The Allure of Augments
by Loral on May 02, 2005
The aftermath of the shocking news that SOE would open Station Exchange, a service that will facilitate the sale of in-game items, characters, and money for out-of-game cash, came to an interesting conclusion. An additional posting, written a day after the original announcement, stated: "There will be no current live servers switched to the Station Exchange ruleset."
This makes a pretty big difference. For the most part, Station Exchange will have little effect on most players. The person next to you wielding that shining prismatic sword probably won't have bought it and if they did, it wasn't from SOE's Station Exchange. If you don't want to buy or sell in-game resources or if you don't want to play with players that buy or sell in-game resources, you simply avoid those servers.
Station Exchange probably won't push out companies like IGE if they don't facilitate sales on existing servers. Players have friends or characters on existing servers that they'd like to improve with some hard cash rather than in-game effort. IGE will remain in business for a while and those same problems mentioned in Smedley's first letter will probably continue to exist.
It is very unlikely Station Exchange will migrate to EQ1. Considering that SOE already began merging existing servers, it is unlikely they plan to stand up any new ones not to mention setting up a whole process and interface for the transfer of EQlive gear. For now, I don't see a future for Station Exchange in EQLive and thats fine with me. I am no longer concerned about Station Exchange.
A few days ago, the developers and producer of Everquest answered questions over on the EQ Stratics House of Commons chat.
My favorite bit of information came early on in the chat. Zajeer, the EQ itemizer, announced that Dragons of Norrath vendor items would include a new type 9 augment slot in addition to the existing type 7 slot. The DON vendors will also carry type 9 augments priced at twice the cost of a base item at that level. He doesn't mention the power of these augments but I imagine they will be lower in power than the existing type 7 augments. It should be just enough to give DON gear a nice edge over previous LDON gear and other single-group drops.
A couple of articles ago, I mentioned that high level single-groupers needed access to higher-power gear to progress through high level single-group content. Gemdiver wrote something very similar in his state of the game part 2 article on Caster's Realm. This started a lengthy and heated thread on EQLive called Some feedback based on the latest Mobhunter post. It had a lot of interesting views on single-group equipment progression and I believe many of the concerns for both Gemdiver, myself, and others in that thread may be alleviated with these new DON augments.
I have two questions on the subject of these augments. Can a DON equipped level 70 hunter with somewhere between 150 and 300 AAs expect to hunt and survive in the Muramite Proving Ground trials, Riftseekers, Ikkinz, and The Accursed Nest? I think the answer to this is "yes" but I'd like to see actual proof.
Second, will the cost of these new augments push the total cost of a nice piece of DON gear so high that most people won't bother to acquire it? SOE can always lower the cost if they see that no one is purchasing it but at a cost of roughly 1270 (340+250+680) for a single item (roughly forty missions worth of crystals), it doesn't seem likely that anyone will deck out every slot with nothing but DON gear. However, it is realistic to expect that these new DON items and augments may help fill out the lower power slots of single-group hunters. I'm planning on a new set of boots myself.
We'll have to see exactly what these augments are like and whether the cost is low enough to make them a practical upgrade when they come out in a couple of weeks. This is an exciting improvement.
Zorillius mentioned that they are not looking at the EQ2-style adventure packs for EQLive. While I liked the idea of D&D style modules for EQ, there's enough new content with each new expansion that I don't think they need to put out a few more zones. Besides, I'm already spending enough on massive online games, I don't need another $10 a year for adventure packs.
Level 69 and 70 spells came up again recently, both in the dev chat and over on the Forums. Rytan recently doubled the drop rate for 69 and 70 runes in both MPG and Riftseekers. For all practical purposes, however, Riftseekers and the MPG trials is the only place to receive 69 and 70 runes with any reasonable chance. With somewhere between eleven and twelve runes per spellcaster in the 69 and 70 range, I still don't think drops in one zone is a reasonable solution for such a huge amount of classes. For some classes, these runes are required to operate against higher-level mobs, yet they are nearly impossible to receive except for camping named beasts in a single uninstanced zone. Some other solution for 69 and 70 runes needs to be considered.
Last week I wrote an article for Caster's Realm called "Disturbing Trends in Massive Online Games" that mentions the recent trend on focusing on solo content as well as other instant-gratification changes such as out-of-game purchases. This focuses on a problem I've had with Everquest 2, Worlds of Warcraft, and last week Guild Wars. All three of these games seem to focus highly on solo-quests.
I've written a lot about solo content before. I find solo content to be counterproductive to a massive online game. I've received a lot of email over the last week. Many players agree with me and give examples of how their playtime in solo-friendly games like Worlds of Warcraft and Everquest 2 are not as rich as the social connections they make in games like Everquest. Those that argue for soloing usually bring up the LFG problem. Currently, in most games, players spend too much time looking for a group. Adding more solo content could make this problem worse. The more players are able to progress alone, the less likely they are to group.
Rather than find new ways to let players solo, all of these game companies should use all of their skills and all of their powers to find easier and faster ways for players to group. I've offered up a few suggestions such as game-wide invites, a mentor system, improved friends lists, and alt tracking, but I am sure there are many others I have not yet thought up.
With the Fan Faire and Summit coming up in about two months, I am beginning to ponder issues for my next "Evil Agenda". The LFG problem will probably be number one on my list.
More than anything else, it is important that both game developers and players remember exactly why they play these games. Gear, progression, zones, and levels aren't nearly as important or as lasting as the friendships we build.
Loral Ciriclight
2 May 2005
Comment Posted by: Aazzn on May 2, 2005 07:48 AM
Just to note, MPG and Riftseekers aren't the only places to get 69 and 70 runes. RCoD and WoS both offer opportunity for 6 or less people to get together and get some runes of that level mixed in with decent loot and runes of other levels. Also a person geared with a smattering of Ornate from Planes of Power and DoN armor can easily group in Proving Grounds provided they take into account that there will be moderate downtime sometimes and exercise some skill.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 2, 2005 10:47 AM
The ability to solo is not going to go away. It allows people to play MMORPG's that wouldn't otherwise and thus makes money for the developers. Might as well drop the idea right now.
As I've said before, the real issue is that when EQ players go to other games they miss the social networks they've spent years building in EQ. You could make it so a group is required to do absolutely anything and those networks still won't be replaced overnight. Granted they'd form more quickly than they do now. But it's like moving to a new city--of course you're going to be a bit lonely at first, and you're going to have to make an effort to find new friends.
And effort is the key. I think a lot of people end up with a quest log full of things they can do solo and just let the game steer them along without stopping to think "What do I really enjoy doing?" If you're a long-time EQ player, that's probably playing in groups (or you would never have stuck with EQ). So make yourself ignore all those quests in Redridge Mountains and go find another Deadmines group even if you already killed Van Cleef (or the EQ2 equivalent). You'll be doing what you enjoy and making new friends at the same time. Fortunately in WoW at least the rewards are comparable--assuming you don't waste too much time looking for a group.
And here's where I completely agree with you Loral. Making tools to help people find groups quickly should be a top priority. After all, while solo content keeps a certain audience playing, in-game relationships keep another audience playing so it's in the company's interest to foster those relationships.
I think there are two ideals to strive for in a LFG tool. The first is making looking for a group cost-free or as close to it as possible. Not in terms of money, but in terms of wasted time. The other is to make the pool of people available to group with as large as possible, and easy to identify.
The first can be achieved by allowing people to usefully solo while LFG. This means the LFG tools have to be independent of geography. You shouldn't have to go somewhere in hopes of finding a group, only to have wasted your time if you don't.
The second will mostly be achieved by the first--if being LFG is free, more people will do it. But certainly you certainly wouldn't want to add restrictions like only being able to be LFG for one dungeon at a time. Allowing people to list multiple chars as being LFG will also increase the pool substantially.
The irony is that EQ's system does most of this (I suspect more people would use it rather than spamming LFG in various meeting zones if soloing were a more viable alternative). Adding alts to it would be good. But Blizzard just needs to copy it--the meeting stones don't accomplish either objective and are generally ignored.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 2, 2005 11:55 AM
My best memories from EQ1 and my best groups both came from when I went to dungeon areas and there were other people there, and we all grouped up to accomplish things.
Those are the groups that you have fun with and remember - the people you put on your friends list and end up grouping with again. If I have to put effort into finding a group, then I've already been pulled out of my character and out of the fun of the game. I already have a bitter taste in my mouth. I'm exaggerating here on purpose to get the point across.
The trick to avoiding the LFG problem isn't to make everything soloable, or is it to make everything require groups - it's insuring that there's a constant flow of players into the area where the groups are required, so that players will build groups. I'll give you two examples from EQ2, one good and one bad. Both happened in the past week.
