I remember Warcraft as it used to be.

Five Strengths of World of Warcraft

by Loral on January 20, 2008

Many things made World of Warcraft so successful. It is very easy to play, offers smooth character progression, is well polished, and is beautiful even on low-end systems.

With the Burning Crusade over a year old now, one would think that the popularity of WoW would be dwindling. The next expansion, Wrath of the Lich King, may not be out for another year. Instead of a flood of abandonment, we see a new surge in popularity.

Besides the fundamental strengths of WoW, there exist a few other reasons why WoW is able to bring in new players and keep them. Today we will look at five of these features.

Equipment Progression

All throughout World of Warcraft, players find numerous item upgrades. From level 1 to level 70, players always find constant and continuous equipment upgrades. Only once players have exhausted every quest and every instance will upgrades become scarce and even then options exist for epic-quality equipment from a variety of sources.

Up to level 70, equipment rewards from quests continually upgrade characters as they level. It isn't uncommon to upgrade two or three items in a single play session, even at higher levels.

At high levels, Blizzard opens half a dozen paths to high-end epic quality gear. These can come from heroic five-man instance drops, heroic badge rewards, solo reputation grinding, player vs. player rewards, and ten-man raids. Most of these rewards are available to anyone - not just those in the best guilds.

While instances and raids continue to offer the best gear, high quality epic gear can be acquired with solo quests by way of reputation grinding. Though many consider it a difficult and repetitive path, it is a consistent way to earn epic gear from solo quests.

Daily Quests

Within the past few patches, Blizzard implemented Daily Quests, quests repeatable once a day with rewards similar to standard quests. Blizzard did a great job making these quests entertaining and rewarding even after having done them dozens and dozens of time. These quests offer both gold and reputation, leading eventually to the epic items mentioned above. They ensure that even the highest-end players have something to do every time they log in besides sit and hope to get into the next Karazhan run. These daily quests can lead to epic equipment and flying mounts including coveted Netherdrake mount.

Single-Group Instances

The 60-70 game in World of Warcraft includes a hand-full of very strong single group instances. These instances feel more like a small raid than a typical group hunt. The bosses require specific tactics to defeat, the gear rewards are very well balanced, and the zones are beautiful. Most of the rewards from these single-group instances come as drops from bosses, but heroic instances offer heroic badges which can be turned in for epic-quality gear. Daily instance quests also help focus players on new instances each day. While some of these zones require a key, they aren't too hard to come by.

Raids

World of Warcraft also made a big shift by focusing on 10 and 25 player instances. It isn't uncommon to find ten-man pick-up Karazhan runs forming. Blizzard clearly has its eye on the majority of the players, not the high-end minority. They know who makes up their nine million players.

Power Resets

When Burning Crusade came out, many players were surprised to see level 61+ common green quest rewards outstripping their hard-earned epic quality gear at level 60. Some were angry, some happy, but most of them kept moving forward.

This choice removed any progression gap that might exist between the old world and the new world. Everyone was once again on an even playing field whether they just reached level 60 or had been farming the highest 40-man instances for months. A new player doesn't have to complete every single instance and raid in the old world to move forward in the new expansion. Sources have confirmed that Wrath of the Lich King will likewise contain a gear reset like this, making all of the high-end rewards in Burning Crusade likewise worthless. Life moves on and if one didn't enjoy earning that gear at the time, one shouldn't have bothered to earn it.

Blizzard also made a smart move with reputation. High reputation with various factions in Burning Crusade can offer some very nice gear rewards but, once a new expansion comes out, those reputations offer no substantial power difference between the players who have it and those who do not. One level 75 player in Lich King may have exalted with the Sky Guard, Netherwing Drakes, and Cenarion Expedition while another has neutral and there is no substantial power difference between the two. As new expansions come out, that reputation no longer matters. Had Blizzard put in some other form of experience, like Everquest's Alternate Ability points, the power gap would continue from expansion to expansion. Those with high AAs are more powerful than those without.

It is these power resets that keep players playing alternate characters from level 1 to the highest level. It is what keeps new players coming in, knowing they can catch up quickly to the higher end players. Who knows if this will continue as Blizzard moves from expansion to expansion, but for the next two years it isn't likely to be a problem.

World of Warcraft has redefined the face of gaming. Both players and developers are watching what Blizzard does and how the game of Warcraft will evolve. As much as an impact as it has had, Warcraft is still in the early years. It has had only one expansion so far, with another not likely until the end of the year. Yet players seem to return to this favorite, even with new competitors releasing every few months. There is a strength and stability in this game that no other seems to possess. It is no wonder that many continue to call WoW home.

Too fanboish for you? Next article we'll take a look at five failures in World of Warcraft.

Loral Ciriclight
loral@loralciriclight.com
20 January 2008

Post a new message.

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 21, 2008 06:10 PM

I thought you where procrastinating. Interesting article.

Comment Posted by: rezzo on January 22, 2008 03:26 AM

Nice article. The title could have read "Five Things SOE Said Were Impossible". I remember how hardcore raiders on EQForums (haven't been there for a couple of years) used to bitch and whine over every proposal to close the equipment gap between themselves and casual players. I guess they won that argument, but ask yourselves now, what good is having the latest ultra-l33t gear if there's no one left to admire it?

Comment Posted by: sobe on January 22, 2008 12:40 PM

After playing EQ for 7 years I moved over to WOW 7 weeks ago. Wow doesn't suffer from having the "vision's" goal of forcing people to group to get most of the "uber" loot. My wife loves how WOW is so friendly to the casual player. She no longer has to wait or be dependent on others like in EQ to do anything in the hour of time she has available to play. She loved the ranger in EQ and enjoys the Hunter of wow as a replacement. I got tired of in EQ being a 68 mage and because I couldn't raid 24/7 or solo because the inherent nerf of soloers at the higher end of EQ for my gear! Those that could raid nearly 24/7 got geared up and more unlikely to recruit the casual player. With WOW that has never been a problem.

Comment Posted by: Wilbur on January 22, 2008 01:12 PM

SoE could have had 9 million customers. They choose not to. Funny way to run a business.

Comment Posted by: wilbur on January 22, 2008 01:14 PM

SoE could have had 9 million customers. They choose not to. Funny way to run a business.

Comment Posted by: menleniel on January 22, 2008 06:18 PM

EQ has gotten better on quests but is still far from being close to wow. Lots of that stuff is all true and good. But, wow raids suck and theres just not much reason to keep playing once you've reached max level unless you are one of those who enjoy making new chars all time. I had fun for a while but for someone like me who wants to just play one character it couldn't hold me for long.

Comment Posted by: Colous on January 22, 2008 11:32 PM

I've wanted to say this for longer than I can remember. Loral, can you just shut up and go away? You have nothing positive to offer the Everquest community. Thanks.

Comment Posted by: Wiiiiiiiiiii on January 23, 2008 02:46 AM

"I've wanted to say this for longer than I can remember. Loral, can you just shut up and go away? You have nothing positive to offer the Everquest community. Thanks."

1. The article was about WoW.
2. There will be a follow up article about the "Five Failures of WoW".
3. EQ wasn't mentioned in the article.
4. Keep playing your obsolete MMO.
5. Please grow up.

Comment Posted by: Kiztent on January 23, 2008 12:44 PM

There's only 1 thing that WoW does better than EQ that matters.

It's fun to play, no matter how long and often you play.

Comment Posted by: Maglubiyet on January 23, 2008 03:16 PM

"4. Keep playing your obsolete MMO."

I used to pass through this site since it had all the eq/mmo links but see that you removed them and this caught my eye.

The same reason that wow has a million + players is the same reason my girlfriends pogo has millions of players, any retard in a wheelchair poking keys with a pencil in his mouth can play it, ie. its EASY. I'm not a wow hater/player but this is a pretty well know fact. Its a kiddie game with kiddie graphics aka pogo.

.. oh and for the love of god, 10 people is not a raid. Its a group.

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 23, 2008 03:34 PM

Wilbur, can you actually back up your comment that EQ could have 9 million subscribers? How exactly could they have had 9 million subscribers? Please be specific, I bet Smedley would be pretty interested...

Comment Posted by: Maeven on January 23, 2008 05:21 PM

Rezzo Said "I remember how hardcore raiders on EQForums (haven't been there for a couple of years) used to bitch and whine over every proposal to close the equipment gap between themselves and casual players. I guess they won that argument, but ask yourselves now, what good is having the latest ultra-l33t gear if there's no one left to admire it?"

