, what have they done? The expansions lack the grandeur of previous expansions and the game is on the decline."
This is where perception comes in. I think the two best expansions for EQ came AFTER Ykesha - LDON and DON. I know my views are not everyone's but there are a lot of people who like the focus on single-group play.
I hope, as EQ ages, that we begin to form a smaller and tighter community with higher visibility to developers, more changes they might not have been willing to make, and a focus on content.
Money isn't everything. Bad Boys 2 cost $125 million and Desperado cost $7 million but guess which one is the better movie?
Cutting budgets and limiting resources sometimes leads to some pretty innovative stuff. You don't tend to rely on big giant flashy sets of forty zones like we got with PoP and Luclin. Instead you get smaller expansions with a more radical system wrapped around it like DoN.
It'll be interesting to see how things turn out. I like being there to see it.
Comment Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 1, 2005 04:44 PM
And you will enjoy it I am sure, Loral. Because now the game is being targetted at players like you, who already know the game intimately have experienced the cool content that noone does anymore. You have your communities to keep you going. You have your uber guilds recruiting still.
Maybe you have sentimental reasons for still playing. Maybe you met your wife here, maybe you feel attached to what remains of your guild. You write for Mobhunter!
Another reason for the decline of the game:
EQ1 used to cater for many kinds of players, even soloers really well, it really did. You could choose a class that soloed very well, it wasn't difficult to find out which class fit your playstyle. Many people chose their class because they could solo well, or group well. But it was their choice.
So why the hell did Sony make solo a 'four letter word;. I remember loads of people used to play their class solo and reach level 50+ You even had people soloing to 65 but they seemed to phase it out more and more. They reduced solo exp (idiots) and then increased the amount that groups get. Of course this means this is just a nerf in disguise, because all of their future content is balanced for the group.
EQ1 had soloing options, they killed most of em off.
They made a lot of bad mistakes.
Sentimental value can't hold players forever.
Comment Posted by: Naladini on April 2, 2005 12:17 AM
LoY wasn't the "end of an era" in and of itself, but LoY did mark the beginning of a decidely shorter development cycle, with more frequent expansion releases, targetted at specific styles and of play.
Is the game better off with this model?
Or did the game retain a stronger following before because we were made to wait a bit longer for what we really wanted?
Comment Posted by: wormy on April 2, 2005 09:05 AM
(Loral)We, as players, have no real idea how many players enter or leave the game.
---------------------------------
Not quite right.
I, as a player, have real hard data about how many players are playing.
When trader numbers in the (old) bazaar went down by 2/3 - the actual customer numbers are following.
When Sony closes half of their servers - there are no more enough customers.
When I have no chance to get a group, because there are no more groups (outside guilds) - the player numbers are dwindling.
PoP killed a lot of the smaller and mid sized guilds, it killed most familiy type guilds. The social networks took severe damage.
LoY was nice, it was aimed at the leaving players, but it was too little too late.
Everything after LoY was aimed at uber guilds only - the game went downhill.
Not even speaking about class balance or even usefullness of classes in groups/raids...
Sony made many bad choices there is nothing they can do to get those customers back.
Throwing out more expansions will alienate former customers even more - more levels to catch-up, more $$$ to buy them, more Items to farm, to be ready for actual content. And still not one long standing problem solved...
EQ is dead, like UO *g*
It was a great game, ruined by greed.
Comment Posted by: on April 2, 2005 08:48 PM
You want hard numbers?
Here, hard real numbers:
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2_files/Subscriptions_11327_image001.gif
Yea, EQ will die just as UO died, a game that awefuly droped to zero players over night due to greed... (sarcasm intended).
If ANY game there seems to be dying, it would be Asheron's Call. And guess what? They only ever set ONE expancion on the shelves. True, there is new content monthly but to get new playes in you must keep the game on the shelves and that is what expancions do.
Also note the diference between sudden changes and declines. CoH state does not worry me, mainly since an expancion for CoH is coming, but Asheron's Call and the Sims Online do.