I was soloing in the Steppes, killing skeletal veterans for a quest. I tend to get bored easy so when I solo I take huge risks to push myself, like pulling yellow cons that I can just barely manage to kill. So anyway, I'm fighting a group of 5 skeletons and this group of players runs by. They watch me finish off the skeletons with no power (mana) left and 20% health, and then I get a tell "hey, can you help us out with this named mob over here?" So I say sure, and ended up grouped with them for the next two hours as we went and finished off quests in the area for various group members. It was great, and to my mind, that's how getting into a group should be. It should never be a process of sitting around or soloing and shouting LFG LFG LFG all the time. Instead it should be a process of hey, we're all here, let's band together and accomplish something. That only works though if there are players present.
The other example illustrates that. I have some guild members that are slightly lower level than Tal, and are working on their armor quests. So anyway, a couple of us logged in alts, and we grouped up with them and went down into stormhold to work on the third quest in the series. We're down there and across the screen comes an ooc. "level 25 magician LFG for armor quest 3 - anyone? I've been down here trying to do this since 21 and I can't seem to find a group for it".
So yeah, we helped that guy out, and made his day. But that illustrates the problem. Why didn't he find a group? Because there wasn't anyone else there who needed groups or needed more people for their groups. It didn't matter how much he /ooc'd, there just wasn't anyone looking.
In EQ2 groups form in the steppes all the time because the zone is usually quite full of people doing all kinds of things, and there are lots of things that require groups to do. It has a wide level range, and it's set at the part of the game where advancement slows down, so people tend to come back night after night. It's easy when you need help to find it. That is how communities are formed and friendships are made.
Stormhold, on the other hand, is a tough dungeon for its level range. In fact, I know players who refuse to go there because of the difficulty. And while it does have a wide level range (16-27), most people never get all the way to the bottom of it. Instead, they level past everything up top within 3-4 days of play, accomplish their major objectives (like armor quests), and move on to easier places. The zone population is almost always low, because of the rapid advancement curve at those levels, and because of the difficulty of the zone itself. The same can be said for other dungeons. Yet there are quests that require you to go to these dungeons, and to have groups. See the problem?
EQ1 functioned for years without serious LFG problems until zone populations dropped. Why did zone populations drop? Two reasons - first, the majority of players leveled past that content, and second, with expansions, the content that was there was no longer as appealing to players of the level to do it. In EQ2, it's the same. In WoW, it's the same. If you want to fix the LFG problem, you need to do things to make sure that players are going to the places they're going to want groups for. If an area doesn't have the population to support groups forming, then you will see players sitting LFG a lot and getting upset. Someone needs to ask the question "why aren't players in this area". The answer might not be because they're all soloing elsewhere. It might be because they just don't need anything from there, or because they feel it's too difficult, or they don't like the layout, or whatever. Regardless, an effort should be made to get people into lower-population areas so that those who need or want groups there will be able to find them.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 2, 2005 12:22 PM
There's something to this. If people want to be in the zone anyway, then being LFG there is cost-free and there is a pool of people to group with.
On the other hand, how are you going to get people to the low population zones? If it's by luring them away from the high population zones, you're moving the problem around, not fixing it. Maybe spreading people out more evenly results in more groups being formed, but even that's not obvious. There's an argument here for getting the optimal number of people per zone/server, but that's not really a LFG system.
Far better to make it easy to group with people whether they happen to be in the same zone or not.
Comment Posted by: Iwannaplay on May 2, 2005 12:50 PM
Increase group size to 8.
Alot of groups can't get off the ground because they cannot find a trinity class. There are only a couple spots for DPS in most groups, however if you increase the group size, those classes that often get left out possibly won't.
It'll also be easier to 'overlap' certain classes if many are available at the time.
I know, the argument against is: Too much content tuned for 6 people.
Counterargument: Content is tuned for more things than just the # of people.
PoP content wasn't tuned for level 70 players and spells.
Luclin content wasn't tuned for level 65 players and spells.
Vox/Naggy were 'retuned' for level requirements, NOT numbers of players.
The extra DPS from the additional 2 players will make groups kill quicker, however at the high end, there's plenty of mobs to go around, more than enough for groups of 8.
I mean seriously, is it such a big deal of folks take 8 to Tipt and squeek out a win? To me it's not. Why? Cause that content is old imo.
The new content 'DoN' is so easy with 6 people that adding 2 more to the group would make them go a bit faster, however it wouldn't be easier for my groups. The biggest difference would be that we'd be able to invite 2 classes that are at the forefront of a groups invite list.
I play a Cleric btw, so while I have zero problems finding a group, I know alot of people that sit for lack of a group. I'd invite 2 extra people in a heart beat just to share the adventure/xp.
Comment Posted by: mac173 on May 2, 2005 02:09 PM
I like the ideas for improved LFG tools, however, we already have most of them. The LFG tool on EQ1 currently allows you to set up yourself as LFG while you are in any zone on the server and doing anything. The leader of the group can also let players know what kind of people they are looking for. However, the tool is seldom used. People tend to LFG in specific areas, because they want to hunt there, need something there, or feel that is where the drops/XP/fun is.
I think the expansion of groups to 8 is a GREAT idea. This gets 2 more people into each camp, reduces the number of people LFG, and makes the groups easier to form, and they can handle more diverse class structures. I think that would do much more to cure that problem than a new tool.
BTW, this is seldom a problem for me. I group every night with 2 or 3 good friends, and we almost NEVER have a full group. In fact, we ususlly try to get someone to 2-box just to fill out the group. I guess PoN is not a hot spot, huh?
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 2, 2005 02:11 PM
The only problem I see with global LFG is that it really relies on instantaneous transportation across the game world in order to work. In EQ1 it works as well as it does because you know that guy in Gfay can get out to the middle of Taelosia or Velious pretty quick to join up with you. In WoW or EQ2 though, you're talking about anywhere from 10-30 minutes of run time for them to get to where you are.
So why don't we put in global instant travel? Because it detracts from the immersiveness and realism of the game world, becomes a crutch for players who don't take the time to learn the world map, and leads to population pooling.
A better way to do it would be to give players "bases" or "outposts" that they could set up at in the region they're adventuring in, and have LFG be regional. WoW almost does this with the inns and mailboxes and griffons at each town, but to truly work they'd also need banks in each little town (and possibly auction houses). EQ2 would need to implement those same things for each major overworld area in order to do this - ie mailbox, bank, mender, possibly player housing, and mariner's bell/griffon tower to get you to connected areas. It always bugs me in EQ2 that I can't take a ship from Qeynos to the Steppes or from Freeport to Nektulos even though I can take one from any of the four zones to Zek or EL.
It should be noted that EQ1 has global LFG, and instant travel, and still has LFG problems - which to me says that those aren't the total solution. Probably it's a combination of a good LFG system, good bases of operations for players, increasing group size to something beyond 6, and trying to equalize population across content areas that will yield the best possible solution.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 2, 2005 02:34 PM
I'll take 10-30 minutes of travel time for my group to get together over an hour spent spamming LFG any day. If I really don't want to wait, I always have the option of only inviting nearby people. Last night I was trying to get a Blackfathom Deep group with my priest alt. Meanwhile there's a good chance a Stockades group was struggling to find a priest and would have been happy to wait while I traveled there (or find a warlock to summon me). But I wasn't about to fly all the way there just to find out. If they weren't happy to wait, they could have just noted I was LFG and continued to look for a priest that was closer.
More choices > fewer choices
Comment Posted by: on May 2, 2005 04:00 PM
I've been wanting 8 person groups for a long long time.
This is one thing I hope to push at fan faire.
Comment Posted by: Naladini on May 2, 2005 11:54 PM
8 person groups present some new challenges for group content (meager xp splits for larger groups, along with a massive spike in difficulty for smaller groups leap to mind), but would open up more content for low-mid tier raiding guilds by allowing things like group heals and group cures impact more people with fewer priest classes present.
One of the places that solo-players have really been losing out are expansions like DoN and LDoN, in that you always need a group to access the core content (meaning missions that give points for gear). In the "old days", you could outlevel a previous expansion, then go back and have some fun. While the point systems included in these expansions are nice, they seem to have come at the expense of good old fashioned questing for gear and exp. Nowadays there are fewer places for higher level players to bottom feed (aka solo) because of those restrictions. That's a big problem IMHO, unless you happen to have a lot of high end group/raid gear in the first place.
I guess the thing that bothers me most about the anti-solo discussion is that many of the people who take up that arguement seem to do so because they claim grouping is more fun (I happen to agree with this BTW). Yet for some reason, rather than allowing players a choice of how they want to progress, we see more calls for forced grouping and glass ceilings on solo progression.
If grouping is more fun, then why all the insecurity about adding solo content? Won't players gravitate towards fun activities and content?