They are still doing it. Secrets of Faydwer was meant to close the gap, and all of a sudden now the elites aren't the only ones in the top ranks of the leaderboards (although once they start looting the 1000hp+ gear more frequently it will self correct..)

Take a gander at the bitching and whining going on in the EQLive forums right now, the elites/ubers are pissing & moaning about the Last Blood Seals (from DoDH) being too powerful, now, several expansions later after they all benefitted from them, because they can be put into the newest tier of Cultural (level 80) armor.
http://forums.station.sony.com/eq/posts/list.m?topic_id=126942

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on January 23, 2008 10:49 PM

Loral,

Excellent article. I'm looking forward to what you see as WoW's five failures. Also I wanted to re-affirm, I think expanding the view of Mobhunter to talk about the MMO market in general is a good idea. Your a family man now, and people can't expect you to play 24/7 each and every game; you write about what you play, and that's a good thing.

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on January 23, 2008 11:05 PM

Colous,

If the idea was that Mobhunter somehow was a property of the SOE EQ community, then your comment might, just might have some merit. But it's not. Nor does Loral receive income either from the site, or as far as it's ever been said from SOE. It's doubtful that even any small swag Loral has gotten from SOE would be justification for the time and expense of keeping the site online.

While it is true that on occation some very familiar names from SOE and the SOE forums have posted in response to something Loral has posted, it's not true to say that Loral's comments in any way impact choices made by SOE. In fact, past history would say the opposite.

So simply put, your comments coming on the end of an article that was not directed to the SOE or EQ community of players is, well, rash.

One's got to question, why the vitriol responce? For that matter why is it that even mentioning WoW to an EQ fan sends them into a hate mongering rage? Is it really a matter that the EQ fan base has degenerated to the point that they feel WoW must fail, in order for EQ to succeed?

I submit to you, that WoW can remain a success, and EQ could with proper investment of talent and Vision(tm) regain subscription numbers of 300k or even 400k. The key is not what is happening in WoW. But rather, what is happening in EQ.

Just some food for thought. Oh, and '/pvp' just to let you know we're ready.

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on January 23, 2008 11:16 PM

Maglubiyet,

I'm curious as to where you get your assesment that WoW is "easy", and hense to be dismissed? You seem to want to infer that EQ is "hard" and therefore somehow better?

Can you give us examples of game play instances you have personally had, the levels attained, classes played, encounters over come, in both games?

If we can agree that bugged content, exploits, bad pathing, etc., are not valid reasons for comparison, and that challenge, and the need for player knowledge of class, class skills, party dynamics, timing/player skill, etc., are. Then I think we at least have an even field for comparison. Please let us know how you compare a 40 man Temple of Ahn'Qiraj, or Naxxramas run to Citadel of Anguish? What where your first hand experiences?

Comment Posted by: Loral on January 23, 2008 11:43 PM

I'm violating my own rules about not responding to trolls, but...

"Loral, can you just shut up and go away?"

You came to me, remember? No one held a gun to your head to hit this site. Isn't this like going over to someone's house and telling them they have no right to be there? Please, if you don't enjoy the site, stop reading.

" You have nothing positive to offer the Everquest community."

You're actually pretty close to the truth here. One of the reasons I decided I'd spend more time in WoW and writing about WoW is that I have little positive feedback to give to SOE regarding EQ at this stage. The sorts of things I would recommend are things they either can't or won't do and I'm not sure I disagree with them.

If Absor held a gun to my head, these would be the things I would ask for:

1. Do a gear reset.

2. Remove flagging.

3. Fix player models.

4. Redo the Plane of Knowledge.

5. Add soloing from level 1 to 80.

None of these, however, are realistic at this point. They are such radical shifts away from what EQ has traditionally done that they won't and probably shouldn't risk the customers they have left.

Could EQ perform a total gear wipe by offering level 77 gear that totally outstrips anything you would have had at level 75? Sure. Would that be a good idea? I doubt it. So as far as we can see, the gear gap will continue to widen and force players back to content that was designed poorly over four years ago in order to get their money's worth from expansions they pay for today.

What about player models? Let's not even get into that one.

What about a new Plane of Knowledge? It appears SOE would rather build a new Steamfont.

Solo content? Is it really a good idea to retool EQ so that players can solo their way to 80? Or is that too big a change? Probably.

So what does that say for new players who want to go from level 1 to 80? They're either going to powerlevel or they're going to go somewhere else. I can't see groups of level 55 people getting together very often. I see a lot of powerlevelers.

How about removing the majority of flags? Spending so much time flagging an entire raid through Sendaii over and over only to face Zit in Demiplane really pushed me over the edge. Now I'm well beyond it. My guild is likely to flag for Ashengate and there is no way you can tell me it is so fun in Ashengate as to clean up Golem parts for weeks on end. I'll pass, thank you.

Would it be a good idea for SOE to remove raid flagging after a year? Probably. Will they do it? No. Should they? i don't know. I don't know who their market is anymore.

EQ isn't WoW and I wouldn't recommend it try to be. They have players. The game will continue to exist for years and years, even if that is mostly on maintenance. EQOA is still around after all.

However, when it comes to a fun, beautiful, and easy game to play - WoW is the one I turn to. At the max level I can still log in and spend 15 to 30 minutes moving one step closer to better equipment doing something I enjoy - questing.

If people are upset that I am shifting over to talk more about other games, I am sorry. That, however, is likely the way my own writing will go.

I still hope people will write in with their own article submissions. I would love for someone to write a well-written, objective review of the new expansion. I know people want to keep talking about EQ and I want this to be a place for that to happen. I just can't be the one to do it right now.

Comment Posted by: xox on January 24, 2008 02:34 AM

LOL, when will you learn Loral? Trolling is the only way your fans can get you to write about EQ nowadays.

Comment Posted by: menleniel on January 24, 2008 03:05 AM

All valid points. I wish eq devs could figure out that some of those would;nt'ruin the game. But I don't want to see eq dumb down the game to point its a wow clone. Its tough, not easy to learn or to level in. Thats good and bad. I think eq fits a niche for those that are willing to work hard and dont' want everything handed to them on a silver platter. I've said before, I had fun playing wow, I dont' hate it. I just prefer the challenge that eq has. Not for everyone. I don't play daily for hours at a time, contrary to popular belief you don't have to, but it certainly does take more effort and time than wow.

I'm not unrealistic. Theres a much smaller player base for the the type of person who enjoys the tougher challenge of eq. I think eq needs to embrace that. Trying to be another wow is not a good idea. I'm not sure theres room for even one more wow.

In an ideal we'd se eq steal wows questing model and wow adding some real raids.

I don't think eq could have ever become what wow is, even if they'd gone that way. Timing has a lot to do with it. I think a wow needed an eq to pave the way. Being first has its pitfalls.

The first one to really sucessfully mix the two, I hope I invest there. Someones gonna get it right some day.

Comment Posted by: Loral on January 24, 2008 07:21 AM

I can't think of another game where I would put up with "working hard" for things. They're games, they should be fun. Work shouldn't be part of it.

Also, finding a group at level 53 so you can even see some of the newer stuff coming out isn't where they should be working hard. Hard raids? Perhaps, but seeing what we got in Demiplane wasn't about working hard, it was about clearing trash for two hours. Forget that.

I don't mind challenges, and frankly WoW has a lot of challenges, but I do mind when tedium equates to challenge.

Comment Posted by: Keisa on January 24, 2008 11:39 AM

Ghost,

Your comments on WoW hating EQ players are on target. I'd like to point out that you missed the EQ hating Wow players. Just read a few of the responses at the top of this thread.

I think it is that some people just can't stand for anyone to enjoy doing something they don't. I can't understand why that is the case, but it seems to be. Wouldn't it be better if we could all just enjoy the things we enjoy and not worry about what other people like?

Keisa

Comment Posted by: Keisa on January 24, 2008 12:08 PM

Loral,

I'd like to comment on the five ways you'd improve EQ.

1. Do a gear reset.

I sort of have two responses to this one. First, I like consistancy, and I like the time I have put into the game to have some meaning. A complete reset where the gear is way overshadowed by newer gear (a gear reset) is something I would not like to see happen entirely.

While I don't expect gear to be overshadowed by newer gear too much, I do want multiple paths for upgrading my gear. That means that new gear should improve on the old gear. I want to be able to improve my raid gear in both raid and group, making both parts of the game meaningful to play.

SOF has somewhat done a gear reset. Basically, breaking into Demi as a mid tier raiding guild, I am easily upgrading my armor and jewelry in Tier 4 group zones. In a single weekend, I increased my over all hitpoints by roughly 5% through upgrades from two armor pieces, two pieces of jewelry, and a new weapon. Cultural (which is currently a hotly debated subject) has provided a bazaar purchasable path to huge upgrades in gear. With raid augments, the gear is overtaking a lot of old raid gear.

