 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / May 2004Dear SOE: Please Stop EQ2
What follows are my opinons about EQ2. I will be sending in a /feedback with the URL to SOE, but I don't claim to represent my guild, the 7th Hammer player base or the EQ community in general. I'm just this guy, but I think what I'm about to say has been said inside of SOE already... what I cannot understand is why it's being ignored. The screenshots of EQ2 are lovely. The skill / character system sounds great. I've heard wonderful things about the game. Don't do it, please. I understand that many people have spent uncountable hours producing EQ2. I understand that it represents a new wave of retail sales. I understand that the EQ codebase is aging, and you want to move on. Still, I beg of you: don't do this, and if you think about it, you'll realize that those sales would be the one golden egg you would be left with after killing this very profitable goose. EverQuest has survived through the release of many seemingly unstoppable games including SOE's highly touted release of SWG, the TSR-based, and player-extensible NWN, and the very, very popular DAOC. It won't survive EQ2, and neither will EQ2. Why? Several reasons, but let's start with: Because WoW has generated so much excitement that it's going to pull away as much as 1/4-1/2 of the player base. That leaves a very depleted player base in EQ... that's ok, we've seen that before, and we'll see it again. If EQ continues to grow and develop, it will pull those players back over time. However, if you then further split the player base by releasing EQ2, several things will happen: * EQ2 will snowball into an EQ-sized game because of player-base size * EQ will shrink past the the ability to attract players back from WoW * Guilds and other community infrastructure will fall apart in EQ * New players will join EQ2, find limited community and leave, never seeing EQ A year ago, EQ2 might not have killed EQ, but it still would have been a bad idea. That's because EverQuest is not a video game, but an ongoing community and personal storyline. It doesn't work the way Pac Man does where players can just drop the game and pick up a new, improved version with little or no transition pain. EQ's code base might be aging, but being a software engineer I know that it's possible (not desirable, but possible) to slowly upgrade that code base in-place. Not in the rushed way that DX9 upgrades happened, but in the gradual way that warrior changes were phased in. The Bazaar could be SWG-ified. The old-world zones could be given instanced encounters as sub-zones. The skill system could be enhanced. The AA/AP/XP/LA systems could be unified more cleanly, all without throwing away the existing code (or at least not all at once). I started with EQ just afer Velious came out, and I'll stop just after EQ becomes unplayable due to lack of subscriber-base. At that time, I'll just switch to climing mountains for fun, and say a permanent and fond goodbye to my online friends. How many others like me are there? How many others who will go to WoW because you're "pushing them out"? How many who will go to CoH, NWN or some other non-MMOG? Please halt the release of EQ2. Re-consider the future of EQ and make retaining players your #1 priority. Thank you. -Deepone <Outsider Domination> 65 NEC of The Seventh Hammer. > What follows are my opinons about EQ2. I will be sending in a > /feedback with the URL to SOE, but I don't claim to represent my [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > -Deepone <Outsider Domination> 65 NEC of The Seventh Hammer. I started playing EQ about the second or third month after release. I read my first letter about EQ going poof and belly up then, I don't recall if it was a fan site eq forums or here but regardless... after 5 years of reading letters like this they may read to see valid points then /ignore or more likely /ignore and not read at all../shrug On 21 May 2004 11:00:09 -0700 in <722c36b7.0405211000.8b958bb@posting.google.com>, deepone@ajs.com (Deepone) graced the world with this thought: >Because WoW has generated >so much excitement that it's going to pull away as much as 1/4-1/2 of >the player base. Time's up. > Please halt the release of EQ2. Well spoken, but you and I both know that these sentiments won't get any kind of traction within SOE. The project is a go and there's already way too much momentum and infrastructure in place; no one's going to pull the plug at this stage. SOE is a business and now part of one of the world's premier consumer products companies. As such, corporate culture is going to make them keep looking for growth opportunities. EQ is just too long in the tooth. Although it has a very loyal customer base, I just don't see growth potential in this product any longer. If I recall correctly, recent numbers have shown that the EQ subscriber base is declining, not growing. It may not be a critical decline, but it probably doesn't look like anything like growth. I think it's a smart thing for them to start building a new foundation for the franchise, one that has real growth potential. WoW and others loom on the horizon and it seems a reasonable business strategy to try and fend off that threat by building a new venue for the game, one that plays to the strengths of the original, takes advantage of emerging technologies that add substance, and fully exploits the incumbent advantage. I have no idea if EQ2 has what it takes to do this, but I think if done correctly it's probably the best long term strategy for growth for the series. I'm no longer an EQ player and I don't have any current interest in going back, but I am very interested in EQ2 and plan on playing in the beta. Here's a way for SOE to capture someone like me (and there must be tens of thousands like me) and keep the customer base they've groomed all these years. But (and here's the kicker), I'm also very interested in WoW and eager to try that out. Man, this is going to be some race, eh? More than ever, timing will be critical. All other things being equal, whoever gets out first has the opportunity to capture a huge part of the audience that could go either way. And most of us don't have the cycles for more than one MMOG at a time and will likely hang our hat in one camp or the other. May the best product win our hearts! It's a great time to be an MMOG player!  SignatureWinterfury Thunderwolf Elder Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie > Man, this is going to be some race, eh? More than ever, timing will be > critical. All other things being equal, whoever gets out first has the > opportunity to capture a huge part of the audience that could go either way. Do you have any idea of the project release date for WoW? I am 90% certain that SOE is aiming at September for EQ2 release (based on the beta date and the date when they release the pre-order incentive), and 75% certain that they will achieve that goal. From what little I know, WoW is not scheduled to come out as soon, is it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Foxeye Vaeltaja Journeywoman Character Portrait Artist http://www.foxeye-art.com Foxeye 4 Kinetic/Psychic Magic Defender Bluejay 6 Invulnerability/Energy Natural Tanker Usenet 2 Fire/Fire Technology Blaster >> Man, this is going to be some race, eh? More than ever, timing will >> be critical. All other things being equal, whoever gets out first has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 75% certain that they will achieve that goal. From what little I > know, WoW is not scheduled to come out as soon, is it? I believe WoW was just pushed back into 2005 today according to friends who are on a mailing list for one of the online distributors. That said, I wouldn't put any substantial money on EQ2 being out much sooner. SignatureRumble > I believe WoW was just pushed back into 2005 today according to friends who > are on a mailing list for one of the online distributors. > > That said, I wouldn't put any substantial money on EQ2 being out much > sooner. I would agree with both these assessments, although history tells us that Blizzard is more likely to postpone the release longer than SOE. I believe SOE is going to shoot for a holiday release and will make it (whether the game is ready or not, witness Star Wars Galaxies). Blizzard's schedule is probably like Id's: "When it's done". The stakes are high, though, and Blizzard's never really played in this market so the usual rules of engagement may change. We'll see. SignatureWinterfury Thunderwolf Elder Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie >>I believe WoW was just pushed back into 2005 today according to friends > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Blizzard's never really played in this market so the usual rules of > engagement may change. We'll see. I think the mmog community has seen enough monstrously bungled releases that if Blizzard delays longer and has the smoothest launch to date it will count in they're favour much moreso than getting out earlier. Nothing hurts a MMOG more than 4000 reviews that conclude: come check this title again in 6 months to a year when its ready... 