Comment Posted by: Sunshadow on May 3, 2005 12:07 AM
From some recent experiance in Echo Caverns since it was made a hot spot. The a larger number of people make grouping easy. So the biggest problem is how do you get more people in zones. The easiest answer is to start deleting older/little used zones. Or even replacing several zones with one new one. An example of this would be to combine all the plains of Karana into one new zone. Less zones will create a denser population and hense make it easier to find groups. This can be acheived through event scripting and would be a good update to the game without just continually adding new zones with new content. Developers could start scripting in terain changing earthquakes, volcanos, Tsunami and so on.
Comment Posted by: Falwear the forsaken on May 3, 2005 03:48 AM
It is Painly Clear to me what has gone wrong with EQ.
"FORCED GROUPING".
I remember when EQ was fun 4 years ago and why it was fun.
It was fun because EQ was alive, people where doing lots of diffrent things.
some would solo, it was not a hoorible offence then.
Some you would start talking to and learn from, maby even become friends with, but what is important to rember is it was not FORCED on you.
You see what keeeps an MMORPG alive is fun and the best way to fasilitate fun is to let people choose what they want to do.
Then when EQ lived there where lots of stuff you to do alone just like real life.
Imagin this RL senerio.
(some back then did compare EQ with RL).
You want to go see a movie.
Oooh wait first you have to call 5 friends or you cant go, and dam one has to be a doctor another a bouncer one a banker and one a toilet cleaner and they all need to be the same age or there will be no movie for you !!!!
How ofen do you think you would go to the Cinema ?
I am sure most of you can see the problem and that is why you are leaving EQ.
So EQ is left with the Utter Nutters who insist on FORCED GROUPING even though it is killing the game.
Comment Posted by: Armarant on May 3, 2005 05:35 AM
Posted by Sunshadow at May 3, 2005 12:07 AM
So the biggest problem is how do you get more people in zones. The easiest answer is to start deleting older/little used zones.
...
I strongly disagree here.. there are so many levels. and so many styles of gameplay that sony shouldnt have to delete any zones just because you feel lonely.
and your refering to them as little used automatically proves your theory wrong.. since deleteing 1 little used zone will just drive the 3 -5 people that used it to another one. until every zone is gone except the zone you want people in.
Comment Posted by: mac173 on May 3, 2005 08:48 AM
I agree that deleting zones is not the answer, but combining zones would work. There is a tremencdous amount of space in the Karanas and other zones that would allow the merging of zones without crowding things.
I also advocate grouping, but think Soloing needs to be an option. My main, a 62 Beastlord, soloed for over a year up to level 34, being in no more than 10 groups that whole time. Time and RL issues made grouping difficult, and if I could not solo, I would have quit. I am much happier now that I have friends (and RL time) to group every night, but the soloer needs his happiness too.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on May 3, 2005 09:35 AM
I doubt increasing group size or merging zones will change anything.
design 101?
Put a carrot so that a segment of the player base wants to go there for week or even months.
That there is enough room to accomodate all that want to go.
That group requirements are flexible enough so that LFG people outside the holy trinity have a shot at the group while the content not being trivialized by holy trinity or lower end raider equipment.
You put that specific segment in one place, maximum two, not 30. 30 will never help people socialize if they aren't even in the same zone.
Comment Posted by: on May 3, 2005 09:37 AM
Soloing is essential to the health of a MMORPG. Of course, encouraging groups will maintain a healthy community but not allowing solo content is a big mistake.
SOE reduced the opportunities and benefits for soloing in various ways over the course of time, and it's no coincidence the games population has fallen.
EQ1's eventual decline is not because it's 6 years old, or even because of competition like WoW. It's because they released a sequel and direct competitor to it's own product and spent a shitload of money on that instead of investing that in the product that is now too tatty to compete. It used to try to compete. SOE used to keep it up to date.
It's no coincidence that a solo-friendly WoW is selling shitloads. EQ shot itself in the foot, but it's still a good game for players who raid and group often. The only problem is the reduced population and thus, profitabilty, will hurt these people in the long term anyway.
In short, SOE screwed up.
Comment Posted by: Dank on May 3, 2005 09:41 AM
I agree.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 3, 2005 10:51 AM
So how would merging zones help people find groups? Because more people would hear you when you /ooc LFG, right?
First off, I really don't get why more people don't use the LFG window. Then everyone in the game can see that you're LFG. But I know people don't.
So rather than actually merging zones, what if they merged the chat channels for all the zones in a region? So if you say something in /ooc in WK people hear it in all the Karanas. Heck, maybe everywhere west of HHK.
I don't think it would be too hard to implement. Just make permanent chat channels for each region: ooc-westAntonica, shout-westAntonica, etc. Then make it so if you enter a zone in that region, you automatically join that channel. Then when you type /ooc, the game redirects your message to the appropriate chat channel.
A fringe benefit (at least in my mind) could be the ability to join a zone channel without being in the zone. So you can ask in the MPG /ooc channel if there's a group for you before you travel there. Heck, you could use EQIM to ask before you even log on!
Obviously there would be concerns about spam. You'd want to get the regions the right size, and give people more filtering options (only see chat from people actually in your region, or in your zone, etc.). Maybe some raid zones shouldn't be part of a region at all.
But still, I think the ability to ask for a group in several zones at once would be a very nice addition.
Comment Posted by: Stylx on May 3, 2005 02:28 PM
[quote] I've been wanting 8 person groups for a long long time. [/quote]
This would be great, only if they made it so everyone in the group had to have three ranks of a specific AA required to group in more people, at the cost of 20AA a rank.
...
...
...
...
This message is brought to you by "Stylx being Sarcastic".
Comment Posted by: Quesci on May 3, 2005 04:44 PM
One thing that would definitely help people with finding groups would be the ability to do a /who all [zone]
I hate running my baby beastlord all the way across the world to a promising new zone only to find it totally empty, or a single full group there. If I could do "/w all dawnshroud" to decide if I want to run from South Karana, it would be great. I could even send tells to the people there to see which camps are open or if people need more.
In the past, SOE said that they didn't want to enable that feature as it would put too big of a strain on the servers. I don't know if things have gotten better or worse with spare processing power, but with all the servers they are freeing up with the mergers, maybe they'll be able to spare some cycles for /who all [zone]
Comment Posted by: Sunshadow on May 3, 2005 08:02 PM
Deleting zones was always going to cause conflict but as long as any replacements are well thought out (have both solo and group content) depending on what is being replaced and still reflect the same level range to a large extent. This would give the early game a fresh start rather that everyone running off to PC as soon as possible, so they can get to their 20's as fast as they can. I mean who levels in the commonlands or deserts of Ro anymore. The only people I ever see there are just traveling to LDONS or camping AC.
Another Idea is to make the LFG flag automatic once you log on and it must be a consious effort to turn it off. As a Necro I don't mind soloing so I don't turn the LFG on unless I am feeling lonely. However if it was automatic I wouldn't turn it off as I like grouping as well
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 3, 2005 11:40 PM
I've said before that I really think a lot of old world content needs to be revamped and redesigned. There's no reason that zone mergers couldn't happen as well. Let's be honest, who would really complain if instead of four Karanas we had one, or if lake rathetear and the rathe mountains became one zone?
However, zone mergers don't really do enough to help raise population, for several reasons. First, except for a few places in Antonica, it just doesn't make sense to merge some zones. They're too discrete to really merge into one. This is both for reasons of geography and reasons of content.
Second, all the zones that might be merged are outdoor zones - not dungeons. With the exception of Upper and Lower Guk, there's not a two-part dungeon in the game that I'm aware of. And the dungeons are where we really should be encouraging people to go.
Third and finally, the biggest draws for people to go places are the same that they have always been - experience and loot. The only way that player population can EVER be spread out evenly among the possible grouping areas in a level range would be for each of those areas to offer similar experience rewards and loot.
This means that we can't have good fighter weapons dropping in one dungeon but all the cleric armor in another. It means that we can't do a 40% ZEM in one place and only 25% somewhere else. Sure we can mix and match a little bit, and make each area unique, but in the end there has to be something in each area that makes it "worth it" for people to go there.
I like the idea of regional channels, those would be really useful. I agree with Teremar - I just don't get why people don't use the LFG window. But regional channels would be the next best thing if someone's not gonna use that.
As for groups and trinity classes, I think bumping group size to 7 or 8 would really help. Without changing content, it would allow that full group to bring in an additional DPS class or healer and move a little faster, and high-end content is difficult and demanding enough that I don't think that would trivialize too many things. Low and mid-level content is already trivialized anyway so why worry about that. As well, it would also allow less-than-perfect groups a better chance at defeating some of those things they just can't do now. It still wouldn't be easy or optimal, but it would give them enough of an edge that with skill they could pull it off.