I think they went a bit too far with the upgrades, and that there wouldn't be this hooplah over cultural if the increase in gear had been say 40-50% instead of 80-100%, but that's just my opinion.

2. Remove flagging.

I'm sort of with you on this topic. I don't know why SOE doesn't go back to old content and remove or significantly ease the flagging requirements. Basically, most people leveling up now or bringing up a new alt will just skip past anything that is ancient and requires huge flagging requirements.

On TSS flagging, it has been significantly cut back. AG is still somewhat difficult, but way faster than it was, and FC is trivial. I went from something the FC NPCS spit on (yes, an actual emote) to Ally in one night... solo. Now, that's trivial.

3. Fix player models.

I could really care less. It's something some people are hung up on, but means nothing to me.

4. Redo the Plane of Knowledge.

I guess I'd have to ask what you expect of this zone? I spend as little time as possible in POK. It's nothing but a transportation hub and tradeskill zone. In fact, it's an annoyance that I have to be there at all on my cleric. If I'm in role playing in POK, it should be a clue to anyone that I am not there to be a buff bot for everyone. Now what did I do with that item with the sword graphic my cleric can carry?

The only meaningful community places for me are guild hall, guild lobby, and bazaar.

5. Add soloing from level 1 to 80.

Have you tried soloing a low level character lately? I took a berzerker from 1 to 54 in about 20 hours. In that time, I grouped maybe 4-5 times, maybe 2-3 hours total, which generally slowed down my exp. Granted, I twinked him, but anyone that knows anything about the game can easily twink up a character in the bazaar. I'm betting I could do the same in 40 hours on a server where I have no support from my account so I have to earn the money to twink him.

The fact is that with new equipment, hot zones and game knowledge, leveling up a character is no longer a significant impact.

The flip side to that is that someone starting without knowledge of EQ will probably find it much harder to level a character. If I were joining the game now, I'd look for help from more experienced characters.

Now, the exp curve between 50-60 is really painful and slow, but determination will get you past that. 60+ will probably be easy enough for soloing classes and annoying for non-soloing classes.

I wanted to say, write on what interests you. It's your dime. We can either enjoy what you write or go read something else.

Keisa

Comment Posted by: sobe on January 24, 2008 12:43 PM

Wow is dumbed down? No its not. Granted the graphics may look cartoonish but then alot more people can play the game with older pcs. With wow at least you can trade skill at a low level and have a realistic market for some of the goods made. Wow also can support the 24/7 raider as well as the casual player, both are getting their moneys worth of their subscriptions. I can honestly say I didnt get as much value from EQs expansions. Both are great MMO's but for me now WOW provides the things I require from a game. And I know any positive changes for EQ would be a cold day in solusek ro.

Comment Posted by: wilbur on January 24, 2008 01:08 PM

Redhenna,

The statement was "could have had" not "could have".

SoE burned the bridge to 9 million customers 3 months after EQ's release. That opportunity is never coming back.

They were young, pioneering a new frontier, they knew not what they were doing. Unfortunately (well only if you care, which at this time most people don't) they still are fairly clueless.

SoE MANDATED you had to have a group to accomplish anything meaningful. 9 million (oops I mean 10 million) people have a different opinion.
Well it is thier game (what a poor attitude to take) and you will play it as they dictate.

I will not go into detail but state just one obvious design criteria for any online game.

If you expect someone to pay a monthly fee to play your game you should design it so that 90-95% of the games content is available to that customer. Otherwise that customer will probably tell you to piss off.

SoE's design philosphy ... make 5-10% of the games content readily available. Thats brillant. Lets cater to a 5% minority of the game's potential population.

Oh well they had thier opportunity and they screwed it up. Nothing new thier. Thats the way the world work.

Comment Posted by: Keisa on January 24, 2008 03:03 PM

Some people look at all the content they haven't consumed and say to themselves, "There are all these things I can't do and places I can't go. I have to do all this work to even get to see those things. This isn't any fun. It's a waste of money."

I look at all the content I haven't consumed and say to myself, "Wow, look at all the things I have left to do in the game. Why, if I get my xxx flag, I can go to yyy and get zzz gear. I have months, maybe years of fun left to enjoy. That's entertainment dollars well spent."

How you look at things and what appeals to you will make a huge difference in how much you like different games. What appeals to you may or may not have relavence to someone else. In the end, all that really matters is if you are having fun doing what you are doing.

Keisa

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 24, 2008 03:10 PM

Lots and lots of comments:

Maeven, the debate about cultural armor has nothing to do with raiders vs nonraiders. It's midtier raiders vs highend raiders mostly, with some real crossover(some high end people find any changes unneccessary, while some midtier people find it needed). The debate has nothing to do with casuals becoming too powerfull, but to do with raid armor that obsolutes raid armor from higher progression. Personally, I think it is a small at best issue, and I would not waste dev resources changing it, but I do see the arguments from both sides. Either way, it has nothing to do with nonraid armor.

Ghost, I suspect the reason for the vitriol is that, due to the good work of Loral, and Moorguard before him, people have gotten used to the idea of this site as a good source of independent EQ reporting. For those who still play EQ, or still care about the game, it is disapointing to see it turn into a site about other things. This does not excuse the insulting nature of the attack, but I do understand the frustration. Also, CoA is, for the most part(except OMM), not a good raid zone to use when comparing difficulty. CoA has always been pretty easy, and is pretty old(coming out about when WoW launched...a little before iirc). Comparing current EQ raids with current WoW raids, and current EQ exp zones with curent WoW exp zones would be more worthwhile comparisons(and not ones I can make), and be pretty interesting.

Loral:

"1. Do a gear reset"---This was, for the most part done with SoF. When I retired from EQ a year ago, I was about 10th on server(Luclin, one of the top heavy servers) in terms of warrior HP's, and about 6th in terms of warrior AC. With SoF, nonraiders can surpass my HP's, by alot, and reach the level of AC I had. That is a pretty significant 'reset', and I think will yield good results.

"2. Remove flagging."---If you mean from older zones, then sure. I got no problem with that really. If you mean from current zones, not only will it not happen, it should not happen. I would recommend improving flagging, but not eliminating it.

"3. Fix player models."---being worked on, *slowly*. Not a big issue for retaining players, which is the primary focus of SoE, but it would help with new players. For me, not a big issue for the health ofthe game.

"4. Redo the Plane of Knowledge."---Mostly pointless, and would have to be done so as not to increase the lag there. PoK is a zone that most people tend to avoid when possible due to the lag.

"5. Add soloing from level 1 to 80."--Mudflation has mostly made this a reality. You can solo pretty much any class pretty well at least most of the way. Taking EQ's emphasis away from the group game would also alienate some of the current playerbase. Further, balancing soloing for as many classes as EQ has would be a logistical nightmare.

When I have more time, I will make a list of 5 things, just for fun.

AG flagging is something I did not finish before I left, and I do agree, that at least how it was, was a model of poorly designed quests and flagging.

Since I was the one who suggested having 'guest' articles, I probably should put up or shut up. Expect an email next day or so with a couple ideas.

Also Loral, if you are 'working' at any point while playing EQ, it is definatly time to move on to other games. Games should never feel like work. I played EQ for 6ish years, from total casual to hardcore raider, and it never really felt like work to me. I enjoyed even the most difficult challenges.

Keisa, I find the angst between WoW and EQ players to be more competitive in nature, than bad spirits. We like to think the game we find better, is the better game, and forget that the best game is just the one that we, individually, enjoy the most. I know I have been guilty of doing just that more than once.

Wilbur, not one expansion, not even the most exclusionary(PoP) only has 5 to 10 % of it's content unavailable to the majority of players. Most of the expansions have had 90 % or so available to the majority of nonraiders. The current design philosophy seems to be to have raid zones be instinces of nonraid zones, so realistically, nonraiders can see all the zones, and just skip the raiding part they do not want to take part in. This strikes me as a decent balance.

Comment Posted by: Loral on January 24, 2008 05:59 PM

Redhanna,

I was hoping I might get an email from you. I look forward to it.

A couple of points:

Most of the recommendations I threw down I DON'T recommend because it would change the game a lot and risk alienating the players they have remaining.

On the gear reset, I haven't done too much study but I don't think SoF gave non-raiders the equivalent of Ashengate raid gear at level 76.