If anything EQ will keep going for just as long as UO has, so if you enjoy the game i would not worry. It must likely will leave the market only way after YOU are tired of it. Only thing i do note is it WILL leave the market eventualy, thing some people just dont accept.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on April 4, 2005 11:25 AM
If you read the comments at mmogchart, you'll find:
"It is generally believed that EQ’s numbers have declined further since the release of EQ II and WoW, but I have been unable to quantify this at this time."
And If you read the comments on other games you'll note a pattern where companies stop giving out information when their subscriptions decline. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what you're seeing there for now. Given the massive server mergers, you'd have to be a fanboi with your head stuck in the sand to still claim we don't know that EQ subscriptions are declining (you know we love you Loral).
So what should we expect for the future? Well, I can see why SOE would try to add features that are similar to WoW to try to stem the losses, but that's going to make it all the more likely that the "CR's build character" crowd will go to Vanguard (when it's done and if it actually turns out okay). But your point is well taken that EQ is not going to die. The example of UO is a good one.
Besides, all this talk about subscriptions is really secondary. The number that EQ players should really care about is the number of SOE employees still working on the game. Anyone been monitoring that?
Comment Posted by: on April 4, 2005 11:41 AM
Dear Sony,
To make EQ1 cool again, action the following:
1) Make an epic/huge/massive/bigger than any previous expansion that contains the following:
-New Character Models
-Alternative newbie zones
-Revamped or redesigned zones for all levels
-New content for new characters
-Implement features found in modern mmorpgs : quest journal, user friendliness
-Give it a new edge, something that you can sell to new players. I dont know. You figure it out.
2) Market said expansion as the biggest update ever. Market it like its a new game. Put some effort into making it BETTER than WoW/EQ2. Make it draw players from here.
3) Remember it was EQ1 that made the market what it is, respect it and give it attention and it shall reward everyone again.
4) Stop churning out expansions like you are at the moment, it's boring.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on April 4, 2005 11:41 AM
Lack of raiding content will kill the EQ population real fast if they don't ship a new one spanning many months, not 3 weeks. Loose guilds, loose healthy community environment, merge, rinse, repeat.
Making the end mob of an expansion extra hard seems a good idea. Lots of things seem to be done right. There's just a major problem of quantity right now.
And some serious itemization problems.
Comment Posted by: on April 4, 2005 02:21 PM
Altough companies start to give numbers more sparcely once they start declining, they sooner or later have to give them since investors MUST know them.
You can see on that chart what was the last point of EQ1 entry, yet i doubt it suddenly went down to UO levels. I'd stop worrying about if or if not the game is dying, and start worrying about if or if not YOU find the game FUN. If you dont, why are you playing it?
Comment Posted by: Solistic on April 4, 2005 03:54 PM
I really like playing EQ1, and it is sad to see what is happenning.
History shows that Rumormongers and Doomsayers can bring about the death of something that was not going to die. They do more damage than any cold hard facts.
If you wanted to follow graph charts, the Wall Street Stock market should have been shut down a long time ago.
When I look at EQ I look at it as a game and one that I still enjoy, I hate hearing constant negative information that is based on guesses.
Comment Posted by: on April 4, 2005 04:40 PM
Solistic, the graph actually speaks well of the game. Yes, it shows a decline, a small one, but it also shows how the release of other games has not inflicted any permanent lows. In a few months SOE will have to release numbers again, maybe once the numbers are coser to a faborable look, but the fact that they get there, is good. Bad would be that they are forced to say numbers and it turns out they went down 50%, but i doubt it greately.
Also, i never seen a doomsayer ruin any game. They just angered a few people, but never broght down any game. Notice that a HUGE percent of players dont bother reading any type of boards, they play or dont based purely on the fun they have.
I remember once asing one of my guilds if they read X or Y thing on the boards and they never had a clue even what boards I was talking about.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 4, 2005 05:00 PM
Putting made up numbers on a graph doesn't make it accurate. Doing a /who in the bazaar doesn't tell you how many players play across all servers and all timezones at any given moment. We, the players, don't have real information about SOE's numbers, we only have our perception of the game and it is there that we should focus. Consolidating all of their servers doesn't mean they have exactly half the population, it could be more it could be less. We don't know.