Finally, I agree with others that solo content is important to the game. One change that I think would help out the groups a lot would be if every zone (except maybe raid zones) included some solo content. Something for people to do while they form or look for a group. Old world zones were almost all set up this way. The stuff up front was soloable or doable with a small group, but to move further back to where the good stuff was you had to fill up a group. This was true at all level ranges. Somewhere along the line though, we lost that as a design concept at higher levels, and started requiring full groups the minute you stepped inside the zone.
Finally, to the person who said EQ2 caused the main decline of EQ1 - I disagree. EQ2 was needed, although there's a lot I wish they'd done differently with it. The players who left for EQ2 and WoW were leaving EQ1 anyway, because of things that didn't work for them in EQ1. Whether that was the mudflation, or the emphasis on raiding, or just the time requirement, the fact remains that a whole lot of players wanted games more like EQ2 and WoW, and that would have been true regardless of whether EQ2 got made or not.
That being said, I have yet to see a 2nd generation game that I believe can equal EQ1's success and longevity. Maybe in a year or two enough patching will have been done that will change that viewpoint, but there are many times where I look at WoW and EQ2 and wonder if in the quest to appeal to the more casual audience, the pendulum didn't get swung too far in the other direction this time.
As with everything else, I suppose time will tell.
Comment Posted by: on May 4, 2005 09:22 AM
Talaen, your response was well written, but you misunderstood about what I wrote EQ2 being the cause of EQ1s decline. It was not the release of EQ2 that I was talking about specifically, I meant the entire project.
You mention players leaving EQ1 anyway, due to -- "things that didn't work for them in EQ1. Whether that was the mudflation, or the emphasis on raiding, or just the time requirement" -- My argument is, those problems would not exist or would be significantly reduced if SOEs strategy had been keeping EQ1 both fresh and competetive, I don't believe enough was done, and an opportunity was wasted. Expansion's such as GoD were released broken and unbalanced, and there was not enough fun or fresh ideas - just gimmicks. The expansions didn't do enough to improve the game, they became boring. Rather than sending EQ2 to go head-to-head with the next generation of MMOPRGS (read: WoW), they could have taken the resources invested in EQ2 and improved EQ1 significantly instead.
EQ2 is not sufficiently different from EQ1 for them to justify the cost involved. MMORPGS were supposed to change to be competitve over time, they've failed imo. Every aspect of EQ2 could be implemented in exact or similar fashion to EQ1.
MMORPGs were supposed to be something that evolved over time. SOE betrayed themselves by releasing a sequel to that. How typically Smedley.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 4, 2005 09:35 AM
I agree with you that there could have been more done with EQ1, and that poorly-planned and sloppily-implemented expansions also prevented it from doing as well as it could have (PoP, GoD) because they exacerbated some problems. However, many of the issues that players cite with EQ1 in comparison to EQ2/WoW/GuildWars/etc. are base design issues. Things like casual vs. hardcore, group vs. solo, camping, farming, grinding....those are core design things. While it's absolutely possible that those could have been addressed early on, by the time they got to the "bad" expansions, let alone EQ2 development, the nails were already in the coffin - as an analogy, removing the tumor would probably have required amputation rather than surgery.
To give you an example of a game in this situation, look at SWG. Last week the entire combat mechanic was completely replaced. Existing skills, weapons, and armor were converted. This was done because things had just gotten out of hand to the point where the majority of players were simply not having fun. The original system unfortunately was very prone to exploitation and template characters. While the new system promises to be much more fun and balanced in the long run, the initial reaction among players to the change was hugely negative - quite a few players cancelled their accounts the day the change was made. No one likes getting nerfed, or having the rules they've learned over the last few years completely changed on them, but sometimes it has to happen. SWG was able to get away with it because it's only 2 years old and has far less subscribers (and has a huge marketing blitz coming up when EP3 releases), but EQ doing it at 4-5 years in? THAT would have killed the game.
Comment Posted by: on May 4, 2005 09:54 AM
I'm pretty sure your reasoning is the line that Sony followed and eventually lead to the decision to make a sequel. And not an unwise direction to take. It's easy for me to look in hindsight and say no EQ1 would have been better.
And while your SWG example is very relevant, the players' reaction can also be attributed to the fact they've buggered it all up. There a a myriad of bugs, severe downtimes and massive character roll-backs of up to an entire week. Imagine losing an entire week of character progression!
Sony saved up its cool ideas for EQ2. All of it's experiments, both in gameplay and financially are in EQ2 (Vitality, Mentoring, Station Exchange). There's zero innovation in EQ1 anymore. And that's why it feels old.
My argument remains that EQ2 is the biggest cause of EQ1s decline and that EQ1 could have had 1 million subscribers if it addressed the 'core design' problems inside its game instead of making a totally new one, which to me doesn't do anything particularly well. Except housing and crafting, which are great, but feel subsidary to the whole experience.
Comment Posted by: ubu on May 4, 2005 01:52 PM
(apologies in advance if the paragraph breaks are weird--previewing is acting goofy.)
Well, I don't think a "revamp" for EQ1 and the Combat Upgrade for SWG should be mentioned in the same breath. You see, the assumption is that a revamp for EQ1 would _improve_ the game. The CURB did not do that for SWG. It's not just "learning new stuff" that has the community in an uproar (I can personally attest to 4 cancelled accounts among myself and friends).
Most people would say that fixing EQ would revolve around:
1. Updating the graphics of old zones.
2. Updating the XP grind to be... less grindy.
3. Changing the power curve on items and their acquisition to be smoother & friendlier to the playerbase, without making it totally gimp.
4. Updating the range of possible activities & NPC interactions (including quests, etc.)
5. Improving immersiveness (is that a word?) Immersion! (Whatever....)
There's probably more, but I think that's the minimum we could get 90% agreement on. And we come up reams of suggestions to accomplish all that and present it to SOE.
Now imagine that you have a combat system where creatures dozens of levels below you can and will aggro you. They can even kill you. They take almost as much time to fight as creatures your own level. AND THEY DON'T GIVE XP. Oh wait, that's what resulted in the term "greenie aggro, isn't it?
Imagine that you have to have a high elite combat level in swordsman to use the best swords. But once you get there, you can also use the best pistols and rifles, without putting a single skill point towards them. Oh wait, that's a lot like a 63rd level warrior picking up some baddass all/all POP bow isn't it?
Imagine that you have no combat skills and only craft (i.e.: 1750 club at level 1). And you used to be able to fortify yourself with stat-boosting food, dress in the best gear you could afford, and go on foot to the Kerran outpost Stonebrunt to buy (not kill & loot -- just buy) the resources you need. Then you brought them back and made neat things that players actually bought! And the game was designed to be played like this if you wanted to. But now you can't wear that armor or use anything better than a rusty dagger some orc dropped. The game designer tells you to go group! -- hire a guard (who can't keep you from getting one-shotted anyway) or buy a protection charm that is bugged (and doesn't work against 2/3 of the mobs you'll face anyway). Hmmmmm....
Imagine that you're an Enchanter, only the designers remove the need for your spells and abilities from the game. You could just bot your character and go do something else. That sounds oddly familar to me...
Imagine that you're level 9 in East Commonlands, killing snakes, only behind _every other_ tree is a griffin or Sgt. Slate -- no effort has been made to seperate your targets from much higher level mobs that will aggro and kill you in one shot. Well, that *never* happens in EQ does it?
Imagine that you go to a taskmaster, and he sends you to EC to kill 10 snakes. Only half of them are such low level you get no xp... meanwhile you're dodging Slate & the griffon. But one of the snakes (even though it's merely a white con) turns out to be The Moss Snake, with combat abilities beyond most yellow cons, and kicks your butt before you get off your horse. (Sgt. Slate looks disappontedly at your corpse.) Oh wait, the first part of that already happens, doesn't it?
Imagine a game where you're supposed to be able to take a white con 1 on 1, but it's suicide. And taking on dark blues is extremely iffy, and not worth the amount of xp you get for the amount of time you put in. Oh wait, that sounds familiar.
Imagine that you are pretty much locked into whatever class you started out as. Once you get up high in that class, the rules technically *allow* you to change class, but in fact, it's all but impossible due to the way the XP system works. Oh wait, that sounds familar, too.
And they did all this to the game INSTEAD of listening to your input! Can you imagine playing a game like that? I can, and it was named EQ. That's why I left EQ for SWG. And that's why people are now leaving SWG in droves. SOE's idea of "improving it" was to turn it into EQ/EQ2. (Literally, they ported over some of the EQ2 code, which makes me think the *real* motive was to save money by standardizing their code base among all three games.)
And in the process they introduced hundreds of new bugs to go with the ones they were already ignoring.