By the time a WoW player hit level 65, they had very likely replaced every single piece of gear they might have gotten at level 60 from the highest raid zones. That is a real gear reset. I've seen some of the group gear in SoF and it had definite limitations over gear from two or three expansions back. It doesn't feel like a full gear reset to me.

Player models haven't moved since Smed told me they were going to do it at the first guild summit over three years ago. We have Drakkans and that is it. The human model still hasn't been released yet.

As far as solo content, I don't think one can reasonably expect a cleric to solo from 1 to 80 in EQ. Again, I'm not saying they should, but it isn't there now and that makes it less accessible for new players.

Again, I look forward to your proposals.

Loral

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 24, 2008 06:37 PM

Loral, On gear resets: In EQ2, RoK provided a gear reset like you talked about, with many raiders replacing some/most of their raid gear with quest/dropped gear in RoK, and will then be replaced again(mostly) by RoK raiding. This has not been well recieved by large segments of the playerbase. I think that, when some one with better than average raid gear is surpassed by groupers in a years time, that is a pretty significant gear reset, and about the best that would be good for the game. I agree that there are some issues with how raid and group gear is balanced, but I think things have improved because of what looks to me like a 'gear reset'.

We have not seen new models yet, that does not mean it is not being worked on. I dunno how difficult a project it is, nor how expensive, but to the best of my knowledge, they are still being worked on.

Cleric solo is an interesting thing, in that clerics actually get better at it as they level up. At higher level, clerics are one of the best 'big game hunter' soloers, if not the best, and can solo pretty effectively.

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on January 25, 2008 01:56 AM

Redhenna,

First, you are correct, CoA was probably a poor choice. That said, I think given the environment, it would take an intervention from an impartial arbitrator in order to determine two to three comprable raids between the games that people would work on comparing fairly.

Next, just a quick observation. I played EQ for a solid 7 years, from approx. the week/month that the Nameless server was launched until roughtly the end of the first quarter last year.

During that time I played each class, and solo'd most of them at one time or another, most into the late 60's, many capping out level wise. I think all told when I quit I had just over 30 active character spread across a half dozen servers, the progression server included.

That said, I do agree that each EQ class can be solo'd.

However; a notation should be made here. My personal experience was that the ability to solo was largely dependant on extensive research, bank roll, and a question of what character class you chose to level first in order to give you access to resources needed to solo up others.

i.e. I would suggest that a new player without previous knowledge of existing spoiler sites, and pre-defined support via existing friends, starting a level 1 warrior, would find him/herself very frustrated as they tried to level through the 30's and 40's, and higher.

And while it is true that someone socially outgoing, outspoken, active on the chat channels, etc., will likely find ways to pick up people to play with, it's not by defacto true that everyone that joins an MMO starts out as socially outgoing, outspoken, and active on the chat channels.

Comment Posted by: playah on January 25, 2008 02:43 AM

Pffft...I'll never understand why some people refer to Everquest as a 'difficult' or 'challenging' game. My little brother started playing one of my accounts when he was 8 years old and got his character to level 65 in about 2 years of casual play. He even raided PoP for his flags. EQ is a simple game. WoW is a simple game. EQ just happens to be a larger timesink, which is fine. I guess my brother must be smarter than some of the posters here.

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on January 25, 2008 02:47 AM

Loral & Redhenna,

A quick note regarding Loral's comments on Power Resets.

All the follow up posts regards Power Resets seem to be fixed soley upon one factor: Gear.

What's missing is the combination not just of gear, by of the scaled factor of expansion design and AA points.

I mentioned in responce to an article back that SOE's single biggest marketing boondoggle, is they market an expansion and say it is for levels "60-80". When the truth is very different. The developers have to take into account some 1800 AA points. (We can save the discussion for how it was harder/easier to gain AA points 2 years ago post nerf/fix for another day).

In current EQ, when a developer is creating "challenging" content for level 75 character with gear X. He/she may also factoring in 500+ AA's. Enough so that plate wearing "tanks" have maxed offensive and defensive AA lines in many cases, which renders managable an encounter that would kill nearly instantly an identically geared 0 AA warrior.

In WoW however, a level 60 Warrior, who had full "epic" gear on the day Outland opened up quickly found he was gaining upgrades to his gear. He may have acheived level 60 4 months prior, and may have spent those 4 months going from "green" uncommon to "purple" epic gear, and might now be replacing it with common gear that anyone else would use, however that level 60 epic gear was better than most level 64 gear. He gained a tactic advantage over others at the launch of the expansion. Further, during the 4 months he was gaining his level 60 epic gear he was better equiped to explore what was at that time the top tier of areas.

That said, at level 64 the warrior still wearing his level 60 epic gear with a few possible now green upgrades is not overwhelmingly more powerful than the newly level 64 warrior that never got any level 60 epic gear and has only ever had uncommon green gear.

Simply put there is no possible way for SOE to perform a "Power Reset" in EQ without either;
A) Giving all level X characters Y AA's free when they buy the new expansion.
b) Reducing every characters level who has fewer than X AA to level Y and locking out access to expansion A,B & C, and then requiring characters to gain X AA's prior to "unlocking" the ability to level and "unlocking" access to a new expansion.

My simple best advise is SOE needs to publish an honest zone by zone break out of how many AA's they factored into each classes ability to survive/thrive in each zone, both for past and future expansions.

Comment Posted by: Wholy on January 25, 2008 10:36 PM

EQ's biggest problem is that its too hard for a person to start from scratch and ever catch up. In WoW its very easy to get started and reach a point where you feel powerful and accomplished in the latest content.
To compare the two:
In EQ, you have to level to 80, you have to amass gear, find spells spread out thru multiple expansions that are largely abandoned, and earn and spend probably at minimum 800 aa's at this point to be able to reliably accomplish being an effective player. Not to mention that you need to spend those AA's properly, with no way to refund a misspent AA. The class you pick will be good at one role in grouping, and at best be adequate to poor in another. There are few exceptions to this. Few classes can accomplish this solo.

In WoW you need to level to 70, gain gear, spend your 61 talent points you automatically accrue in defined trees. Every class can solo effectively, your spells/abilities are learned from a trainer, and every class choice has multiple playstyles available to them depending on their choice of spec. And any time you don't like how you've spent your points, you can pony up some in-game currency and your points are refunded.

Comment Posted by: Loral on January 26, 2008 11:23 PM

I just finished my first run through Karazhan - the latter six bosses. Now THAT is a raid!

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 27, 2008 02:31 AM

Oh shut up!

Comment Posted by: Krzz on January 27, 2008 04:41 PM

What wholly said is 100% true. I attempted to come back to Norrath. My guild was gone, my friends all quit. I put my head down and started progressing with an enchanter.

There is a serious problem when a game that is organized around grouping can't provide enough people to group with. Even TSS newbie quests were deserted during EST peak. I gave up on my enchanter and rolled a beastlord. After soloing for something like 60 hours and reaching level 54, I gave up. I kept looking around in chat for people wanting to group. I had a few players I occasionally logged in and played with which was nice, but I could not make any sort of regular progression in a group.

Gone are the days where you could go to a select zone (LOIO, Great Divide, even the hotzones) and find a group. At the high end I had finally managed to get into a small guild, but everyone was several levels above me and no one seemed particularly interested in grouping down.

I looked over my options. I could press on with grinding for another 40+ hours and get to level 60 where there was some semblance of a group game. At that point I would have to begin grinding 100s of AAs and accumulating a lot of high end gear of the course of numerous hours, with a high probability of being LFG in the game many nights running.

I could attempt to social network with the sole purpose of being a worm -- make friends in a high level guild, get PLed and catch up (slimy).

Or I could load SOE's website and cancel my subscription.

Ultimately I canceled my subscription.

I'm not a game designer. I don't profess to know the basics of DnD, or GURPS. I don't know about lifecycles for games. I do know some people will continue to play EQ even after the servers have been virtualized and placed on extended support mode. I can say this with certainty because there are still some people that play wizardry. That is not a place that I really want to See EQ go as it was my escape from the world during very difficult times, but it looks like that is where it is heading.

SOE is just screwed when it comes to Everquest. They can't make the game attractive to new players without a lot of money and they can't get a lot of money without new players. I imagine their model for game development was always based around having more people coming in than were leaving the game. Just like the old content that sits unused.

Players that do start are much more interested in grinding up to the raid game (What EQ still 'has' over WOW) than wanting to explore the world and form groups for the purpose of questing into the unknown.

I guess With Loral's excellent review, I will try WoW.