All of us have views of ways to improve the game that fit our particular play-style. We all have a way we play now and a way we would like to see the game progress. I would really like SOE to put in level 70 Time/Qvic-quality loot in single-group areas reachable by single-group equipped players but I recognize that I may be in the minority of level 70 players. That isn't nearly as important to me as ways to improve the game for everyone.
"And you will enjoy it I am sure, Loral. Because now the game is being targetted at players like you, who already know the game intimately have experienced the cool content that noone does anymore. You have your communities to keep you going. You have your uber guilds recruiting still."
I don't think you know me very well =) Have a read through my previous articles.
Comment Posted by: on April 5, 2005 01:01 AM
Loral, just a note, that graph is not made up. The numbers there are stright from press releases. There may be some time spots missing but the reported number at the reported dates all are real.
Comment Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 5, 2005 04:18 AM
It's actually pretty easy to find out subscriber numbers from a game. There's all kinds of accounts reports and press releases that hav the information or give you information to work it out from. When a game is bringing in millions of dollars of turnover every month, it's hard to keep figures like this a secret.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on April 5, 2005 08:00 AM
Is it in the quarterly report of SoE? The EQ or EQ2 turnover?
Comment Posted by: stylx on April 5, 2005 08:47 AM
umm
[quote] Solistic, the graph actually speaks well of the game. [/quote]
Actually, looks to me that your last datapoint was BEFORE EQ2 came out. That is before the "Decline" would have taken place.
Also, EQ1 subscriptions get kind of murky when you consider the "All Access Pass".
Comment Posted by: Naladini on April 5, 2005 07:58 PM
Not just the all access pass, remember, over the past year they've been offering some nice discounts for longer term subscriptions. This means that subscriber numbers are not going to correlate with the number of active players.
Only SOE can really know these numbers.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 5, 2005 10:16 PM
"Only SOE can really know these numbers."
Bingo. Thank you.
Let us concentrate on what we DO know and not worry about things we cannot.
Comment Posted by: Stylx on April 6, 2005 08:46 AM
Of course, on that same notion, we do not KNOW that the sun is the center of the solar system, that Evolution of species occurs, the shape and size of molecules, or that gravity exists, as we cannot get exact direct observations of any of these points.
Instead, we rely upon evidence to suggest the particular nature of the phenomenon. I'd suggest, that we approach "SOE Subscription Numbers" or "Amount of Active SoE players". We could use this information in the same way a thermometer suggests state of health - but in this case - health of the game.
Comment Posted by: Stylx on April 6, 2005 09:19 AM
That is approach subscription numbers with "Bazaar" numbers, ect. =( got lost in the copy/paste from word.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 6, 2005 01:07 PM
Besides long theoretical debates that get us no where, there is little purpose in even worrying about player statistics. We will never have enough evidence to come up with a real number.
Instead, let us talk about the effects we see and what we would like to see to improve these.
For example, people often complain that its harder to get a group now than it was. I would like to see more people seeking pickup groups and more pickup groups seeking me.
Getting more players together in one spot is one way to help this, as Lavastorm acts as a gathering point for missions, but there are other ways as well.
A lower population is one possible cause for this problem. So is class desirability (I don't think this is a problem within each archetype, but certainly groups need tanks, healers, crowd control, and damage dealers). Other causes could be the rifts between raiders and single-groupers. If I weren't raid equipped, I couldn't hunt in the same group as raid-eqipped players. Another cause could be a widespread level range. I can't hunt with my level 45 friends.
There are a lot of possible solutions to this problem. Some are more radical than others:
Come up with some sort of mentor system so level 45s and level 70s can hunt together and both receive rewards for doing so.
Allow invites to groups across zones.
Improve the Friends list with notifications, notes, and other features.
Add in a World of Warcraft-like "meeting stone" (a lot of people are against this but its at least worth looking at).
Add better group UI features such as a "Find PC" button, player dots on the map, and other ways to get groups together and hunting fast.
Let player classes switch from one archetype to another. Paladins become clerics, Shadowknights become Rogues, Berserkers become Shaman, wizards become enchanters, mages become bards; each class can switch among the four archetypes. No longer is your group hosed when you have six DPS and no tank, healer, or crowd control. This is obviously quite radical, bordering on totally impossible, but they did something like this with Druids so perhaps its worth considering. On the other hand, it can lead to having to balance 32 classes instead of 16.