Grats, on dinging 100,000 customers SOE. (Too bad it’s a *reverse* ding)
-Crimsonsplat
Comment Posted by: mac173 on May 4, 2005 02:20 PM
The "core" problems are most all ties to the graphics engine, which is old and very outdated. The fixes and changes we want are becomming increasingly difficult and absorbing more and more time and money, so that it became easier to create a new graphics engine. This brings about its own problems, however. EQ2 started out with about 1/5 or less the content of EQ. Thats because they had to completly reinvent Norrath. The disign of the old EQ would not fit in the new graphic engine, so the whole world had to be recreated. To do this for all of EQ would be too cost prohibitive. So the old Graphics Engine stays, and less and less resorses will be devoted to it, as it is not cost effective to put in new things.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 4, 2005 02:43 PM
I'm enjoying the good discussions, especially Ubu's focused and direct look at ways to improve EQ. A few posts up from there I read the quote:
"My argument is, those problems would not exist or would be significantly reduced if SOEs strategy had been keeping EQ1 both fresh and competetive,"
Instead of worrying about EQ1 or EQ2 or Warcraft, we need to look at what SOE can do now to keep EQ competitive. Ubu brings up a lot of good ones but lets think about a few more.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 4, 2005 04:12 PM
Sorry Loral, I like the old topic. But I'll get back to yours eventually.
I think SOE's strategy was sound. You should have evolution in an MMORPG, but not revolution. After six years, people play EQ because they like how it is. Making fundamental changes risks losing those people.
I can see changing SWG, because that game is basically a failure. Sure, it's surviving, but given the license it should have had WoW's numbers. Even so it doesn't sound like the changes are working out too well.
So it makes sense to continue making evolutionary changes in EQ, and then put out an EQ2 with revolutionary changes.
The failure came in the execution. First take EQ: I don't think you can really blame its struggles on lack of resources. I'd say lack of imagination and poor management. It has evolved, but much of the change has been for the worse. Now it does seem things may have gotten better recently--I can't comment on anything after OoW. But before I quit I often hoped that the devs would simply leave things alone. The last thing I wanted was for them to have the resources to make more changes, because they were more likely to make things worse than better.
So then EQ2 is supposed to have the revolutionary changes, but as far as I can tell, the only really revolutionary change compared to EQ is the graphics engine. And even there people seem to be saying that photo-realistic blandness is still bland.
But EQ2 is still basically a MUD with graphics. Meanwhile WoW has come out, which is at least as much an online video game in a persistant world. The gameplay is fun all by itself in addition to, perhaps aguably, everything you get from the MMO part of MMORPG. Of course it's not for everyone (though I think most EQ players owe it to themselves to give it a fair trial) but it attracts a much larger audience than EQ ever has or will. That's the real revolution, and SOE missed it.
So my fundamental suggestion for EQ (as promised, Loral) is NOT to make revolutionary changes. Tweak around the edges, sure. Put more of the creativity that goes into raid encounters into content everyone can experience. But don't change the basic dynamics of the game. Current EQ players have plenty of choices now, and they've chosen EQ because they like it. Don't make EQ into something else because if the current players leave, they simply won't be replaced.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 4, 2005 04:35 PM
Good post, Teremar. I agree.
Comment Posted by: Felisse on May 4, 2005 04:54 PM
2 part dungeons: Sol A and B (Nagafen's Lair and I think Solusek's Eye). Chardok A and B and at one point C (Chardok; Halls of Betrayal; don't remember C's real name). Nadox/Torgiran are sort of a 2 part dungeon (with Hate's Fury also sort of part of it). You already mentioned the parts of Guk. It would also be useful to merge many dungeons with their entry zones (Sebilis and Trakanon for example, or maybe Blackburrow with Jaggedpine forest?) I think there were two separate dungeons in the Temple of Veeshan, but I was only there once. I'm unfamiliar with many of the newer dungeons but maybe others can name examples from them.
There are also several multi-part cities, at least one of which (Neriak) is not an outdoor zone, at least not in appearance.
Comment Posted by: on May 4, 2005 05:17 PM
How about an expansion (bundled with the full version) for levels 1-30. Designed specifically to attract new players.
It'd be easier to get my friends to play EQ if there's modern content for them to play straight away. Maybe they'd get hooked, and eventually want to become a hardcore raider like me.
Comment Posted by: on May 4, 2005 05:41 PM
The numbers for EQ will continue to slide until new players are attracted to the game, which is not going to happen unless some substantial changes are made.
Let's face it, how to you attract new players when they start and see how bad the graphics are? Or get up a few levels and have to learn all the commands to find groups and learn how to travel? Everyone who is playing today learned this as it came out, but to a new person, it is simply too much.
The fix could be as radical as VI wants to go at this point in a beginners expansion:
*new character models
*new continent with hunting ranges from 1 to 60
*all new characters start on the new continent - you cannot start in the old cities.
*start destroying old cities / zones. Remake, consolidate, and change them. Anyone who gets nostalgic for their old home city take a screenshot. VI: redo them to the latest technologies, or slide them into the sea.
Comment Posted by: Sunshadow on May 4, 2005 10:44 PM
Jumping right off topic, I feel making all expansions free after being released for 6 month would help a lot to pull in new players. It is intimiadting investing in a game knowing you still need to go and buy 8 ,5 ,4 ,3 expansions depending on your starting point. It would also allow old players to come back without any additional outlay (apart from the monthly fee). While the cost of the game is cheap now, it is still trivial in earnings compared to the subsciption fees so why not get rid of it altogether.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 5, 2005 12:58 AM
Ubu, we're going to have to agree to disagree as far as the ultimate effect of the SWG CU changes. I will agree with you, however, that regardless of how good the new design might be, the implementation of that design has been a gigantic bugfest.
I can state with authority that as things settle down and things get tweaked, I hear more and more people in SWG who were railing about quitting last week actually saying "you know, this isn't so bad, I kind of like some of this better now". And while it may not be everyone's cup of tea, nothing ever is.
At any rate, my point is basically what Teremar pointed out in his reply. Past a certain point, it's counterproductive to make huge sweeping changes to a game. To put it in perspective, I used to help admin a MUD, and that MUD went through three code/mechanic rewrites while I was there. Each time, accompanied by a player wipe. It was essentially a new game.
Good post about the 2 part dungeons and cities, it shows how rusty i am at my EQ1 geography. There's definitely no reason why places like Neriak, Freeport, Erudin, Felwithe, and Qeynos couldn't all be combined into single zones now - especially since population in the cities is measured in single digits.
Maybe what would best for getting a box on the shelf to draw in new players would be just that. Revamp the old world and package it with an expansion. Give the new old world files to existing players for free via patch download. Then, even if they didn't have the expansion, they still have the new old world (Antonica/Faydwer/Odus) zones. Unless I've missed a box lately, EQ1 is about due for another full install version of the game to hit shelves anyway (which is to say, core game plus current expansion).
All that has to be done to make this expansion and world change appeal to players, new and old, is to come up with a really good hook - a new, world-threatening force that players must fight, or ally with to survive. Something deeply rooted in EQ Lore that's never been explained. Something most players recognize as evil monsters. Something like....shadowed men.
These guys are all over the old world, and no one knows what they really are or where they really come from. For that matter, even in EQ2 lore no one seems to really know much about them. There's also all kinds of monoliths and strange obelisks throughout the Old World that haven't been explained. Finally, if you take a look at the maps that shipped with the original boxed version of the game and several expansions, you'll notice quite a few places marked which don't exist as zones.
Redo the old world, and make that a free mandatory download. Combine the old two and three part zones that really don't need to be that way anymore. Update the graphics and give everything a facelift to bring it up to at least Luclin standards or better. Repopulate the adventure areas with new monsters and new loot (still appropriate for level ranges), and drop some new NPCs in the cities. Now create 10-12 expansion zones, with several of those being previously unconnected areas on the old world continents, that lead to the others. Package this whole thing (new core game plus expansion) in a big box (ala Kunark or Luclin) and get it on store shelves. At the same time give the core world upgrade to existing players for free (but make them get the expansion zones normally via purchase). If done in conjunction with a good marketing campaign, you not only keep existing players playing, you might even start bringing in large numbers of new players again. All without seriously affecting the core mechanics or design.
Shrug. Anyway, back to talking about how the LFG window doesn't get used enough.
Comment Posted by: Glamdrigg on May 5, 2005 03:57 AM
/LFG filters should be accessible before you log into your server. When you get to the choose server page and you click on a server you should be able to access the /lfg page and see player by player group by group zone by zone who is looking for a group... before you log your char on. This would let you know immediately where to go, it would allow you to look for group without accessing the guild hall and still not wasting buffs, it would also allow those of us who have several alts to choose the char we are going to play that night by whats on the /lfg list. Just a thought.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 5, 2005 06:23 AM
"Good post about the 2 part dungeons and cities, it shows how rusty i am at my EQ1 geography. There's definitely no reason why places like Neriak, Freeport, Erudin, Felwithe, and Qeynos couldn't all be combined into single zones now - especially since population in the cities is measured in single digits."
From my understanding, when this came up before, combining two existing zones is as difficult as completely rebuilding the zone in the first place. It's not just a matter of cutting and pasting.