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 28, 2008 03:21 AM

[No personal attacks. And no, this isn't the real Redhanna. The IPs aren't even close. - Loral]

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 28, 2008 07:13 PM

Krzz, just so you know: There is some one who finds it neccessary to post under my name here, and spout insults to people. Mostly I have adopted a policy of just ignoring them, and find them kinda complimentary in a way, that some one cares enough about me to use the anonymity of the internet to try and mess with my reputation.

Unfortunatly, in this case, you have no way of knowing this, and just see some one mindlessly insulting you. Be aware, the insult is actually directed at me, not you. Your issues with EQ are real, and i doubt anyone is going to deny that. Eq is not new player friendly right now, and probably won't be untill SoE puts resources into gaining new players, something they have shown no interest in doing.

Above all, if you are not having fun playing a game, it is, for sure, time to try something different. Personally, I would recommend against WoW(I just find it not fun), but would recommend EQ2, which, while flawed, is alot of fun, and great for new players yet.

Again, I appologive for the actions of whoever it is posting using my name, who insulted your comments. While I did not make the comments myself, they are made under my name, and I feel bad about them, that some one uninvolved had their legitimate thoughts made less of.

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on January 28, 2008 08:09 PM

Krzz,

First I've gotta tell you, Redhenna is being honeset when they tell you someone has taken to immitaion. The Redhenna we all respect is at least articulate while chewing on your spleen, and will explain to you why it is your spleen is not up to par.

That said, Redhenna is correct in that EQ as it is right now is simply not up to the task of welcoming new hobbiest or casual players. Well conntect hard-core/raiders will find it a good game, with lots and lots of things to chew through.

I do disagree with Redhenna with regards to WoW. My best advice is take advantage of both EQ2 and WoW's trial subscriptions. Both are games with a fair level of polish.

Comment Posted by: redhenna on January 28, 2008 08:14 PM

Good point. I have grown to love free trials for MMO's. A great free trial game in Eve Online as well, it has a wonderfull tutorial, and spectacular graphics that make just seeing the universe worth the cost of the free trial.

Comment Posted by: Neutrino on January 29, 2008 01:58 PM

Krizz's post is exactly the problem i see with EQ, but its not limited only to Loral's domain of the low level player. Even at max level, finding a group is not an easy thing, let alone finding a group that is willing to do something thats actually useful to you in terms of quests. Generally, effective grouping is limited to those in little social cliques or people like me who decide to develop strong box characters that can be used to simulate "soloing".

The last time i remember a truly healthy "lfg game" in eq was in ldon. In part it was because there were a small number of goals to reach and thus you didn't get the kind of "quest fragmentation" that occurs when everyone needs 50 different non-interchangeable quests. But part of it was also that ldon was "easy" - you could accomplish something without the perfect group of heavily geared toons that were all played by nobel prize-winning physicists. Nowadays, adding anything of that nature ilicits the cries of "easy button" from the board elitists and endless droning about balancing reward with risk. I think this attitude has hurt EQ more than anything - that its unacceptable to be able to work on a longer, "easier" path to accomplish the same goal.

Comment Posted by: Keisa on January 30, 2008 10:48 AM

Having to have the perfect group is a myth, perpetuated by players that feel they are not able to accoumplish things without it. I have never been one to worry about having the perfect group. Unless I have a goal that has specific constraints, for instance it is really difficult for us to go into the crypt in Hills of Shade without a chanter, then I will generally gather up people from our guild as they log in and go do something someone in the group needs.

The fact is that there are now literally hundreds of quests that can be done solo, duo, or in small groups. Some of the quests will require a good group, but there is almost always a way to be productive with an unconventional group or even a duo.

Occasionally, I will form a group to do a specific task with specific grouping constraints. However, that is not the norm.

I think people who box characters fall into the same cluster of people who feel they can't progress without the perfect group. They feel they can't handle some event without some key class, and if they get frustrated looking for said class long enough, they search for another solution. The very solution further isolates them, and they lose skills they had for finding and grouping with other players.

you mentioned cliques. Strictly stated, I agree with you somewhat, but I think you view them wrong. In my clique, I have friends that care about my progress, and I care about theirs. When we get together, we work towards someone's goals in the clique. I don't always get to work on things I want to accomplish. Sometimes, I help my friends accomplish their goals instead. Later, they all help me with mine. That's what makes the whole thing work and makes it beneficial to us all. We all get to progress faster than we could on our own because we all support each other.

If you only want to get on and do things that help you, then you will never get that kind of cooperation, and you are stuck working with other people who only want to do things that help themselves. The only way you will find a group to do what you want to do is if you find others who need the same things you do. With hundreds of quests available to everyone, and fewer people looking for things to do, that gets less and less likely to occur.

I wish you the best.
Keisa

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on January 30, 2008 11:43 PM

Keisa,

First let me say that while I agree with you up to a point, I have to disagree with you also.

Yes, you are correct that to some extent EQ has lots to do that can be solo'd.

That said, many of those quests, depending on your class, are pretty much just a way to kill time by the time you can actually solo them.

Let me give an example. A Necromancer at level 70 with 300 AA spent in maxing out his DoT spell lines can perform any number of "Tasks", and gain some coin and exp for the time and effort. That said, the same Necromancer could also probably gain 5x the exp solo'ing mobs for AA exp in the same time frame.

Conversely, a level 55 Warrior with no AA's, and no serious bank roll in order to buy Bazzar sold gear, may both find that solo'ing is out, and that if he does get a group, he's shunned for not having better gear. If he tries to take up the trade skills to make better gear, he may find he's not able to solo the mobs needed for the drops to make the armor. In effect he may find he's forced to grind hundreds of man hours on low level "safe to solo" mobs, that generate no exp, in order to bank roll better gear.

To the best of my knowledge, no other game on the market has a game system, and player community, where a player is so dependant both on an "alternate abilty" system that's not keyed to level advancement, and to possesion of gear that usually drops from creatures that the player cannot actually defeat at the level they need the gear.

Admittedly, once a player passes a certain threshold of gear and aa's and reaches a median point where the prime time player base for that server finds them acceptable, the issues drop. However until reaching that median point, EQ is simply put, a game filled with hours of toil vs. very little return.

So, yes, there's litterally thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of hours of things to do when you cannot find a group. But is grinding 20 hours of your life in Eruds Crossing for zombie drops so you can raise your trade skill one more notch, when your level 70 really a definition of "fun" in todays MMO world?

Comment Posted by: Neutrino on January 31, 2008 12:47 AM

Yes thats exactly how i see the cliques operating, and i really dislike it. Its precisely why i liked ldon so much better. You work for your benefit and others work simultaneously for theirs. You walk away at the end of the night, and if you never see the people you grouped with again nobody "owes" anyone else anything. I didn't have to waste my time doing things that were of no substantial benefit in the hopes that others would reciprocate.

This kind of social bargaining is a blight on the game to me. Guilds i don't mind as much - there are rules and restrictions governing such things, be it a persistent dkp list or even just some officer's thinking on who should get the next loot. With groups, however, there's really nothing to prevent someone from getting you to help them and then not bothering to help you in return. I'd rather go box by myself than see that happen.

Comment Posted by: Aenor the Betrayer on January 31, 2008 05:35 AM

While we're talking about finding new games to play post EQ, here's a quick not about the first year of Vanguard's release. Firstly, McQuaid and company ruined this game's chances of attracting a high population, not by favoring the raider over the casual player, but by trying to push the graphics envelope beyond what the market could bear.

I believe it's been said the original WoW cost $100m. Vanguard cost about $30m, many times what Verant was given to make EQ. It's clear that much of that $100m was spent on graphics optimization to make the game run on low end systems. You can play Vanguard on a computer you build for $500, but if you spend $1000 or more you still won't be impressed with Vanguard's performance.

And the graphics aren't that great. What they have over wow is that the game sticks closer to the high fantasy aesthetic, eschewing WoW's cartoonishness. What Vanguard also has over WoW, for me at least, is that it's a much more challenging and difficult game. It's kind of an "in between" game... not as hard as EQ, but significantly harder than WoW. You can solo in Vanguard all the way to 50 with some classes, and raids are limited to 18 people, much smaller than EQ's.

I've been playing free-for-all PvP since beta and although the population appears to be dwindling (which is bad because they already consolidated down to 4 servers), I enjoy the game a great deal and intend to keep playing for a long time. I've only been on a few Ancient Port Warehouse raids, but it's widely acknowledged that this is a very challenging and well-done raid zone with different strategies for every boss encounter.

If you're looking for the most overpowered class in the game it's bear shaman, a class which can wipe out entire groups in PvP. If you come to Sartok hit me up. My wolf shaman is Aenor and my warrior is Anarion.