6 months to a year later there is no longer the launch press/media frenzy... will the public eye and the crowds really return 6 months later when its fixed? To play a title they've seen gathering dust on store shelves for those 6 months? I doubt it. I think getting it right at launch is going to count more than getting to launch first. >>>I believe WoW was just pushed back into 2005 today according to friends >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >that if Blizzard delays longer and has the smoothest launch to date it >will count in they're favour much moreso than getting out earlier. Yes.. but software companies know you can't develop in a f.cking vacuum... taking however long you want to 'get it done' and subsequently f.cking over your business timelines. If Worlds of Warcraft is delayed past the holidays they'll either up releasing in a downtime or having to hold it back even longer until they hit another marketing tide. At some point you HAVE to make your game go live.. and there will be bugs in the release.. i don't care how good you are. They can either sh.t or get off the pot..but delaying an MMORPG ad infinatum, especially while not giving finite dates so that the ad campeign can work in concert with the release, is highly counter-productive. There is no reason we should not have the date for when WoW *OR* EQ2 is going live if we can do the same things for motion pictures that cost $100+ million dollars. And if it does get delayed be able to tell how long, why the overrun on time, and the new release date. The mmorpg industry needs to grow up when it comes to this. >Nothing hurts a MMOG more than 4000 reviews that conclude: come check >this title again in 6 months to a year when its ready... 6 months to a >year later there is no longer the launch press/media frenzy... will the >public eye and the crowds really return 6 months later when its fixed? >To play a title they've seen gathering dust on store shelves for those 6 >months? I doubt it. The biggest marketing tool you have is your game.. period. And the players that want to play your game aren't going to give a sh.t about 4000 reviews.. they WILL try you out and see what you are looking to offer. And, for all the vocality of the userbase, mmorpg hardcorers are usually extremely patient while you iron things out.. especially if they think you have a winner. Also realize the second best marketing tool you have is WORD OF MOUTH. I didn't even HEAR about Everquest until 3 years after it was released, partly because of work, and when i did it came from friends of friends etc. Not some slick campeign.. just someone telling me about it. Right now.. WoW has a unique opportunity... they have a door open to them. One of the quirks of mmorpg's is that once a user identifies a game they like and want to work characters up in.. they tend to stay loyal.. refusing to double up on subscription and game costs between different games. At the moment... a good deal of the current mmorpg players have gotten frisky for something new. This happens rarely.. but when it does a mmorpg has a chance to launch... and bring a good deal of current users along with pulling in new users. In order to do that.. WoW *HAS* to hit the holiday mark and be released in roughly the same time frame as EQ2.. give or take a couple months. They get evaluated along with EQ2.. and they will pull users who decide WoW is the way to go. Longer than that and anybody allready immersed in EQ2 isn't going to give a sh.t about WoW, regardless of how good it is. >I think getting it right at launch is going to count more than getting >to launch first. It doesn't have to launch 'first'.. it simply has to be in the same time frame. EQ2 could come out.. then WoW a month or two later. They'll get evaluated together which is all WoW needs if its got the goods. -MJ > subsequently f.cking over your business timelines. If Worlds of > Warcraft is delayed past the holidays they'll either up releasing in a > downtime or having to hold it back even longer until they hit another > marketing tide. Blizzard has direct experience with this and the lesson they've learned is that getting it right is more critical to their longterm success. They released both Diablo and Starcraft *after* Christmas, well into January and missed the bulk of the holiday sales. And it not only didn't hurt them, it helped establish their reputation for "getting it right" and both those games went on to become classic, multi-million sellers. > The biggest marketing tool you have is your game.. period. And this is why Star Wars Galaxies, a game that was universally described as buggy beyond belief at launch, roundly criticized for just about everything except its crafting system, had its Jedi system ridiculed and lambasted to the point where they have had to completely overhaul and revamp the criteria TWICE, and overall considered one of the biggest disappointments of the year, right up with there with Masters of Orion 3, is *still* selling very well, resulting in the promotion of the Creative Director to his new spot as Creative Director for all of SOE products? Some games will make money hand over fist even with major problems at launch. Star Wars Galaxies is the perfect example, and the reasons usually cited in that case are a) the Star Wars license and b) the EverQuest management and resources. We can argue that they would have been more successful had they waited, but given the cost of delayed development and postponed ad campaigns, waiting was probably viewed internally as a net negative relative to putting it out and dealing with the problems in real time. I can't tell you how many times I've heard software management argue that putting a product out with known bugs will get the product ready for market sooner because of the exposure the product will get in the hands of users, an exposure that can't be duplicated in the test labs. These are the kinds of considerations a corporate entity like Sony will evaluate when it comes time to decide go/nogo. And so they launched SWG in June, despite an almost universal sense among testers, reviewers (and probably programmers) that the game wasn't ready for commercial release. Didn't matter, and management knew it. After all, this was "Star Wars, by the makers of EverQuest!". Talk about a license to print money. And we all proved them right. > And the players that want to play your game aren't going to give a sh.t about > 4000 reviews.. they WILL try you out and see what you are looking to > offer. That's generally true if the buzz and value proposition are sufficently compelling from the start ("Star Wars, by the makers of EverQuest!"). But "4000 bad reviews" is precisely why I didn't try Shadowbane, Horizons, of FFXI, and I'm as hardcore as they come in MMOGs. > And, for all the vocality of the userbase, mmorpg hardcorers > are usually extremely patient while you iron things out.. especially > if they think you have a winner. This I agree with, to a point. I was far more patient with UO and AO than most and happily patient with SWG, mostly because the bugs that were being screamed about the loudest didn't affect me as much as other players, but also because I knew they would be ironed out eventually. Still, it bothered me to know that the game's critical mass would be slowed as a result and these games are no fun if you're playing them alone ... (see, e.g., Asheron's Call 2). > Right now.. WoW has a unique opportunity... they have a door open to > them. One of the quirks of mmorpg's is that once a user identifies a > game they like and want to work characters up in.. they tend to stay > loyal.. refusing to double up on subscription and game costs between > different games. That's exactly why the timing is critical. Whoever gets to launch first is going to grab those players who could go either way, and once players have made their investment in their characters and are hooked by the action, they're a lot less likely to go try the other one. > >I think getting it right at launch is going to count more than getting > >to launch first. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They'll get evaluated together which is all WoW needs if its got the > goods. This statement seems contradictory to what you're saying above. If a user has identified a game he likes and starts working his characters up, he tends to stay loyal (using your words above). If a 2nd game comes along two months later (which is a lifetime for most games and can easily be well beyond the point of commitment in an MMOG), he's at that stage you describe and a lot less likely to try game 2. No, I think launch date is going to be a big factor, it certainly will be on the minds of both publishers as a major factor in gaining market share. I think this is less likely with Blizzard, but even with them it's hard to tell because they've undergone substantial change recently and they are owned now by the same kind of corporate entity that will be doing that brutal marketing evaluation of release timing vs. EQ2. It's my intention to try both of these games when they come out. It's also my clear intention to play only one of them (I don't have the cycles for more than one MMOG at a time). So, whichever one comes out first is the one I'm going to try first. If that game delivers enough of what I want from an MMOG, I probably won't even try the other one. The other thing that complicates all of this is the beta cycles. You could almost substitute "beta release" for "launch date" in the discussion above because playing through a beta may generate a similar level of loyalty as well as provide the kind of familiarity that gives players the edge they like having over the rest of the gaming public at release. Hell of a race to watch. SignatureBob Perez "Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they quit playing." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes >>Right now.. WoW has a unique opportunity... they have a door open to >>them. One of the quirks of mmorpg's is that once a user identifies a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > made their investment in their characters and are hooked by the action, > they're a lot less likely to go try the other one. Going to grab them yes... but if its not ready, and there are obvious problems... they will still be availble for the next title to grab provided it comes out within a few months. They aren't going to get hooked by the action or invested in their characters if the game is buggy, with login problems, crash to desktop problems, and broken content problems... Getting there first isn't necessarily a win. If you bungle it badly enough the players will still be uncommitted when the 2nd game arrives... and if the 2nd game is delivered well it will win. >>>I think getting it right at launch is going to count more than getting >>>to launch first. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>They'll get evaluated together which is all WoW needs if its got the >>goods. Exactly. > This statement seems contradictory to what you're saying above. If a user > has identified a game he likes and starts working his characters up, he [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm going to try first. If that game delivers enough of what I want from an > MMOG, I probably won't even try the other one. I thought you just said "It's my intention to try both of these games when they come out."... :) If EQ2 comes out first I'd still try WoW... its a different management company with different ideals... and EQ2, no matter how good it might be... it is still SOE, and all that that implies, and I haven't been satisfied with that. :) If WoW comes out first, I'll probably pass on EQ2.. I didn't even bother with the beta signup. I just don't care about EQ2... and won't even look at it unless I'm disapointed by WoW. > The other thing that complicates all of this is the beta cycles. You could > almost substitute "beta release" for "launch date" in the discussion above [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hell of a race to watch. Yeah. > Going to grab them yes... but if its not ready, and there are obvious > problems... they will still be availble for the next title to grab [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > characters if the game is buggy, with login problems, crash to desktop > problems, and broken content problems... Someone forgot to tell players of Star Wars Galaxies! On the server that my guild chose to start on, you could not log in the entire first day and a half of launch except for a couple of hours at the beginning of launch day. However, unlike any previous commercial MMMOG that I've ever known of or played, SWG made the decision to wipe all characters from the production, post-release servers, requiring all paying customers to start over. And this we couldn't do for a day and a half. After that day and a half, the bugs were legion. Factories broke and did not work at all for days at a time, crashes to desktop were common and predictable at certain locations, and content did not work. Theme Parks were completely broken, and faction HQ could not be destroyed by rivals. Everything you describe and more. Yet this server filled with players who got hooked by the action and invested in their characters. Sales continue to be brisk. But I understand your point. If all of the above happened AND there was a compelling alternative, then the chances are good that a lot of those players of SWG would have flocked to the alternative. And that's exactly what's different about this upcoming scenario. This time if something similar happens, there will be that opportunity. I bet this factored into Sony's thinking when it came time to decide on a release date for SWG. > > It's my intention to try both of these games when they come out. It's also > > my clear intention to play only one of them (I don't have the cycles for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I thought you just said "It's my intention to try both of these games > when they come out."... :) That's exactly why I used the word "intention". My point is that it's my "intention" and "desire" to try both, they both look very appealing to me. But I know that once I get hooked into one and start investing in that character, I'm not likely to want to go start over with a new game. If I get enough of what I want from the first one on the market, I probably won't even try the 2nd one to hit market, even though I'm highly interested right now. If I had a clear preference of one over the other now, as you do, it might be different, maybe I'd wait or play the first more "tentatively", but given the huge difference between the pre-game buzz and the release reality, I don't see how I could have that preference right now. Both look very promising to me and if the first one that comes to market delivers the goods, the 2nd one just isn't going to get a fair hearing from me because I'll be too busy enjoying the first. The thing is, there hasn't ever been this kind of situation before, where two world-class MMOG blockbusters-in-the-making are headed for what appears to be a simultaneous launch release. I think this is going to put some extraordinary pressures on both companies and I predict that SOE will yield to this pressure and release first (whether ready or not) and Blizzard will do what Blizzard has done in the past, wait till they believe they're ready. SignatureWinterfury Thunderwolf Elder Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie > But I understand your point. If all of the above happened AND there was a > compelling alternative, then the chances are good that a lot of those > players of SWG would have flocked to the alternative. And that's exactly > what's different about this upcoming scenario. This time if something > similar happens, there will be that opportunity. I bet this factored into > Sony's thinking when it came time to decide on a release date for SWG. Yeah. SWG is unique in that by definition there wouldn't be a compelling alternative. Even another sci-fi blockbuster production wouldn't be able to bandy the SW license around. I think the bottom line is there is a large group of people who would pay 15 bucks a month to be in a 'star wars' universe no matter how bad it was. >> subsequently f.cking over your business timelines. If Worlds of >> Warcraft is delayed past the holidays they'll either up releasing in a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >helped establish their reputation for "getting it right" and both those >games went on to become classic, multi-million sellers. You are also dealing with a different segment of the market, with different issues. If EQ2 gets people in the door and playing.. they're not going to suddenly jump to WoW upon its release. Something like Starcraft and Diablo, the other games in that market were very easy to let go.. and just take up Starcraft and Diablo to see how they work for you. If Blizzard thinks a 'one strategy fits all' is an option for all segments of the video game industry, they really need to reassess or get run over. >> The biggest marketing tool you have is your game.. period. > >And this is why Star Wars Galaxies, a game that was universally described as >buggy beyond belief at launch, roundly criticized for just about everything >except its crafting system, had its Jedi system ridiculed and lambasted to >the point where they have had to completely overhaul and revamp the criteria And yet they still have a good segment of the market. They also came out at a time when Everquest was still going strong. Nobody looks to come out with their core stuff still incomplete.. but knowing Blizzard's track record I would highly doubt their core stuff is unfinished or super-buggy. >Some games will make money hand over fist even with major problems at >launch. Star Wars Galaxies is the perfect example, and the reasons usually [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >EverQuest!". Talk about a license to print money. And we all proved them >right. >> And the players that want to play your game aren't going to give a sh.t >> about 4000 reviews.. they WILL try you out and see what you are looking to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"4000 bad reviews" is precisely why I didn't try Shadowbane, Horizons, of >FFXI, and I'm as hardcore as they come in MMOGs. I would wager you didn't try them out because you were emmersed in Everquest at the time and didn't want to take the time to evaluate them if you didn't have to. Its precisely these issues that are going to f.ck with WoW on release if they push it back. If you are deep in CoH as you are now.. are you gonna go playing with WoW? Probably not and use any reviews you see as an excuse to let it mature a bit while you exhaust your interest in CoH. The same thing goes with EQ2.. anybody deep in that is going to use any negative reviews for WoW as an excuse not to give it a try. Strapping on an MMORPG is learning a world and a methodology.. and once a game can lock people in and have the interest, there is very high resistance to change until a viable in-game reason is given to stop playing. >> And, for all the vocality of the userbase, mmorpg hardcorers >> are usually extremely patient while you iron things out.. especially [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >That's exactly why the timing is critical. Whoever gets to launch first is >going to grab those players who could go either way I don't believe that.. as long as you are there within a month or two.. someone has yet to truly hook-on to a world, playing in its lower levels. All that you get by launching first is first look.. but if there is a 6 month to a year seperation.. whichever comes out after 6 months is gonna get crucified. >, and once players have made their investment in their characters and >are hooked by the action, they're a lot less likely to go try the other one. Yup. >> >I think getting it right at launch is going to count more than getting >> >to launch first. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >has identified a game he likes and starts working his characters up, he >tends to stay loyal (using your words above). True.. but it isn't an immediate thing. The first month or so someone plays say EQ2 they're just tooling around the lower levels, learning the classes, seeing how the balance is, trying different characters, etc. Doing the same for WoW when it hits a month or two after isn't out of the question and a user can then decide which way he wants to go.. six months later when they're approaching the highest levels of EQ2, latched on to a guild, facing end-game for a main? Good f.cking luck pulling them away. It is certainly a preference to be first out of the gate, but not a necessity. >If a 2nd game comes along two months later (which is a lifetime for most games >and can easily be well beyond the point of commitment in an MMOG), [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the same kind of corporate entity that will be doing that brutal marketing >evaluation of release timing vs. EQ2. Its something that should be done.. online worlds are a much different beast than your RTS game they've gotten famous on. >It's my intention to try both of these games when they come out. It's also >my clear intention to play only one of them (I don't have the cycles for >more than one MMOG at a time). Same here.. as long as WoW doesn't come out many months after EQ2. >So, whichever one comes out first is the one I'm going to try first. Of that... the players are almost certain to do. >If that game delivers enough of what I want from an MMOG, I probably >won't even try the other one. Fair enough.. i'll probably give both a go as long as there isn't substantial lag between the two. >The other thing that complicates all of this is the beta cycles. You could >almost substitute "beta release" for "launch date" in the discussion above >because playing through a beta may generate a similar level of loyalty as >well as provide the kind of familiarity that gives players the edge they >like having over the rest of the gaming public at release. An interesting outlook. But if both are being beta'd at basically the same time frame.. a person can participate in both knowing their characters are going to get nuked and have a good evaluation of which they are going to go to on release date. But... i don't know about you.. but i don't do betas. If i'm going to test a software package i'll get paid for it k thx. >Hell of a race to watch. Aye. Nice time to be an mmorpg fan. Also bear this in mind... the matchup is shaping up to be a 'Microsoft vs. Apple' type scenario. If in any way you think that a non-buggy program can take the day based solely on that... you can reference that matchup to be shown otherwise. -MJ >>>subsequently f.cking over your business timelines. If Worlds of >>>Warcraft is delayed past the holidays they'll either up releasing in a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > different issues. If EQ2 gets people in the door and playing.. they're > not going to suddenly jump to WoW upon its release. <snip> I think if WoW gets good reviews, while EQ2 is getting panned for bugs and content issues people will jump to WoW shortly after its release. >>>The biggest marketing tool you have is your game.. period. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And yet they still have a good segment of the market. Bob made a comment regarding SWG elsewhere... essentially to the effect that: "Its Star Wars. Period." And he's right. SWG couldn't fail to get a good segment of the market. They could shovel you Star Wars Pong while they retune the whole game...and people would stay subscribed... > They also came > out at a time when Everquest was still going strong. Nobody looks to > come out with their core stuff still incomplete.. but knowing > Blizzard's track record I would highly doubt their core stuff is > unfinished or super-buggy. Agreed. >>That's generally true if the buzz and value proposition are sufficently >>compelling from the start ("Star Wars, by the makers of EverQuest!"). But [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the interest, there is very high resistance to change until a viable > in-game reason is given to stop playing. I disagree. If he was fully immersed in EQ and game X comes out and gets 4000 bad reviews there is no way he's going to pull out of EQ and give it a try. a) he's content where he is. b) game X reportedly sucks. 4000 good reviews... that kind of positive buzz will penetrate even to someone reasonably content with EQ. It won't suck everyone out, but it will get the attention of sizable number of people; enough to try to try it out at least. >>That's exactly why the timing is critical. Whoever gets to launch first is >>going to grab those players who could go either way [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if there is a 6 month to a year seperation.. whichever comes out after > 6 months is gonna get crucified. Agreed ... to a point. The window of opportunity is minimally a 2-4 months... but if the first one out of the gate bungles it badly enough it could extend further...much further... > True.. but it isn't an immediate thing. The first month or so someone > plays say EQ2 they're just tooling around the lower levels, learning [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > luck pulling them away. It is certainly a preference to be first out > of the gate, but not a necessity. Hmmm the *vast majority* of EQs player base was not endgame in 6 months from release. In some of the other games yes, but that was because they were easier to level in more than anything else...and in some games 6 months is enough to *beat* the endgame... and start casting about for the next thing to do... > An interesting outlook. But if both are being beta'd at basically the > same time frame.. a person can participate in both knowing their > characters are going to get nuked and have a good evaluation of which > they are going to go to on release date. But... i don't know about > you.. but i don't do betas. If i'm going to test a software package > i'll get paid for it k thx. Get paid? I'd settle for abolition of the idea that I should be bowing and scraping for the priviledge of helping them test their systems. Comp me the game or a few months subscription and I'd call it even... but selling beta slots (LoE), and the general attitude that its me that needs them has to go... >>Hell of a race to watch. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > program can take the day based solely on that... you can reference > that matchup to be shown otherwise. I disagree. MS's dominance is primarily momentum. MS has almost always been buggier (except maybe circa 2000 when OS9 and Windows 2000 were dominant... but even then we had Windows ME... to ... bear with.) Apple has been first to market with the majority of key innovations, and for the most part they have been less buggy. Microsoft came later, but came cheaper... a least for the box... long term TCO analysis is much more interesting. Anyway, Fast forward 10-20 years ... and its all momentum today. The era of OS X vs Windows XP is coloured more by history than the relative merits of the two products or when they arrived on the market. >>>>subsequently f.cking over your business timelines. If Worlds of >>>>Warcraft is delayed past the holidays they'll either up releasing in a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I think if WoW gets good reviews, while EQ2 is getting panned for bugs >and content issues people will jump to WoW shortly after its release. People don't dictate their play time based on bugs. They choose based on content and playability while bitching about bugs. If it takes a little bit to get them ironed they'll give it time, regardless of if it is SoE. >>>>The biggest marketing tool you have is your game.. period. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >a good segment of the market. They could shovel you Star Wars Pong while >they retune the whole game...and people would stay subscribed... Fair enough. >>>That's generally true if the buzz and value proposition are sufficently >>>compelling from the start ("Star Wars, by the makers of EverQuest!"). But [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >reviews there is no way he's going to pull out of EQ and give it a try. >a) he's content where he is. b) game X reportedly sucks. And if there are 4000 great reviews there is no way he's going to pull out of EQ and give it a try.. he'll just find a different reason not to try it :>. >4000 good reviews... that kind of positive buzz will penetrate even to >someone reasonably content with EQ. Penetrate..sure. But really.. when people are content with an MMORPG you could claim the next one is the second coming.. and if they don't quit they won't be resurrected and they'll just wave and say have fun. >It won't suck everyone out, but it will get the attention of sizable number >of people; enough to try to try it out at least. 'Oh really? its a good game!? cool... i'll get to that when i can... but my guild is about to do the Rathe Council. Seeya!' >>>That's exactly why the timing is critical. Whoever gets to launch first is >>>going to grab those players who could go either way [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >months... but if the first one out of the gate bungles it badly enough >it could extend further...much further... I dunno. I still just don't believe people decide based on bugs. People like to claim they'll never put up with this stuff and how dare this program be buggy... but if it connects with them they're gonna not care. Heck.. for some its a badge of honor. >> True.. but it isn't an immediate thing. The first month or so someone >> plays say EQ2 they're just tooling around the lower levels, learning [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Hmmm the *vast majority* of EQs player base was not endgame in 6 months >from release. There also wasn't a lot of other choice, for a lot it was their first mmorpg, and Verant's curve for experience gain was very harsh and time consuming. If the EQ2 or WoW endgame doesn't reasonably start for the average user 6 months after release.. you can probably consider the game DOA. The 'average user' being defined as someone who has played at least one mmorpg.. taken one main to level 65.. understands the mechanics along with classes and their basic abilities.. and has had some exposure to endgame through a guild, whether that was say.. killing the elemental planar progression mobs or what not. I classify 3 levels of mmorpg user.. 'newbie', 'average', and 'power' users. Newbie is one of the mass of unititiated who takes up a game.. you and I and everyone else were there once. The process of building the knowledge and mechanics of the genre usually lasts around a year and if they stick through it usually go onto 'average' level.. which was detailed above. The power level is then a choice by the person playing 'average'. A power user I define as someone who can devote your normal average work week of time to the game.. basically making it their second job. They then use that time to level as fast as possible to reach the uber guild where they try to hit bleeding edge content. They don't care about how things were meant to run, were designed to run, they just care about getting there as fast as they bloody can using multi-boxing, scripts, or whatever to accomplish the task. The nice part about getting to the average level is that for the most part you do not have to repeat the newbie phase. You pretty much know what to expect and are looking for with each upcoming game and so when EQ2 or WoW hits it isn't out of the question for you to be hitting the start of endgame 6 months in. After all, 6-9 months is probably when EQ2 will be putting out their next expansion. For the power users.. 2-3 months to hit endgame from scratch. Uber guilds finishing the content at the end of 6-9 months and gearing for the inevitable expansion. >In some of the other games yes, but that was because they >were easier to level in more than anything else...and in some games 6 >months is enough to *beat* the endgame... and start casting about for >the next thing to do... Yup. One of the strongest things for EQ.. and the thing that completely sets it apart from the competition has been the quality of its endgame. To date, and you correct me with any I might not know, is i know of no other game that has had the balls to put in events with the complexity of EQ. Something like the Rathe Council encounter was nothing short of a what-the-f.ck-were-you-thinking that people would put in the time to do this. Sure it was bugged on release and had to be tweaked as guilds encountered it... but jesus. And.. if you give EQ credit for nothing else.. EQ has been a very strong 'gateway' mmorpg. The sheer amount of people they have moved from 'newbie' to 'average' is staggering and can only help other games that are just getting going. >>>Hell of a race to watch. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I disagree. MS's dominance is primarily momentum. I don't buy that in any way, shape, or form. >MS has almost always been buggier (except maybe circa 2000 when >OS9 and Windows 2000 were dominant... but even then we had >Windows ME... to ... bear with.) i'm talking circa 1985. Apple had everything going for it.. a non-buggy system with full on graphics and graphic desktop.. Microsoft had MS-DOS and was getting a very shitty Windows 1.0 out. >Apple has been first to market with the majority of key innovations, and >for the most part they have been less buggy. And we see where they're at marketwise. >Anyway, Fast forward 10-20 years ... and its all momentum today. Sure.. today, after the battle is over. -MJ > People don't dictate their play time based on bugs. They choose based > on content and playability while bitching about bugs. If it takes a > little bit to get them ironed they'll give it time, regardless of if > it is SoE. That's simply not true. Some people are more sensitive to bugs and WILL leave games they find frustrating due to bugs. Some people are less sensitive and will stick around. Michael Johnson said: }On Mon, 24 May 2004 04:49:43 GMT, 42 <user@example.net> wrote: }>4000 good reviews... that kind of positive buzz will penetrate even to }>someone reasonably content with EQ. }Penetrate..sure. Huhuhuh... You guys said "penetrate"... Huh... </Butthead> }strong 'gateway' mmorpg. Oh no! it's a 'gateway' game! It leads to other games! Alert Nancy Reagan! }>I disagree. MS's dominance is primarily momentum. }I don't buy that in any way, shape, or form. }>MS has almost always been buggier (except maybe circa 2000 when }>OS9 and Windows 2000 were dominant... but even then we had }>Windows ME... to ... bear with.) }i'm talking circa 1985. Apple had everything going for it.. a }non-buggy system with full on graphics and graphic desktop.. Microsoft }had MS-DOS and was getting a very shitty Windows 1.0 out. As I recall, the primary difference was what hardware they'd support. There were 15 million different card thingys you could stick in a Windows box, and with a mac, you could hook up a printer. If you needed to run complex scientific equipment, or any of a dozen other things, Windows was your platform. Windows could even do 16-color graphics! Ooooh. Actually, that was more like 1982 or 3 I think, but that's where I'd say the momentum came from. [65 Coercer] Zinphandel Chianti <Prism> (Gnome) Ayonae Ro >If you needed to run complex scientific equipment, or any of a dozen >other things, Windows was your platform. !!!!! >Michael Johnson said: >}On Mon, 24 May 2004 04:49:43 GMT, 42 <user@example.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >There were 15 million different card thingys you could stick in a Windows >box, and with a mac, you could hook up a printer. Yeah.. but why? The difference was that the Apple Macintosh was a proprietary closed system that you had to jump through hoops to support. The IBM compatible was an open system.. what this meant was any company in the world could sit down.. design a circuit board that worked off of the bus, write a driver, manufacture, and sell worldwide. And, in turn they also didn't have to comp back part of what they made to IBM, I don't think the same was true with Apple. As such.. the IBM compatible gave rise to entire industries in motherboard generation, sound cards, video cards, scanners, modems, and any other conceivable electronic device adaptable to the PC. >If you needed to run complex scientific equipment, or any of a dozen >other things, Windows was your platform. It wasn't just complex scientific equipment. Any new product that came down the pipe could adapt. Things that weren't even a consideration when the systems came out. -MJ >>If he was fully immersed in EQ and game X comes out and gets 4000 bad >>reviews there is no way he's going to pull out of EQ and give it a try. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > out of EQ and give it a try.. he'll just find a different reason not > to try it :>. Perhaps... but he's not merely 'content'... he's 'engaged'. >>4000 good reviews... that kind of positive buzz will penetrate even to >>someone reasonably content with EQ. > > Penetrate..sure. But really.. when people are content with an MMORPG > you could claim the next one is the second coming.. and if they don't > quit they won't be resurrected and they'll just wave and say have fun. There's 'content'... and there's 'engaged' and there's 'burnt out'. Most people cycle between them with some regularity. At 'burnt out' if theres something with a good hype going on people will try it... at 'content'... they'll try it if friends are doing it... At engaged... yeah ... they probably don't remember to eat properly either :) nevermind pay attention to the competition. >>It won't suck everyone out, but it will get the attention of sizable number >>of people; enough to try to try it out at least. > > 'Oh really? its a good game!? cool... i'll get to that when i can... > but my guild is about to do the Rathe Council. Seeya!' ... move that same player forward 3 weeks... "but my guild has *just done* the Rathe Council, and everyone is burnt out and taking some time for themselves, we haven't done anything but plug away at that event for a month... maybe a month in a new game is just what I need..." >>Agreed ... to a point. The window of opportunity is minimally a 2-4 >>months... but if the first one out of the gate bungles it badly enough [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this program be buggy... but if it connects with them they're gonna > not care. Heck.. for some its a badge of honor. I've always beleived wearing the fact that you've put up with idiocy as a badge of honor was categorically stupid. There's a beautiful critism of Disney's Cinderella that essentially tears the little wench to pieces for being utterly unassertive and terrible role model to women; and it concludes by condemning the moral: "You will be rewarded if you sit there and take grave injustice quietly". Cinderalla was wrong to put up with what she endured quietly; a person has an obligation to stand up for themselves. If she wants to wear her passiveness as a badge of honour too she's just compounding the error in my opinion. > For the power users.. 2-3 months to hit endgame from scratch. Uber > guilds finishing the content at the end of 6-9 months and gearing for > the inevitable expansion. That *really* depends on the game. But yeah its true enough the recent crop of titles. >>In some of the other games yes, but that was because they >>were easier to level in more than anything else...and in some games 6 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > put in the time to do this. Sure it was bugged on release and had to > be tweaked as guilds encountered it... but jesus. The bugs were dreadful for the first guilds that saw it. But yeah... one of EQs strengths is its extreme difficulty at the endgame. New titles just don't seem to have the guts. Personally, though, I hate EQs endgame... as a dev I'd have no wish to put players through that guild/level grinder to see it. I think monstrously difficult encounters tailored to smaller groups would make a large part of the game more accessible to players. **and restrict it to smaller groups** to prevent zerging and other win-by-numbers strategies... a la Gates of Discord 1 group missions... and LDoN (at least in theory)... Large raids have their place... and the players that want them deserve to have them... but it shouldn't accomplished by punishing more casual players with few interesting equipment upgrades they can obtain, and putting them on a cash farming treadmill to get the powerplayers scraps. I beleive a game should be completeable by any person, the less you play the longer it takes... i don't care if it takes them 10 years to do it... it just has to be doable. EQ fails in that regard imo. > And.. if you give EQ credit for nothing else.. EQ has been a very > strong 'gateway' mmorpg. The sheer amount of people they have moved > from 'newbie' to 'average' is staggering and can only help other games > that are just getting going. Yup. No doubt. >>>Also bear this in mind... the matchup is shaping up to be a 'Microsoft >>>vs. Apple' type scenario. If in any way you think that a non-buggy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't buy that in any way, shape, or form. /shrug At this stage its true. In earlier stages it was less true... lower hardware-cost more than anything drove intel sales in the early years. >>MS has almost always been buggier (except maybe circa 2000 when >>OS9 and Windows 2000 were dominant... but even then we had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > non-buggy system with full on graphics and graphic desktop.. Microsoft > had MS-DOS and was getting a very shitty Windows 1.0 out. Circa 1985 the 386 was introduced... by then DOS was already entrenched in the business/accounting enviros. Backwards compatibility was already a concern... the value of a GUI wasn't really recognized for said business/accounting enviros... and there was a hefty price/performance premium to get a GUI at that point. Those 3 combined to perpetrate the sales of lower cost/ defeatured PCs (no sound... minimal graphics... DOS 3 & wordperfect...... Not to mention DOSes better integratability into existing unix/terminal infrastructures. You don't need a GUI for a dumb unix terminal... and there was still that transition going on. >>>In some of the other games yes, but that was because they >>>were easier to level in more than anything else...and in some games 6 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Personally, though, I hate EQs endgame... as a dev I'd have no wish to >put players through that guild/level grinder to see it. I take the opposite stance. I love EQ's endgame because it is actually something that few games dare to be.. educational. You are supposed to fail.. and fail a lot.. because that is how we learn. We learn through failure. Blowing through an expansion without failure is just illustrating that they do not use tactics you do not allready know. And each time you bang your head against that wall and bust through.. you add another tactic to the raiding arsenal. And when it comes to high level tactics in raiding.. there are a lot of people that have gotten pretty f.cking good learning off EQ's endgame about what to do and what not to do. I'm actually fascinated by what if anything will be in WoW's endgame. Its something we've heard 0 about. Sure, Afterlife member X says doing hundreds of quests are doable in WoW!... but really.. what the f.ck are they planning and do they actually have a conception of how high-end raiding is supposed to work? Unless you've lived that part of it off a charcter or learned it over 5 years of continuous development going from a simple hit like Nagafen to something like Quarm and all things inbetween... its kind of hard to crib. And my wager is... no matter how stable the WoW enviornment.. if they go for high-end raid encounters ala EQ, they will face the same issues EQ has. Its really a catch-22... you need people knowledgable about high-end raiding to test the encounters... but the people you would get are also the same ones that would get a leg up from the information and be sure to pass it along 'on the QT'. So you are left with either the event being too easy.. or too hard. >I think monstrously difficult encounters tailored to smaller groups would >make a large part of the game more accessible to players. Ahh.. like the sewer trials? EQ with GoD tried going both ways for some progression. Either do the trials or have your guild learn the raid encounter. And we see how the spoon-fed portion of the userbase reacted to 1100hp hitters. >**and restrict it to smaller groups** to prevent zerging and other win-by-numbers >strategies... a la Gates of Discord 1 group missions... and LDoN (at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >players with few interesting equipment upgrades they can obtain, and >putting them on a cash farming treadmill to get the powerplayers scraps. And if you setup open mobs with high-end loot for a group or so kill they'll be insta-dead by those same powerplayers like most of the sh.t worth anything old-world, usually from a couple of boxers. LDoN tried to find a middle and have you build points through missions to go towards armor. Or on the hard missions be able to get quality loot. I'm sure any expansion could expand on that concept for higher-level loot rather readily. >I beleive a game should be completeable by any person, the less you play >the longer it takes... i don't care if it takes them 10 years to do >it... it just has to be doable. EQ fails in that regard imo. I don't.. it would be like saying if you worked at it 10 years.. you could suddenly kill your God and anything else you might want to accomplish on Earth. Most stuff should not be doable by one person or it would create an unbelievable imbalance of power ala Neo. And frankly.. I can think of nothing that becomes more boring quicker than being able to do anything in an MMORPG that you so desire. >>>MS has almost always been buggier (except maybe circa 2000 when >>>OS9 and Windows 2000 were dominant... but even then we had [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >business/accounting enviros... and there was a hefty price/performance >premium to get a GUI at that point. >Those 3 combined to perpetrate the sales of lower cost/ defeatured PCs >(no sound... minimal graphics... DOS 3 & wordperfect...... Those 3 things were nothing.. and i repeat nothing to the fact that the IBM compatible was a wide open system for which anybody could develop. It is what drove the market.. and people and companies put up with substandard software, buginess and whatever to get it. Its the one boat that Apple truly and completely missed, they felt their system would sell itself because it was superior next-generation bugfree technology. They were wrong, and the market is only the better for it. IBM, imo, gave the greatest gift ever to the electronics industry when they first