Zone revamps in general take a lot of work and in cases like Lavastorm, they are really brand new zones that just replaced older ones.
There were some hints at Lavastorm-like zone revamps and I think a new Karana would be a pretty nice one to see, but I wouldn't expect more than one or two revamped zones anytime soon and I don't think I'd expect city zones to be on the list. They are just too costly.
The other aspect is the benefit for the cost. If you take twenty people and ask them how they like the old EQ models, the new EQ models, the WoW models, and the EQ2 models, you get a wide range of opinions. There's no clear "we all love Model Style X". There are a lot of people who still don't use Lucln models. That wide range of individual taste is probably part of the reason - along with very high cost - that SOE isn't implementing new EQ models.
The came can be said for new cities. Right now Plane of Knowledge is already very popular. Most people hang around there for buffs or to meet up with other people. It has direct and useful features for all classes and all levels. Compare that to the Gates of Discord city, a city made two expansions later. Very few ever hang around that particular city.
If they spend the time and money to revamp a city, they may not see any real improvement in population. I think they're better off revamping or expanding Plane of Knowledge than anything else.
Comment Posted by: on May 5, 2005 12:10 PM
SOE should be putting back into the game (EQ1) instead of just milking it. New character models (or more important to me, better animations) have been promised and dropped many times. It's all about the $. Don't tell me EQ1 isn't making a nice profit each month that they can't afford to put some money into the game that may not have new benefits but would go a long way to modernizing it and making it newbie friendly.
Companies grow by re-investing into them. Companies die when you bleed you customers dry. What is SOE goal here?
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 5, 2005 12:44 PM
How about a Census window? Open the window (better yet, make it a new tab on the LFG window) enter a level range, and it gives you a list of zones people in that range are playing in and how many are playing in each zone. The most likely places to get groups will be obvious.
Of course this is more information than SOE has been willing to give us in the past. For one thing it would be a lot easier to settle some arguments here. But I've never understood how that information could be all that useful to SOE's competitors. I just can't see Brad McQuaid sitting at a round, black table saying "The new census tool will soon provide the hidden concurrency numbers for EQ's servers. We will then crush SOE with one swift stroke."
So, give players a powerful new tool for finding groups, or protect some marginally useful information? C'mon, suprise me SOE...
Comment Posted by: Galroc on May 5, 2005 04:25 PM
I left EQ for the following reasons last year (after GoD):
1) Could not form/get groups within 20 minutes of logging in. Sit in PoK trying to form a group isn't my form of fun.
2) Could not efficiently solo while looking to form/get groups.
3) I didn't want to make the transition to a raiding guild which would me a time commitment and a regular schedule.
4) Hardly any solo quests in Everquests, Any quest in everquest would require web research before attempting.
There is a vast difference between which classes can solo (caster classes) and which classes can't (melee classes). As a 65 Paladin, it was painful to solo. I wouldn't die, but it would take way too long to kill something. EQ wanted warriors, paladins and shadow knights heavily dependant upon grouping.
Additionally, the time to kill while soloing something (or be killed) is vastly more at 65 than at level 10. How long should I swing, heal, stun, swing, heal, etc?
Also, I was always waiting for that feeling of power in EQ. I felt it during a few levels as a Paladin, mainly after getting IoN. But, I could never feel I was powerful after that. It was also strange to me that after killing rats outside of Freeport at level 1, I was killing them again in the Plane of Justice at 50.
I love WoW. I can solo quests. I don't have to research the quest first on the web. I can get a group together for harder quests. I can join a group to do an instance. If I have 20 minutes of spare time, I can have fun in WoW,
I can feel a sense of accomplishment everytime I log in. I can feel a sense of power everytime I unload a can of woop *ss on a mob. I can feel the power while holding off two or three mobs of my same level. In EQ, that would be a CR. I could fight something 10 levels below me, but not two at a time.
As you level up in WoW, groups are needed more if you want to gear up, but you can easily solo as well and still make it to level 60 in a reasonable time.
EQ is loosing to WoW, because it forgot about the casual players...
Comment Posted by: Nahhtee on May 5, 2005 08:42 PM
The more EQ becomes a job, becomes a career, the less I feel like giving it any of my time.
I'm still leveling my main, a 53 Ranger, and a few alts, and still having fun. Reading the posts of those ahead of me on the path leaves me with nothing but dread for the "requirements" I'll soon be faced with to continue playing.
When I have to work at having an enjoyable time, I'll give something else a try. There used to be enough room in EQ for everyone, not just those who followed "The Vision"(tm), whether it be Sony's or Verant's.....
Comment Posted by: on May 6, 2005 01:25 AM
"2 part dungeons: Sol A and B (Nagafen's Lair and I think Solusek's Eye). Chardok A and B and at one point C (Chardok; Halls of Betrayal; don't remember C's real name)."
Just a quick correction... Chardok has two zones (the original Chardok and Halls of Betrayal), while Solusek has three, the original two (Solusek's Eye and Nagafen's Lair) and the Caverns of Exile.
Anyway, I think it's an absolute necessity for SOE to redo both the zone graphics of older zones (rumored to be coming) AND the character models/animations.
It is entirely possible to have graceful, well animated and modeled characters without the drastic performance loss experienced when Luclin models went live... they just need to do it.
And, one other comment on this thread, which has always been a pet peeve of mine...
"The "core" problems are most all ties to the graphics engine, which is old and very outdated."
No no no no. The engine is actually almsot entirely new... it was what was overhauled and put into play last year (causing untold problems for months). What remains outdated are all of the old art resources created with and for the original engine.
DoN zones should make it clear that the graphics engine powering EQ now is plenty powerful... unfortunately, the engine itself simply provides a framework; pre-existing art has to be redone if it's to take advantage of that framework.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 6, 2005 10:01 AM
The new slot 9 augments came out on Test two days ago. Here's a list over on Monkley Business:
http://p201.ezboard.com/fmonklybusiness43508frm1.showMessage?topicID=48763.topic
The top items will run about 1305 crystals or about 46 hours of missions, give or take.
One can build a no-effect breastplate with 215 hitpoints or 205 mana for that cost or mix and match effect augments with about 165 hp or 155 mana. One can also build a bracer with 125 hitpoints and mana and mana regen 5.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 6, 2005 11:25 AM
EQ's graphics engine is no longer the roadblock. The problem is art that takes advantage of it. Game artists are expensive--my brother is one, and he makes a good bit more money with no degree than I do with my Masters. Creating the art is a major part of the cost of any game. What's more, EQ has a penchant for models with high polygon counts, which makes for great screenshots. Of course those high polygon counts often make for overworked systems and low framerates (and the animations sometimes seem like an afterthought), but they also make developing new models even more time-consuming and thus expensive. One reason the old world had far less cut-and-paste content than recent expansions is that it was far cheaper to make the simple models PC hardware could handle at the time.
WoW has shown what can be done with fewer polygons and more artistic flair; hopefully SOE will take notice.
But there's no avoiding the fact that redoing artwork is an extremely expensive proposition. Bringing the old world up to today's graphical standards would be a huge undertaking. I'm guessing much more expensive than a full expansion. I don't think that's where SOE should be spending their resources. On the other hand I'll grant that the starting cities don't give a good first impression of the game.
But people don't get their first impressions in the starting cities any more; they get them in the tutorial zone. So I can't imagine why they made it so drab and boring. I'd suggest redoing it with the goal of making it a showcase for what the current graphics engine can do. After seeing that, new players may be more willing to accept the starting cities. Of course lag doesn't make a good first impression either--the zone needs to be playable, not just make nice screenshots. Here's a chance for SOE to show they have good artists, not just a graphics engine that can handle lots of polygons.
New character models would be a good thing. I wouldn't recommend changing styles at all, just optimizing them to improve performance and fix some of the longstanding glitches. But even if that's too expensive (and it probably is) the current animations are truly pathetic and SOE knows it. Just redoing those (above all the 2hb attack!) would be a very good thing.
So in short, revamping the graphics in the old world isn't worth it, but revamping the graphics in the tutorial zone definitely is. And if you can't redo the character models, at least redo their animations. No, these changes aren't going to give EQ WoW's subscription numbers, but they will help it maintain its niche in a crowded market.
Comment Posted by: ubu on May 6, 2005 03:30 PM
Teremar,
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are some people who like the current system. I worry for their sanity , but hey, whatever works for you... the problem for _me_ is that there was one game that was different and SOE screwed it up by forcing the EQ2 design on top of it. In doing so (and saying 'badly' doesn't do it justice) they alienated so many of their customers that SWG populations look like zek servers. (ok, that's slightly overstated...slightly).
Loral,
I'm glad you liked the list but I wasn't really posting it to say "lets fix these things in EQ." Two reasons for that:
#1. I no longer give a fig what SOE does or does not do. I'm through with them. They ruined EQ, and they mismanaged SWG before destroying it. I am no longer a customer for ANY Sony product.