Comment Posted by: Keisa on January 31, 2008 11:25 AM

Ghost,

Many, many people solo'd most of the skeletal hand aug quest which was widely recognized as the best TBS augment available to anyone but the top end raiders. I don't know if they have better augs. In my mid level raiding guild, it became the past time focus of most of the members of the guild. People still go back and work on those tasks. Furthermore those tasks gave good experience (blue to yellow mobs). It was a great environment provided by the developers for everyone to solo in the game.

Dragonshard Hills in the SOF expansion is specifically designed to allow for many people to be able to solo mobs (especially melees... even warriors), and provides solid upgrades for any grouper for non-visible gear. There are numerous quests that provide a good framework for experience for everyone. The drops from named, which are approximately Anguish quality, are stupid easy to collect. As you move to higher end zones, they require more and more grouping, or a solid soloing class, but the two entry zones have an insane amount of solo/duo content.

It seems that every expansion now, SOE provides some framework for players to be able to solo in a meaningful way. It isn't the focus of the game. It may not be the most beneficial advancement method, but it is productive and good AAs unless you are undergeared.

I disagree with your view that it is hard to gear up, too. Now days, providing someone has the patience, they can make any amount of money in the bazaar and with low level tradeskills that they want. I know at least three recipees that will double your investment on purchasable items or low end bazaar stuff into items tradeskillers will snap up instantly. If you are really patient, you can tripple your money on sales.

Good gear is cheaper than every in the bazaar, and a frugal buyer can deck out a low level character in good quality gear that will last him for many levels. By the time he reaches mid level, he should have more than enough money to gear up, and the same is true for the high end games. By the time he can group in Dragonshard Hills, he can farm drops and equip himself adequately.

I'm not saying the game is best played solo, but neither is it the desolate wasteland some people make it out to be.

Keisa

Comment Posted by: Keisa on January 31, 2008 11:48 AM

Neutrino,

It is obvious that we view the game much differently and get different things out of it. Where you look at the value of playing with others as only what they can do for you, I view them as my fellow playmates. In fact, it is more important to me that I am spending time with my friends than what we specifically do in the game.

You view it as a clique (I used your word when responding to you), but I view it as a circle of friends/play mates. We enjoy spending time together. The game provides a framework for getting together and activities for us to do while together. Getting that bright and shiney object isn't all as important as the fun we have while getting it.

Since you appear to get nothing from contact with others, perhaps you'd be happier in a game that player contact is less tangent, consequential, and is briefer. In WOW, LOTR, and other games like them, I was stunned that groups would instantly form for a task, then break up immediately when the task was done. Some people are so ingrained into that system that they didn't even say "goodbye," or "thank you for the group," when the task was over. They just clicked the disband button and off they went to the next task.

For me, it is the lack of the interaction with other players that most detracted from those games. No one seemed to care about anyone around them. They were merely fixtures in the game, somewhat like NPCs. To me, those games seem desolate and without character, little different than playing a stand alone RPG.

You appear to view contact with other players as a big Quid Pro Quo system. I'll do something for you if you do something for me. You don't want to waste your time helping someone else if it doesn't work towards one of your goals.

I don't think we'll ever play together, that we'd ever want to play together. We view the game too differently. I think it is why you have troubles finding groups and why I never go for want of a group. I have a large pool of players that support my play style, while you have fewer that evjoy yours. Furthermore, the people who do have your play style will have extreme difficulty finding a common cause.

At any rate, the game is large enough for all of us, and I wish you the best in your game.

Keisa

Comment Posted by: Eqdoktor on January 31, 2008 01:38 PM

Loral has just moved on from EQ1. Just like half my guild leaving for EQ2 and the other half for WoW. C'mon even SOE has moved on from EQ1 - every new expansion is just unimaginative mudflation and flagging time sinks. They built EQ2 and bought into Vanguard didn't they? Nowadays, I feel as if the only ones playing EQ are masochists, ADD sufferers and people who use it as an expensive chat program.

Comment Posted by: Typodruid fummblefingers on January 31, 2008 02:17 PM

First, let me begin by introducing myself and letting you know I am a long time lurker and first time poster. I played a druid on the Quellious server, in the Guild Radiant, OY to all my old guildmates, from August of 99 up until the release of WoW. I hope this does not discredit what I have to offer. It has been entertaining over the past few years to read peoples responses in which they make sweeping points about games they either haven't played very much or haven't played for years.

The point I think most people miss is its not just the game or technology changing it is the player as well. When I first started EQ I was a single twenty something, now I am a thirty something married father. What I could once do, as far as play time and complete attention to the game, is not the case anymore.

Before I begin to rammble and become incoherent my point is that not only have we as players changed but the marketplace has changed, attracting a younger crowd of player that may or may not have the same game ettiquette that us old schoolers have, I have found this to be very infuriating at times but deal with it.

No game is perfect. I have tried almost all the "main" MMO's around EQ, DaoC, Horizons, LoTRo, WoW, Eve, SWG, Matrix, CoH/CoV, Shadowbane, EQ2, Vanguard and quite a few more and I have found things I enjoy and things I absolutely detest about each but the thing that either keeps me or brings me to a game is CHANGE, as much as we all claim to love the old times, the thing we actualy love about them is the enjoyment we got out of doing things for the first few times. Change is a necessity int the MMO market not only for the commercial success of a game but for the true loyal playerbase as well. My advice is to keep to your old school ideals but embrace change, be more open to trying new things if not new games and just flat out enjoy the game you play or find another.

Just my off topic two cents I wanted to add.

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on January 31, 2008 03:22 PM

Neutrino, Keisha pretty much nailed it, but to add my 2 cents to the clique thing. If you see it as "I will do this for you if you do that for me", you will have a negative view, as that is pretty negative. Instead, what I found was a circle of people, and we wanted to do for each other, not because it meant doing something for ourselves later, but just because we liked each other, and wanted to help each other. To my mind, that is a total positive. If a clique forms around people who just enjoy each others company, getting things done for each and all is an inevitability, and the most fun is had doing for others.

Typodruid, wonderfull post, and some good points. The average EQ player today is significantly different that the average player when I started playing. The average age has gone up significantly for one thing, and that college kid who started playing a few years ago is married with children now. A friend from EQ was telling me just a couple days ago about his new daughter, who only laughs for him(well, he says at him, but he is still proud of that), and the pride and happyness he has in her somehow came right through the text onscreen.

Further, the market is nothing like what it was almost 9 years ago when EQ launched. I suspect that if EQ was launched today, with identical gameplay as classic EQ, but modern graphics, it would bomb.

You give the best advice: find what you enjoy, a game whose strength overcomes it weeknesses, and play it, and ignore those of us who say it is a 'bad' game. If EQ is your thing, so be it, have fun. If it is WoW, great, enjoy. EQ2, Eve, Vanguard, LotR, whatever. There are naysayers about them all(I should know, I am one from time to time), but games are about having fun, and if you are, who cares what some one else thinks.

Comment Posted by: Teremar on January 31, 2008 03:55 PM

I'm going to hijack this and take it back to Loral's topic. Sorry.

I pretty much agree with Loral's list, but let me add a few more. I'll have a lot more to add when he gets to weaknesses too.

1) The combat system is fun.

If EQ were a single player game, would anyone play it? Of course not. WoW? Well, maybe, for a while. Of course the point of an MMORPG is interaction, progression, etc. but there's no reason it can't have a fun combat system too.

2) Vital abilities are spread among many classes.

With the proper talent choices there are three classes that can tank, four that can heal, six that can CC. Yet they all do it in different ways and have different strengths and weaknesses. A mage can just cast a spell and turn a mob into a harmless sheep for a while, but a rogue has to sneak up behind it before the fight starts and hit it over the head, while a hunter has to sucker it into walking into a trap.

3) Different tactics are both viable and an expected part of play.

It often seemed to me that the EQ devs viewed anything but tank n' spank as borderline exploits and would have gotten rid of them if they dared, but WoW encourages things like AE'ing. Heck, some dungeons all but require it. Spreading out vital abilities (see #2) makes that feasible, since you can pretty much count on the group having what's required. This ties into Loral's point about the quality of the instances.

No, it's not all sunshine and roses. But I'll add my list of weaknesses to Loral's.

Comment Posted by: Neutrino on February 1, 2008 10:54 AM

Really i would prefer that kind of game, but i have no idea if WoW is really like that. It all boils down to whether there is a large enough pool of players from which to form groups. In EQ, there are hundreds of quests, and you'd need several hundred or even thousands on the lfg list to really be able to form groups where everyone is getting something done they need rather than doing random things that don't help you to encourage others to do the same. The game (eq1) isn't really big enough for what i would like to see from a grouping perspective, but i really don't have any idea if WoW is actually different and my understanding is that the raids are poorer.