came late to the party with their PC, and in doing so unknowingly left their system in a position where it could be hijacked and developed for without concern for their say, input, or having to provide them royalties. -MJ >>>>In some of the other games yes, but that was because they >>>>were easier to level in more than anything else...and in some games 6 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > something that few games dare to be.. educational. You are supposed to > fail.. and fail a lot.. because that is how we learn. Actually your reasons for loving EQs endgame have absolutely nothing to do with what I *hate* about EQs endgame. I have no trouble with a heavy learning curve, I have no trouble with failing often. What I hate about EQs endgame is its exclusivity. The average player will not see it & can not see it. Its not because he's not smart enough, its not because he can't learn, its not because he isn't willing to commit time to beating it.. Its because he isn't in a large enough peer group of regulars to ever take it on in the first place. I like things that are hard to do, I like puzzles, I like challenges... I like 3-manning LDoN hards; and I would love it if there was more variety in the challenges LDoN delivered. What I do not like is an encounter that will be 'old' before I get to it because I only play 15 hours a week, that by the time I get to it I will be unable to find a group of people large enough, that I can 'learn it' with. I will either be relegated to 'tag-along' with groups that have long since mastered it which removes any challenge for me; I'm just along for the ride; and will succeed on the first attempt through no real exercise of intelligence on my part... or, for most encounters, I will be unable to find a large enough group of people willing to do it at all, and will be unable to explore the content at all. > I'm actually fascinated by what if anything will be in WoW's endgame. > Its something we've heard 0 about. Sure, Afterlife member X says doing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > going from a simple hit like Nagafen to something like Quarm and all > things inbetween... its kind of hard to crib. I think there are a large number of ways to test endgame content without being uber. For example... mobs poofing on death, or triggers during the event not going off can easily be tested with 'dooms godmode'. Far too many events and quests in EQ don't ever appear to have been even 'run through' to make sure they work. > And my wager is... no matter how stable the WoW enviornment.. if they > go for high-end raid encounters ala EQ, they will face the same issues [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > information and be sure to pass it along 'on the QT'. So you are left > with either the event being too easy.. or too hard. I agree you need intelligence, but no, you don't need to be an uberguild to *test* an endgame encounter. There are otherways of testing its functionality. You may have to fine tune its difficulty a bit, when you watch the actual guilds go at it, but in terms of ensuring everything 'works'?? No, the dev team should be able to test that. >>I think monstrously difficult encounters tailored to smaller groups would >>make a large part of the game more accessible to players. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > raid encounter. And we see how the spoon-fed portion of the userbase > reacted to 1100hp hitters. The spoon-fed portion of the userbase can go play Sims if they can't adapt ;) >>**and restrict it to smaller groups** to prevent zerging and other win-by-numbers >>strategies... a la Gates of Discord 1 group missions... and LDoN (at [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they'll be insta-dead by those same powerplayers like most of the sh.t > worth anything old-world, usually from a couple of boxers. Well... given that the more casual players should eventually be equipped comparably to the power players the difficulty of these encounters would be just that: difficult. Anyway there are 2 solutions: Make the encounters instanced. That acheives a few objectives: 1) "No zerging" is enforceable 2) Time lockouts are possible if they are desireable. (I think they are approrpiate in some cases) 3) So what if they insta-kill them... other players aren't locked out. Or I suppose you could... 1) Make the stuff no drop. The 'power players' won't have much reason to return. > LDoN tried > to find a middle and have you build points through missions to go [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > accomplish on Earth. Most stuff should not be doable by one person or > it would create an unbelievable imbalance of power ala Neo. > And frankly.. I can think of nothing that becomes more boring quicker > than being able to do anything in an MMORPG that you so desire. I can think of something more boring: being able to to do nothing in an MMORPG that you so desire. A 65th with decent gear and lots of AA has pretty much nothing to do at all unless their is a raid going on he can join. That is sad. And besides this would **never** happen. Think about it...if the casual player eventually levels to the point where he can one group velious endgame it won't happen until GoD endgame is very old news. By that point he still won't be able to do GoD endgame... and the modern endgame will be 10 expansions beyond GoD, and *lightyears* beyond *him*. I think you are envisioning people being able to solo the endgame *while* its the endgame. That is not what I'm suggesting... >>>>MS has almost always been buggier (except maybe circa 2000 when >>>>OS9 and Windows 2000 were dominant... but even then we had [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the IBM compatible was a wide open system for which anybody could > develop. Those 3 things were major circa 1985. Previous to that **before** DOS was already entrenched; then yes... the wide open system was the most important thing to the IBM PC (& compatibles) success... primarily because the competition made cheaper systems available to consumers. But this has nothing to do with the EQ vs WoW situation... >> I take the opposite stance. I love EQ's endgame because it is actually >> something that few games dare to be.. educational. You are supposed to >> fail.. and fail a lot.. because that is how we learn. > Actually your reasons for loving EQs endgame have absolutely nothing to > do with what I *hate* about EQs endgame. > I have no trouble with a heavy learning curve, I have no trouble with > failing often. > What I hate about EQs endgame is its exclusivity. The average player > will not see it & can not see it. Its not because he's not smart enough, > its not because he can't learn, its not because he isn't willing to > commit time to beating it.. > Its because he isn't in a large enough peer group of regulars to ever > take it on in the first place. > I like things that are hard to do, I like puzzles, I like challenges... > I like 3-manning LDoN hards; and I would love it if there was more > variety in the challenges LDoN delivered. > What I do not like is an encounter that will be 'old' before I get to it > because I only play 15 hours a week, that by the time I get to it I will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will be unable to find a large enough group of people willing to do it > at all, and will be unable to explore the content at all. Even though I do see your point I can't think of a solution to this problem. I mean the rate at which someone progresses in the game is bound to his online time. Just out of this simple fact there are people which "race" throuhg the levels and others who slowly walk behind. You can't level this difference. In fact you mustn't do that. Same problem is with newcomers. I began with EQ in december 2002. Everything except PoTime has been beaten already iirc. I could have leveled my char up to 65 and grind whatever AAs necessary to join such a guild. Instead I've chosen to adventure all over Norrath. Right now I'm in a small guild which raids quite often. And our current "unbeatable" Mob is AoW and Shei Vinitras. Sure they have been beaten by others. But we can and will learn the strategies. Granted I doubt we will ever set foot into Vex Thal or Elemental Planes. We just don't have the numbers. But it's nothing that bothers me. We try to go as far as we can. And I would be really annoyed if we could just walk through the planes up to time and beat quarm. I'm content were I'm now. Even if it means Velious level and start of Luclin. Hagen >>What I do not like is an encounter that will be 'old' before I get to it >>because I only play 15 hours a week, that by the time I get to it I will [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > beat quarm. I'm content were I'm now. Even if it means Velious level and > start of Luclin. I'm glad you found a guild that you can work forward with, its very difficult. I think a lot of players find they're either chomping the bit of their guild... or getting left behind. If your an off-peak casual player I just don't think its terribly realistic to expect that you'll be able to find a suitably large guild with suitable numbers on at your playtime to give you much hope of seeing much interesting content past a certain point -- especially as a more casual player (including 'a previously hardcore player who now has a job/life/baby...') >>> I take