#2. The point of that list wasn't to improve EQ anyway, it was to show that everything I came to hate about EQ got imported to SWG. And this isn't an SWG board (hence my final paragraph below).
The IGN interview today just sent another spasm of cancellations in. Geta loada this: SOE claims they FIXED all the bugs that were reported prior to taking the CU live! And no one was reporting any more, so they had to take it live to find the rest!
People here think this deluded and (lets be blunt, but real) LYING company will be able to "fix" EQ Live? Hello, daydream believers! Nope, not here. You guys go ahead and work on it, I'm not kidding myself any longer.
In conclusion, I believe you're wasting your time and money pi**ing into the wind. But that's your choice; this is a site and board for active players of EQ. So, Loral I'm sorry if you thought I might build on that early post but I'm not. I am currently too busy working with the designer of a boardgame to fix *his* product to take on a multi-national that insults and lies to its player base.
Comment Posted by: ubu on May 6, 2005 03:32 PM
Oops.
Teremar, there was supposed to be a (grin) after the word "sanity" but I made the mistake of putting it in angle brackets and not previewing. Not trying to be insulting to you, it's just my usual sarcasm.
Comment Posted by: Horzek on May 6, 2005 04:54 PM
Can I take a moment and dispell a MMorpg myth?
I see time after time how WoW has been the great killer of EQ. I confess that I have personally succombed to the charms of WoW for a time. I also have to now admit that most of my evenings are spend quietly playing EQ and enjoying my time.
It is well known that WoW sold over 1 million copies and that even they were greatly surprised at the initial success of their game. As I DoN my mythbuster robes I would like to point out that EQ never did have as many as 1 million subscribers. At its peak EQ had just over 400,ooo active subscriptions and many of those were from players who boxed multiple accounts. Where do you suppose the other 600,ooo players came from? It clearly could not have been the EQ forces.
We should remember that the WoW game genre has been a world wide game now for a decade or more and I believe this is where the great percent of the WoW player base came from. Time after time as I play WoW I ask the folks I am with and very few of them have ever played EQ at all. There are of course many that have but more that have not.
From my own experience with both myself and my gaming guilds that I am associated with I see that an awful lot of my friends left EQ to play EQ2. Many of these have no interest in playing WoW. On the other hand an equal number of folks left EQ to go play WoW and have no interest in any SoE product again.
I believe that the inevitable changes in on line gaming have taken the toll on EQ as much as anything else we can point to. There is a chance that as people who currently play WoW learn of EQ they may be interested enough to take a peek. IF they are hooked on the easy kills and quick experience they will quickly drop EQ as though their hands were burned. If on the other hand they learn about the social aspects of EQ and compare them to WoW I think they may be sufficiently seduced to overlook some of the more ancient ( by todays standards ) game features.
Bottom line, WoW and EQ2 did not "kill" EQ. They certainly did have an effect on the player base but there can really be no argument that any game stole the millions of players EQ should have had.
I would like to discuss the disparity between the casual players and the radical players more in a different post but for now I would like to offer a single thought to ponder.
My thought is that as a casual player of only 20 hours a week there are a lot of places that I can not visit or experience. With each expansion that is released this list of off limits zones continues to grow and to me there is no end in sight. I am growing tired of funding expansions that are largely designed for the radical players and which have some tidbit or two tossed out to me to keep me on the hook. I am also growing tired of seeing equipment and game gear always going only to those radical raider types while once again I get a carrot or a crumb just often enough to keep me from going off the deep end.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 6, 2005 05:11 PM
No offense taken Ubu. I tried SWG in beta, hated it, and have never looked at it again. I was just suggesting that if there were ever a game that justified making revolutionary changes two years after release, SWG might be it. On the other hand, my opinion of SOE is probably about as low as yours at this point, so I'm not at all surprised they managed to make it revolutionarily worse.
As for Mobhunter only being for active EQ players, I hope not, because I'm not one. I comment because I still have friends playing and still care about the game. Of course I have to remind myself there are things I don't know about the present state of EQ. In the limit that will be everything, at which point I'll have to stop posting.
Comment Posted by: Ubu on May 6, 2005 06:09 PM
Well, players that still care about EQ, whether or not they're still playing. I am still fond of the good times I had, but I don't see ever recapturing that feeling.
I inferred (incorrectly) from your earlier post that you were an active player and liked the CU. If you want some idea of just HOW badly they botched the last few releases, check http://www.houblog.com and read the extended entry.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 8, 2005 12:23 PM
Hehe, actually Ubu you got Teremar confused with me I think.
I'm a pally, not a 'chanter. Teremar's the guy in the robes, I'm the guy with the big sword. Or that was true in EQ1 :P
But I do actually play SWG, where I am mainly a weaponsmith. I have since Beta 1, which is why the current bugs amuse me - I guess you get kind of tolerant to content bugs when you spend 3 months helping the devs do practically nothing except chase down server crash bugs. I normally get my adventure fix from EQ2 - though that may even out some soon. Regarding the CU, here's what I saw in terms of feedback from folks in my player city.
Beta: 90% "OMG this is teh suxx0r"
Launch: 70% "I'm quitting, this is horrible"
3 days later: 50% "Ya know, this isn't so bad, I actually kinda like this more now"
1 week later: 90% "Hey Tal, can you make me some of the new weapons? I haven't fought this much in like a year."
The other 10% are still busy griping because of the bugs and ongoing balancing.
Like I said way up above, your mileage may vary. But if my weapons sales are any metric, either a bunch of people quit making weapons all of a sudden, or there are a whole lot more people shooting things now than there were for the last six months.
Personally I actually find combat interesting now instead of boring. I actually have to think to win most fights, and I can't go spend 100k and put on some armor and be practically invincible. Maybe I'm wierd but I like combat requiring skill, being challenging to someone who is skilled, and I like seeing uniqueness and differentiation between characters. I don't like FotM templates and mindless grinding which is what the old system was all about *shrug*
Comment Posted by: ubu on May 9, 2005 12:46 PM
Oops! Sorry about the mixup guys. I'm usually in a hurry when posting from work; it's a wonder I don't have more typos.
I'd say that yes, the % are changing in favor of the CU, but in real terms, the absolute numbers are less. People are leaving, and once their account is up, they can no longer post on SOE's forums. Not only that, but people who didn't register before and do so now cannot post! (Dunno if still true, was all last week). If your PA is the exception to the total decimation, you're lucky.
The reason you're getting the business (to judge from the WS forums): you probably ARE one of the few left making weapons, at least are willing and have the resources to do so. Ditto AS. But I was an architect--we were unaffected except for one thing: the people quitting were our potential customers. (And we have so few, as houses don't wear out). Sure, stay in and try to make a quick kill off the ROTW/Ep.III influx. But what for? After that? With the total numbers way lower than before? No thanks.
Finally, no one, least of all me, is arguing that the old system wasn't broke. TKA's were just sick (I should know, after playing a friend's, I immediately switched from Rifleman). Combat Medic AOE = you lose. And a lot of other things were screwed up. Doc and Entertainer buffs.
But you know something? It was still fun! EQ is not, that's why I quit playing it. SOE will _never_ produce a winning game again, until they learn the following:
1. Do not force your entire customer base to beta test.
2. Under-promise. Over-deliver.
3. Do not insult, mislead or lie to your customer base.
Every one of these problems has been an issue in EQ and SWG. New character models, anyone?
Given the botch that it's made out of SWG and lackluster performance of EQ/EQ2, I don't see anyone signing a contract with SOE to run their MMORPG anytime soon anyway. Any new games, they'll have to develop in house (which is very expensive). Meaning they're destined to remain, at best, a 2nd tier company.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 9, 2005 07:27 PM
Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. I have a blast in all the SOE games - less so in WoW, where I find myself getting bored easily.
I don't think any of the games under discussion is in danger of folding any time soon. Likewise, I think ALL of the publishers (SOE or not) could benefit from what you pointed out. I've only ever seen one MMO publisher that I really felt did a good job of those things, and they don't have a subscriber base near the size of EQ/EQ2/WoW/SWG/AO/etc.
Perhaps that's something we should think about before we spend too much energy vocalizing how much we hate the industry leaders and their business/development practices and how they've ruined their games. Not saying they've got it right even by a longshot, but you know what - there's only one company out there whose games I won't buy and that I have such a low opinion of that I won't even consider playing one of their products.
Electronic Arts.
SOE, or any other publisher you care to name, has a loooooooong way to go in my book before they get to that special level of Dante's Inferno, at least for me.
Comment Posted by: ubu on May 10, 2005 09:29 AM
I think the last time I was even tempted to buy an EA game, we were oooh-ing and ahhhh-ing at CGA graphics on our 286's. Either that, or playing on my C128.