Whether you call it a clique or "circle of friends" its really the same thing. And like with any form of pack mentality, the extended group is never going to "inevitably get things done for each and all". There are always going to be alpha dogs, who benefit more from their effort than others, followers, and those at the bottom of the social order who put in more effort for less of the reward of the extended group as a whole. Its an inevitability in any social grouping that isn't supported by a rigid structure like the dkp policy of a guild. I suppose i simply have an indordinately low tolerance for the inequities of such cliques.

On the topic of one of the strengths of WoW being "different tactics" i would say 2 things. For one, i've never heard of any asymmetric tactics in WoW to compare to the types of things people did in EQ that were seen as borderline exploits. No charm mobs soloing raid mobs, no AE dot kiting entire zones at a time, no rampage earthshaking entire zones, etc. So in that regard i don't think the wow devs are any more tolerant of "different tactics" simply because they didn't let anything that was quite so abusive slip through. However, i would definitely agree they spread out the "vital abilities" much better. Mostly i find this to be a result of one thing: in eq you have 16 classes vying for 6 group spots. In WoW, its 7 (8 now maybe?) classes vying for 5 slots. The result is you have far fewer imbalances in the classes because there are fewer of them to fill the roles and groupspots. I've always thought that was one of the smartest things the WoW devs did from the start.

Comment Posted by: Keisa on February 1, 2008 12:23 PM

Neutrino,

You hit on an interesting topic, which I think deserves more discussion. I found your description of the roles in a �clique� somewhat accurate, but with some flaws. I think that is because you have a very simple viewpoint that combines a lot of traits into easy to consume stereotypes.

In your description, I�m definitely your alpha dog, and I run with a pack of alpha dogs. We work hard to press the envelope of whatever we�re doing. When my friends aren�t around, I�m working on my own quests, soloing the things I can, building faction, testing mob�s capabilities as well as my own, and assessing what will be needed to accomplish some task. I have a list of somewhere in the order of 100 tasks I want to accomplish, so I�m never without things to accomplish in the game. When people log in, I invite them into my group, and we start talking about things to do. I generally ask others for things they need first, and believe it or not, like working on their stuff as much as mine, because it provides variety to the game. The worst thing for me is to get stuck in a rut doing the same things over and over. If no one in the group has anything they want to do, then I offer up a few of my own tasks. Sometimes, like this coming weekend, I have plans to complete a specific task and plan to build a group to do it.

I agree that there are followers, people who don�t seem to have too many goals in the game. When asked what they want in a play session, it�s almost always �Exp, AAs, etc.� There�s really not a lot to say about this group.

There are people in the bottom of the social order, but I disagree with you on their contribution to the whole. To address this properly without browbeating them, I want to take this discussion off to the side and create some definitions.

I tend to use some attributes to define players. These attributes determine how I think of them, and how likely I am to want to play with them and help them.

Givers: people who contribute their time as a whole to others. Some people are only interested in themselves. Others are huge givers. They spend large amounts of time helping other people. Many guilds have a guild mom, who will take new members under their wing and ensures that they have all their flags, etc. Another kind of giver is someone who is generally ahead of everyone else on quests and helps people along to get flags and tasks done. Guild tradeskillers work hard to get their skills up and the tradeskill quests done so they can equip other members of the guild. These people are worth any time you spend helping them and encouraging them.

Takers: people who consume the efforts of others. Before you go off on this one, I want to point out that it is not all bad, and to some degree, we are all takers. The game is designed around working with others towards goals. Many goals cannot be accomplished without others. Some people take a lot more than they give, however. They take and take and give nothing back. Some people aren�t satisfied that you give your time, you are expected to tell them how to get their stuff for them. In fact, they think they are entitled to your efforts in fixing their problems, getting their stuff, even telling them what they have to do.

Now, if we consider someone�s relative value as +giver �taker, then you can determine how well they support the clan and how much effort you want to put in supporting them. Your stratifying alpha dog�follower�bottom of the order and implying that the bottom did all the work and reaped none of the rewards was really a simple view of the world.

In the group I run with, the alpha dogs put out, are the primary givers in the group, bust their tails to not only get their quests done, but help others. Our group flagged for Crystallos, and encouraged, cajoled, prodded, pushed, and helped the entire guild get mains and alts flagged, anyone who had the gumption to actually get up and do what they needed to do. We get support from the guild for things we want, but by and large, we give better than we get.

There are givers on the low end of the social order too. I�ve seen people there who never ask for anything, and support pretty much whatever is going on. That is not always the case. There are always those people at the bottom who complain that they don�t get their share, when their contribution to the effort is zip, nada, nothing.

Generally, if you want to be in a reasonable position in any organization, make what you contribute more than what you take, and leave all your extra baggage at the door.

Wow, this got long, so I chopped out some other attributes, like fun to be around and game knowledge. They weren�t really pertinent to the topic.

Good luck and good hunting,
Keisa

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on February 1, 2008 03:05 PM

Keisha beats me again! Neutrino, what you descibe does happen, no doubt, but that is not neccessarily what will happen in any particular clique. Cliques, like most anything, can be a positive, or a negative, or more usually, some of both.

Personally, I don't even like the word 'clique' for it's negative connotations. I prefer 'circle of friends'. Cliques tend to be exclusionary, circles of friends are more open. I considered my circle of friends to be anyone in my guild, and some outside the guild.

Let me describe how we operated. During raids, some one(usually me, I was probably the 'alpha dog') would send tells 'Group after raid?'. I usually gathered 4 or 5 people at that time. Once raid was over, would invite those I had sent tells to, ask in guild chat to fill any other holes, and start talking in group what we wanted to do. People would speak up with what they wanted to do, and once we had 6 people, would pick something, usually for whomever was furthest behind if it was progression type stuff.

Our circle of friends group usually had 4 to 5 regulars, but kept at least one spot to rotate among other people, since grouping with people who where not regulars was fun too. One of our semi-regulars was a bard who was handicapped in RL, and a mother, and as such, had limited playtime. We frequently would just go and grind exp as fast as we could, despite some of us being capped for exp, just to help catch her AA total up with the rest of the guild. We enjoyed this because we liked each other, and the company we were keeping was far more important that what we did.

Yes, if you want, you could find negatives in what we did. I do not claim to be perfect. I was the 'Alpha dog', and we probably did what I wanted more often than others(as I look back on it, more often than I like to admit), but mostly what we were was a bunch of friends who enjoyed each others company, and no one among the circle ever went long without finishing what they wanted to finish if we could help it. Further, since our core had great familiarity with each other, and we were often among the first to finish quests, we frequently redid those quests for others who joined us for the night...and enjoyed doing that, and enjoyed that helping aspect.

In the long run, most online games are social games, and those who develop a strong group of friends will, naturally, do better than those who don't. This is not something to be ashamed of, or appologize for.

Comment Posted by: Krylax on February 3, 2008 04:55 PM

Five strengths of WoW for me:

1. Lots of solo content.

Say what you want about mmo's being group games , I still like to solo. But I also like to have other people in the game around me. I know that might not make alot of sense, but single person games just seem kinda lonely.

2.Equipment progression.

I guess it's the little kid in me but I like to get new, shiny toys. Often. In WoW I pick up something new almost everytime I play. Maybe it's an instant gratification thing, but it's what I like.

3.Diversity of the Classes.

Every class gets a great bag of tricks. Lots of variety. Each class can do multiple thigs well.

4.Power resets/ No AA's.

This keeps me from feeling like I'm getting too far behind. Again, I know it dosen't make alot of sense. It really shouldn't matter to me how far behind or ahead I am compared to other players but for some reason it does. This is the biggest reason I left EQ and probably the biggest reason I don't go back.

5. Fun factor.

Hard to explain this one exactly, but I just have alot of fun playing WoW. People I meet don't seem to take the game too seriously. No real death penalty means I will go anywhere and try anything. If I die, no big deal. I'm back on my feet and good to go again in a couple minutes and ready to try again.

Combine this with a great UI and really nice graphics (sorry Red, I just like them) and a story line I liked back in the day when Warcraft was a single player game and I'd never even heard the phrase MMO and it just adds up to a very enjoyable playing experience.

I know it's not for everyone, but it works for me.