Another point of population that is worth discussing, one posted by my friend Gemdiver over on Caster's Realm:
http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=8411
What will the effects of population be when servers merge?
One big problem people mention is Time. Gemdiver mentions that SOE talked about instancing time, and many people say that now is the time (no pun intended).
Personally, I think its time SOE quit hanging onto equipment in PoP as the end-all of equipment progression and just put Time level gear available in quests, adventure merchants, and single-group hunts huntable by non-time equipped raiders.
Nowadays, with games like Warcraft and EQ2 out, SOE can't keep the wide gap between raid gear and single group gear form effecting available content. I want to hunt in the Nest with my friends but it wasn't intended for me, a level 70 cleric with 400 AAs, it was intended for a level 70 cleric, 400 AAs, and Time gear.
Equipment progression at the high end gets frustrating enough that people simply move over to the other games.
SO a cure for both the Time problem and the equipment gap problem is to put time-level gear available in other single-group areas such as the DON vendors.
As far as the difficulty of time? Last night a single person six-boxed and killed both the King and Queen of Riftseekers. They drop gear far higher than Time quality.
It's time for the strangehold of Planes of Power to end.
/end rant
Comment Posted by: on April 6, 2005 03:35 PM
//////////
As far as the difficulty of time? Last night a single person six-boxed and killed both the King and Queen of Riftseekers. They drop gear far higher than Time quality.
//////////
I find that a little impossible to belive can be done without some serious exploiting going on.
////////
It's time for the strangehold of Planes of Power to end.
////////
The stranglehold of time is twofold.
First, there is no other zone or series of encounters that yeilds the loot haul that time provides, with the ease of accessiblity (all one zone), and the breadth of loot to equip every class.
Second, the items themselves, are STILL the best or nearly the best combination of effects (click, worn/focus, and melee effects), and hp/mana that can be gotten with the (now) relatively easy farming.
Third, aside from the fabulous normal effects available, almost every class has at least 1 item with a click (with no stupid f'ing recast timer) that is pretty impossible to replace with something newer.
Pop items had and STILL has the most well done itemization of any expansion, from ornate armor, elemental, to time, the item's stats are well rounded, provide USEFUL focus/effects.
Unlike many of the gates and oow items which are absolutely the crappiest sets of armors and items ever.
DoN may be closer to pop itemization, on a per item basis, but there is still no greater 'candyland' than time.
Comment Posted by: Seduca on April 6, 2005 03:43 PM
I dont play EQ 1 anymore at the moment, but i still want to see this game succeed. The reason is because i look at EQ 1 as a template almost for future online games. WHere will EQ 2 or WoW be in six or seven years? If EQ 1 is just phased out with in 10 years then most likely so will all these other games 10 years down the road.
One thing i find interesting when i am in a grp or raid in EQ 2 is how much we talk about EQ 1 battles, and strats to help us. I think a lot of people honestly miss playing EQ 1 (as i do sometimes) but when i think about how much of a time sink i have to put into that game... i just cant bring myself back to playing it. And now that i am playing EQ 2 its either EQ 1 or 2 (i like to stay focused on one game at a time).. and really when i look at EQ 1 the only reason i would go back would be for nostalgic reasons.
I think for EQ 1 to keep its edge it needs a lot more focus on what makes it fun to play... the fighting aspect of the game. EQ 2 has a major focus on crafting and the raids are 24 people max.. Raids can be fun but they are no where near the epic raids you would have in EQ 1.
I miss those epic raids sometimes.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on April 7, 2005 10:18 AM
Just a sidenote about DoN: there is no particular reason to do DoN when the available points are used up for augs and faction is maxed. People falling behind will have a harder and harder time to put up groups when there is no reward and only a few zones where the xp is worth having.
And again, with no reward other than xp, it may not be sufficient to drag a whole group there. Let alone doing progression tasks.
Comment Posted by: Ogulbuk on April 7, 2005 01:21 PM
With new expansions you add a higher-level cap. Not necessarily level based, though, but AA or equipment based too.