Although I did enjoy playing Battlefield 1942 on a friend's computer, I found the console and some other parts counter-intuitive. I was especially annoyed at the game's slow loading times and unequal starts. Once, I finally got into the game... just as it ended. This was on a LAN, not internet! And being unable to bypass their subliminal advertising logo/speech at the beginning...grrrr.
Comment Posted by: Pants on May 11, 2005 06:31 AM
EA yuck. Look at the wonderful job they've done with Ultima Online. Their susbscription numbers have been on a steady decline (lost about 1/3 their playerbase) ever since they started selling pre-leveled characters, and this was long before the EQ2/WoW releases. Plus their obsession with trying to have a monopoly on the NFL license to squeeze out any Madden competetion, their buying up of great developement companies and ruining them or shutting them down, plus they shut down some games before their time when they were still popular for who knows what reason (Airwarrior for one). They have a long history of crapitude and I wouldn't blame anyone for boycotting them.
This is part of the reason why I see even the starting of the trend of facilitating the sales of online money or items, even on a limited basis, by SOE is a step in the wrong direction. I doubt it's going to stay on the limited scale they promised. It smacks of bean counters making decisions that they think will be good for business over the people who actually make and play the games and whom know better. Sure SOE has a long way to go to reach the depths of EA ilk but they don't have to start on the path.
Comment Posted by: Wakk on May 11, 2005 10:28 AM
Going Back to the LFG discussion, i think that one very good idea is to have a mentoring system that allows ppl to invite in either a higher level player than is currently feasible (or indeed desired) or a lower player,
this would work by "averaging" the higher players stats abilities and spells to be the same as the level average of the group he joins, or in reverse the lower level player gets a boost to allow them to play at a level comparative to the average of the higher group members by boosting stats hp and either giving them the higher spells temporarily or boosting the effectiveness of the ones they have to the group average level.
In this manner, at least in zones where level is not a restricting factor the available pool of players available to any given group is substantially expanded, the experience earned would be earnt at a level comparative to a players original level.
Comment Posted by: eski on May 11, 2005 12:43 PM
What about LFM ie looking for more? A group's leader could have that flag. Perhaps it could also have a description (eg healer, tank, wanting to kill gnolls, whatever).
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 11, 2005 02:02 PM
You can flag your group as looking for more in the LFG window. I would kill to have EQ's LFG window in WoW and am always dismayed by how few people know it and use it.
I'm not too excited about "sidekicking" (other than the great name for CoH chose for it), where low level players are bumped up so they can play with high level players. Seeing new content is one of the reasons people want to progress. If you've seen the high end as a sidekick, going back to the lower levels may be a letdown. Or alternatively you may lose your desire to level: a lot of people, myself in particular, find the low levels of EQ much more fun than the 61+ content. Maybe sidekicking would be okay if limited--once a week?
"Mentoring" where a high level person is scaled down to join with a low level person seems to have no such disadvantages. And it gives those jaded high-end players new things to do, especially exploring all the places they missed as they leveled up. Seems to me this is the one you want in the game.
Comment Posted by: Pants on May 11, 2005 09:46 PM
The sidekicking and exemplering (reverse SKing) in CoH is one of the best features in any MMORPG out there. It perfectly solves the problem of people of differing levels being able to group with eachother. It puts no damper on one's desire to play through the content at all in CoH, because the content is well designed to begin with. That being said it is not a system that can be easily implemented in a game like EQ because there are gear considerations to factor in that aren't present in CoH, since it's almost 100% skill/power based and can be scaled easier than thry to scale the power of gear stats appropriately. It is because of great features like this and what I consider to be the most talented and open to communication dev teams out there that I consider CoH to be the best MMO right now.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on May 11, 2005 11:25 PM
EQ2 does mentoring by capping stats on equipment and reducing your level - so you have to go load old combat arts/spells. That part's not so bad, but the caps on equipment can reduce the stats all the way to 0 if the person you're mentoring is far enough below you. Which means if you do a lot of mentoring, you almost need to keep a set of old equipment handy too.
In practice I find that mentoring in EQ2 works well when we have someone who's 3-4 levels above the rest of the group and is causing stuff to go gray. We have them mentor the lowest and we all have a blast.
As for LFG, I loved EQ1's LFG window and even though EQ2 does some of that, it doesn't do it all. Can we just port that over, please?
Comment Posted by: Glamdrigg on May 12, 2005 12:29 AM
Sidekicking would be a more positive alternative to Power-leveling. At least then both players high and low are accomplishing something and not just burning through levles to reach end game results or playing fast paced catch up.
Comment Posted by: Glamdrigg on May 12, 2005 12:31 AM
p.s.
But, to be realistic...
It wont get rid of power leveling...
Comment Posted by: Wakk on May 12, 2005 10:18 AM
Sidekickiing or mentoring wont get rid of powerlevelling but that is done in the biggest majority of cases by people with more than one account, what it would do is allow 1 account, casual players and newer players to get and/or form groups a lot more easily and groups struggling to get people to fill group slots a bit more scope.
I'm all for allowing more than 6 players in a group too though i would say the best environment for such groups would be instances which are more able to tune the content to number and levels of players, hell it'd be nice to see LDoN/DoN mini raid content and the stuff already there actually tuned better risk vs reward.
the big problem i think with ldon and don type content is once the initial flood of interest has passed it's very much more tricky to get groups here, i very rarely got a chance to do LDoN when it first came out and now i find it very hard to get a ldon together as so many want the newer content. I feel the amount of time that you'd need to invest in doing these instances is disproportianate to the rewards.
Comment Posted by: on May 14, 2005 01:09 AM
ChaChing goes the cash register.....pry open those wallets you fawnbois....
"Due to the increased costs of running the EverQuest game service, we will be increasing our subscription rates in June. Effective June 12, 2005, the new monthly subscription rate will be $14.99/month. While this announcement may be unpleasant, the cost of operating a top tier MMO has increased significantly over the past three years and this change will help us achieve our goal of seeing that every player has a consistently enjoyable experience in the world of EverQuest. We will continue to offer discounts from the new rate plan on multi-month subscriptions. The new price for a 3-month subscription will be $41.97, a 6-month subscription will now be $77.94 and a 12-month subscription will now be $143.88. The 24-month subscription will continue to be $199.95. You don't have to do a thing; you will automatically be migrated to the new billing structure under your current subscription plan when your current subscription plan expires. Subscription rates are subject to tax and value-added taxes, as applicable. These price increases will not affect the SOE Station Access? subscription rate.
New EverQuest rates as of June 12, 2005:
$14.99 per Month
$41.97 for 3 Months
$77.94 for 6 Months
$143.88 for 12 Months
$199.95 for 24 Months
Additionally we'd like to thank our current EverQuest players by offering a 6 and 12-month limited time promotional offer. For a limited time only, you can take advantage of 6 or 12-month promotional subscriptions and reap great savings. Between May 12th and June 11th, 2005, we're offering a special discount on the new monthly subscription price:
A 6-month subscription costs only US$69.99 ? that's a 10% discount off of the new monthly plan.
Even better, a 12-month subscription costs US$99.99 ? a 31% discount off of the new monthly rates.
And for those customers subscribing to other great SOE games this is also an excellent time to become Station Access Members. The Station Access subscription provides an easy gateway for SOE fans to a variety of SOE titles for $21.99 a month. The Station Access subscription is good for EverQuest, PlanetSide, EverQuest Online Adventures, EverQuest II, Star Wars Galaxies and the Station Pass games.
EverQuest subscriptions are recurring, meaning you will continue to be billed at the appropriate interval, until you affirmatively cancel your subscription. Note that purchasers of the full game will receive 30 days of game-play included with the purchase at no additional charge (subject to certain restrictions) after supplying valid billing information. If you cancel your subscription during the period of 30 days of game-play included with purchase, no charges will be made to your credit card.
Subscriptions are subject to tax and value-added tax, as applicable.
All subscription fees will appear on your credit card statement under the heading "SOE*EverQuest".
Please note:
The subscription charges are in addition to the cost of the game. You will need to purchase a copy of the game from a retail store or online at the Station Store (http://store.station.sony.com). The price of the game will vary depending upon the store.
"
Comment Posted by: Maitreya on May 14, 2005 03:28 PM
Oh no! An extra $2 per month! What ever will I do?
Seriously, even with this not quite astronomical price increase, MMOs like EQ are still probably the most cost effective form of electronic entertainment around, unless you play for an hour a month.
My only question is, how many of the hordes of people threatening to cancel their accounts if this go through (not here yet, but I've seen a lot of it at other sites) are actually going to?
Comment Posted by: Maitreya on May 24, 2005 03:04 AM
$2/month increase for 1/2 the servers = perfect sense to me.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Email Mike at mike@mikeshea.net for more questions or comments.