Comment Posted by: Mellifleur on February 4, 2008 12:00 PM

For over three years, World of Warcraft has dominated the massive multiplayer online market. With over nine million players and a billion dollar merger between Blizzard, Activision, and Vivindi; the impact of WoW cannot be dismissed.
-------------------------------------------------
Or more like 2 million plyers with extra accounts..

Comment Posted by: Mellifleur on February 4, 2008 12:02 PM

4.Power resets/ No AA's.

Then please stop writing reviews for Everquest seeing you DONT PLAY IT

Comment Posted by: Ogulbuk on February 4, 2008 12:27 PM

I don�t play EQ anymore, have not for many years and likely will never again for many reasons. However, I do have to agree that this site was meant to be an EQ site. In the last years it has lost a lot. Even long after I quit, I would come here to see the latest patch note dissection, an objective discussion of the repercussions of the latest changes to the game, and discussion of the latest in game events.

I doubt EQ stopped doing Halloween and Christmas events, however I heard nothing about those this year. I have no longer any clue who the biggest Guild is, is it still FoH? Who was the first to beat the latest expansion and how? That was a great thing of Mobhunter that has faded.

Loral, it is fine to get articles like this on other stuff once in a while, but EQ needs a site like what Mobhunter used to be. Regardless of insignificance, EQ needs a site that will highlight the good things of the latest patches in an objective fashion, while also bring to light the fouls, no matter how small either side be.

Comment Posted by: Krylax on February 4, 2008 07:26 PM

"Then please stop writing reviews for Everquest seeing you DONT PLAY IT"
.......................

LOL. I really don't think that the one sentence I wrote mentioning EQ constitutes a "review". Is there a rule at Loral's site that states you have to be a current EQ player to even mention the game ?

Comment Posted by: Teremar on February 5, 2008 01:12 AM

Neutrino--think of the set of "approved" tactics in EQ as a relatively small box, but one with weak sides. Thus it was easy to get outside the box and do things the devs never anticipated--usually unbalanced things. WoW gives you a much larger box of tactics, but it really does keep you in it.

"Loral, it is fine to get articles like this on other stuff once in a while, but EQ needs a site like what Mobhunter used to be." And it is Loral's responsibility to provide it? Don't be ridiculous--as he said, he couldn't if he wanted to because he's not actively playing the game. Those who want an EQ discussion site should go find themselves a blog host and make one. Except Loral invited people to send him articles, so you don't even have to do that. I know you're not playing right now either Ogulbuk, but those who are should put up or shut up. Meanwhile, if you don't like what Mobhunter has become, don't read it. Simple as that. Loral owes EQ and the EQ community absolutely nothing.

Comment Posted by: Ogulbuk on February 5, 2008 11:08 AM

Teremar, it is the responsibility of a the manager of a website to manage it. Mobhunter is supposed to be an EQ site, THE original EQ blog, since before there were any blogs at all.

If Loral can't do it, he should had done like all managers before him and found some one that still plays the game and had some passion to keep the thing going. Excusing him of that responsibility is as ludicrous as ridding a 3rd generation raid guild leader from managing the guild and allowing it to disband. Sure, there is not true repercussions to anyone outside the gaming environment, but you are still, via your lack of interest, destroying what used to be a big community. I'm not saying that Loral has to do the job, but he should find some one. And no, posting a "help wanted" add in the feedback of an old article is not really putting the effort.

I have in the past backed up Loral under many poster's offenses, I never been a "Loral get the hell out of here" troll.

As for stopping reading, I barely read this site anymore, once every couple of months I remember and come back to see if there are any new articles, often to find nothing been posted in the time I have been ignoring the site.

Comment Posted by: Teremar on February 5, 2008 12:19 PM

You're right: Loral is not living up to his responsibilities. Dock his salary! Oh wait, he doesn't get one. In fact he pays to keep the site up. Seems to me that the person paying the bills can decide what a site is "supposed" to be.

And "all managers before him" would consist of...Moorgard, who handed Mobhunter over to Loral. That's it.

But Loral has abandoned the Mobhunter community! Well, large chunks of that community, I think the vast the majority of it, abandoned him when they abandoned EQ. Some of them then moved to WoW and I for one would love to see the Mobhunter community reform around WoW if Loral remains interested in it.

But it has never been as symmetrical as a raid guild, where everyone puts in time and everyone needs the organization to work in order for that time to lead to any rewards. The reason Mobhunter goes dead if Loral doesn't post is that Mobhunter is basically all about Loral and his insights. The rest of us read what he writes and maybe post a comment in response. Yeah, three or four people are happy to argue among themselves, but they can do that without him.

If I were still playing EQ I would be very disappointed that Loral had left that community, because he was a valuable member. But he wasn't a valuable member because he ran a web site called Mobhunter. Rather, the web site called Mobhunter had value to the community because that's where Loral posted his thoughts. Well, he doesn't have any more thoughts about EQ, not positive ones anyway, so that's that.

So, disappointed I can understand. Angry is another thing. Maybe Loral is failing to meet your expectations. But you've had all that EQ news you say you value for so many years due solely to his benevolence. If you're no longer getting what you want here, it seems to me that the proper response is a grateful farewell, not anger and accusations.

Meanwhile I'm looking forward to Loral's next WoW article.

Comment Posted by: Ogulbuk on February 5, 2008 05:11 PM

There have been other people involved in Mobhunter. The last one decided himself to step down because his own grumpiness with the game. He was the one that handed things over to Loral, as far as I know. Trying to remember his name now... Corell? Not sure...

Also, note I'm not angry when I state this, I am trying to be as objective as I can in the topic. IF Loral decides to switch the site to be focused on WoW instead, well, good for him, but make it official.

I myself, under a different handle and different game (no WoW) do my own "benevolence" to the community. And I know I owe even to the single person that may end up visiting my site in the end that I will stop doing what I'm doing if I was to quit that game or the work.

Again, I'm not angry here, my words are not of hate towards Loral, and other than saying he should find some one to take over, I'm not saying he must do anything.

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on February 5, 2008 06:22 PM

Loral is actively looking for some one to do articles about EQ. He is not turning the site away from EQ, but expanding the sites focus, which is a positive.

Comment Posted by: Loral on February 5, 2008 07:43 PM

Corey was the fellow who wrote after Moorgard and he did open it up to people who were interested in writing for Mobhunter as I did, with a notice looking for folks interested in doing so.

I plan to continue talking about gaming in general here. I'll talk about what I know. That may shift things away from EQ (and already has) but I think there's a pretty big sphere of interest in EQ players outside of the boundaries of the game. There were lots of people who played EQ who didn't read this site because what I wrote about didn't fit their interests even in game.

Back in Moorgard's day there were plenty of articles talking about other MMOs than EQ. This was never a sole EQ site, it just happened to end up that way because that is what the writers wrote about. There was no WoW back then. Nothing seriously competed against EQ.

This Friday we'll have an article from our very own Redhanna talking exclusively about EQ, so the site has far from abandoned EQ.

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on February 5, 2008 09:11 PM

An article from Redhanna? That almost implies I have to disagree with it. Or wait, agree to disagree with it? Hmmm, I think I need to double check, am I pro or con with Redhenna this week? Red, do you know which?

Anyway, looking forward to it either way.

Comment Posted by: Redhenna on February 6, 2008 01:24 AM

I would go with 'con'.

Oh, and FYI, word counts SUCK!

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on February 6, 2008 02:26 AM

Redhenna,

Got it! /pvp

I'll pull out my lexicon and prepare the vitriol.

/salute!

See you on Friday.

Comment Posted by: Nolrog on February 7, 2008 01:36 PM

QUOTE: This Friday we'll have an article from our very own Redhanna talking exclusively about EQ, so the site has far from abandoned EQ.

Looking forward to reading it.

Comment Posted by: Joost on February 8, 2008 12:47 AM

Coming back here for the first time since years. Well since Moorgard left. WoW needs Mobhunter.com. There is no site like that for WoW. Please post more about WoW

Comment Posted by: Floral on February 8, 2008 02:07 AM

"LOL. I really don't think that the one sentence I wrote mentioning EQ constitutes a "review". Is there a rule at Loral's site that states you have to be a current EQ player to even mention the game ?"

I think there should be such a rule just to shut Redhenna up.

Comment Posted by: Ghost of Shrek on February 8, 2008 11:08 AM

Why are you people ruining a perfectly good WoW article with all these inappropriate references to Everquest? If you want to discuss EQ go to one of the several dozen EQ fan sites. I mean, there must be several dozen at least given EQ's extreme popularity and superiority over other MMO's, right?

Post a new message.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Email Mike at mike@mikeshea.net for more questions or comments.