One thing that happened in the past was that the level cap was increased, but also many better xp places where also introduced. This killed the population of old zones, true, but also made it so that it was much faster to get to the old cap.
What is happening now, though, is that equipment progress is obligatory, and nothing is being introduced to get faster to the point where "the new frontier" begins.
I think this is the main grudge Loral truly has. Although before you had new higher zem zones, now you cant skip on equipment.
If you are REQUIRED to have X type of armor to be able to get Y type of armor so you can mange to attempt acquiring Z type of armor, you better offer alternatives once you release a new expansion that requires Z armor type.
This brings a new topic that many never bring up (or at least I have never seen). Planes of Power is an optional expansion. I don’t have to buy it, if I don’t care about planes and raids I should not have to buy it. YET I do am forced to get it if I want to do DoN content, and most of the GoD and OOW expansions.
Can you see the problem there? It is like selling you Quake 3 and telling you HAVE to play trough Quake 1 and 2 so you can load the last save on Q3 so you can get the only weapon capable of killing people in this game.
If you are to do an expansion that requires X things to kill something you better add it on the expansion itself. People that already went trough time don’t have to do it again since they already got it, but people that have not, can just follow the shorter route to get slightly inferior, yet competitive, equivalents that will allow you to face the content at hand.
This new equipment acquisition and power should be balanced along the lines of how much time are you willing to dedicate into developing content for these players alone (since it wont be touched by time geared players) and how much time you truly expect them to spend there. Also note, although the Time geared player may not use this, truth is there is a new level 70 every day and he will need to gear up so it is not like the content will fall unused by a big chunk of the population either, just that it wont be a selling point for current time geared folk.
Right now, if I wanted to go back to EverQuest, I would feel overwhelmed because I, who never got to 50, who never even got to kill Lady Vox, will see the game even further away. It is enough to intimidate me, and much more to intimidate a new player that is stuck watching triangular shapes that are supposed to be drakes, while he saw these amazing ones on the box of the expansion he bought along with the game because he knew no better, as he is a new player.
EQ is alienating the new and lower power (not necessarily lower level anymore) player every day more and more, and this is something that will sting EQ, as it will slowly get a smaller and smaller new blood entering it's vein, yet human nature will still dictate that old blood will be spilled. How will EQ replace players that leave if it just does not let new ones to go trough? Hell, how will it avoid speeding of the players leaving if it keeps alienating the high level with low power?
The next expansion in EQ better adds something new for everyone; else the game will just shrink further. It won’t die, but it won’t be generating so much profit either.
An expansion with multi-enemy encounter content would be ideal for this. It is practically the new wave; all MMOGs today seem to focus on multi enemy fights and not on controlling fests. Make enemies that can be slowed or just mezed for very short periods, enemies that hit for little but are numerous enough to overwhelm you, give melee some area attacks, not many, things that anyone would dread using on current content with fear of agro or breaking mez, but something that will make the players feel their blood pump faster. Make this content instanced but in currently existing dungeons across the world, give these dungeons truly big and cool looking end bosses, and as noted, make it available across all levels. A level 20 should be able to enter a dungeon and face a huge demon in the end of the dungeon, or a vampire with a huge monster pet. And over all, in gradually add new itemization for all classes for all level ranges.
Sorry for any typos, English not my first language.
Comment Posted by: Naladini on April 7, 2005 04:06 PM
"Just a sidenote about DoN: there is no particular reason to do DoN when the available points are used up for augs and faction is maxed. People falling behind will have a harder and harder time to put up groups when there is no reward and only a few zones where the xp is worth having.
And again, with no reward other than xp, it may not be sufficient to drag a whole group there. Let alone doing progression tasks."
This is exactly the problem that LDoN has. SOE needs to do a better job of opening up these expansions for more flexible play, once they are no longer "the" place to be.
In LDoN's case, I would remove the individual faction requirements from the camps, as well as boost the point rewards for lower level groups.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 11, 2005 05:52 PM
"In LDoN's case, I would remove the individual faction requirements from the camps, as well as boost the point rewards for lower level groups."
Or continually improve the loot.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Email Mike at mike@mikeshea.net for more questions or comments.