the opposite stance. I love EQ's endgame because it is actually >>> something that few games dare to be.. educational. You are supposed to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> will be unable to find a large enough group of people willing to do it >> at all, and will be unable to explore the content at all. >Even though I do see your point I can't think of a solution to this >problem. I mean the rate at which someone progresses in the game is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is with newcomers. I began with EQ in december 2002. Everything except >PoTime has been beaten already iirc. December 2002 the uber guilds were just about in the elementals. It took them until May to break into Time.. a couple months after that to finish. -MJ >>>>>In some of the other games yes, but that was because they >>>>>were easier to level in more than anything else...and in some games 6 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Its because he isn't in a large enough peer group of regulars to ever >take it on in the first place. If he/she is smart enough, wants to learn, and is willing to commit time to beating it.. nothing stands in his/her way. In case you haven't noticed.. uber guilds aren't exactly that exclusive a club anymore and your basic gear-set isn't that hard to get. If you have an even halfway decent rep on server from groups, show you know what you are doing in raid, and get to know the people in guild through your typical app process.. pretty much any level 65 character with 100-200 AA can get a tag and start getting time rot loots. Hell.. if you're a cleric they'll practically insta-tag your a.s. The reason a lot of 'average' people won't see it is due to time considerations and desire. You have a good year from scratch for the average player to generate the above character, or ebay one of the many being sold and take a 2-3 month time to crash-course yourself in learning the character. >I like things that are hard to do, I like puzzles, I like challenges... >I like 3-manning LDoN hards; and I would love it if there was more >variety in the challenges LDoN delivered. And i'm sure they have more expansions coming down the pipe to cater to that... but don't expect the best of the best in gear from it. >What I do not like is an encounter that will be 'old' before I get to it >because I only play 15 hours a week, that by the time I get to it I will >be unable to find a group of people large enough, that I can 'learn it' >with. Valid concerns with the number of non-renewels, but different issue than endgame in a normally populated server. I hesitate to use the term cancellations because really the accounts are just laid dorment. If for some reason EQ actually does rise from the 'death' via major surgery on GoD by SoE i'm sure they'll come take a look-see. As per 15 hours a week... yeah most endgame isn't structured for you. >I will either be relegated to 'tag-along' with groups that have >long since mastered it which removes any challenge for me; I'm just >along for the ride; and will succeed on the first attempt through no >real exercise of intelligence on my part... or, for most encounters, I >will be unable to find a large enough group of people willing to do it >at all, and will be unable to explore the content at all. You are a 'tag-along' until you phase your character up through drops. That doesn't take long these days.. especially with groups who have long since mastered something since they don't need the drops. It doesn't take you long to be geared up and being a viable member at that which they are finding challenging. >> I'm actually fascinated by what if anything will be in WoW's endgame. >> Its something we've heard 0 about. Sure, Afterlife member X says doing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >many events and quests in EQ don't ever appear to have been even 'run >through' to make sure they work. Fair enough. >> And my wager is... no matter how stable the WoW enviornment.. if they >> go for high-end raid encounters ala EQ, they will face the same issues [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >actual guilds go at it, but in terms of ensuring everything 'works'?? >No, the dev team should be able to test that. Take the Rathe Council. There were issues that pop up deep in the event as a side-effect of the unusual structure of it. How do you just bird-dog something that will come up 3 hours into the event? And should SoE sit and train people to play the characters so they can try for hours on end to master the tactics needed to complete it in order to ensure that it can be completed as designed? If you have 72 people getting paid 6.75 an hour(min wage in cali).. that means your testing for an event is gonna be $486/hr. Unless you have active players do it in beta.. and then you still get reamed from people bitching you gave them a leg up on progression when being the first to accomplish something is extremely critical in EQ. >>>I think monstrously difficult encounters tailored to smaller groups would >>>make a large part of the game more accessible to players. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The spoon-fed portion of the userbase can go play Sims if they can't >adapt ;) Aye :>. >>>**and restrict it to smaller groups** to prevent zerging and other win-by-numbers >>>strategies... a la Gates of Discord 1 group missions... and LDoN (at [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >1) "No zerging" is enforceable Ya.. through massive and complete wipe. The easiest way to prevent zerging is to not leave it an option in the design of an event. The elemental gods were a great example.. on each one of them if you zerg you die or run out of time. >> I don't.. it would be like saying if you worked at it 10 years.. you >> could suddenly kill your God and anything else you might want to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >player eventually levels to the point where he can one group velious >endgame it won't happen until GoD endgame is very old news. You need only be elemental or so to one-group Velious endgame. Personally.. if you ask me.. if they know the characters, which can be learned by casual play... casual player X sets aside a couple months of evenings where they can put in 30 hours a week, ebay a 65 with 100-200aa.. app an uber guild.. get the rot loots from time/god.. deguild and go to playing casual with a mack character. Then you can go one-grouping Velious endgame all you want on a casual timeline. Or just ebay one of the many new GoD level characters soon to hit the market :>. -MJ <much snippage throughout> > You are a 'tag-along' until you phase your character up through drops. > That doesn't take long these days.. especially with groups who have > long since mastered something since they don't need the drops. It > doesn't take you long to be geared up and being a viable member at > that which they are finding challenging. First, the point is I don't wish to phase up as a tag-along through drops -- I want to get them myself (not solo, but with a group of like minded people). Unfortunately such a group of like minded people is very transient at the casual play level due to varying advancement rates so having 30+ regulars to do this with is not viable. Second, even were to I phase my character up through drops I'd be no further ahead... the encounters I could one group would now be pointless... the only thing left to do is tag-along through *more* drops... or seriously commit to modern endgame... somehting that I don't have the time for. That is also the situation even when one drops out of hardcore to casual. I had the gear. I had the AAs... I had nothing worthwhile to do. (So I rolled up some alts on a different server... there is lots of duo/trio/1 group content from 1-55 that leads to upgrades...) But for my main... there is nothing to do do. Sure he can go 1 group velious but whats the point?? Every upgrade I see is fairly modern raid encounter. For the character that always was casual.... I suppose he could eventually equip himself out in LDoN stuff quite respectably... but eventually that runs out. (and is hellishly boring after a point)... and he'll have no content he can challenge either... at least not worthwhile content. I suppose 1 grouping Velious endgame will at least have novelty... even though there won't be any upgrades.... and that still presumes you can find a group to do it with. Non-trivial at best. > Take the Rathe Council. There were issues that pop up deep in the > event as a side-effect of the unusual structure of it. How do you just [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > them a leg up on progression when being the first to accomplish > something is extremely critical in EQ. Wasn't it you that argued 3 guys with a bot army could do it a few weeks ago with the proper macro tools? :) Surely they wrote tools to assist debugging? Given insider knowledge of how the event is supposed to work, along with 'debugging' tools -- macros/scripts, slow-motion, infinite mana/health, the ability to pause and examine/tweak the current state, save & restore, (ie if there is a wipe -- reset to 5 minutes before the wipe...), detailed logs, etc etc etc... At least... that's how testing should be done. >>And besides this would **never** happen. Think about it...if the casual >>player eventually levels to the point where he can one group velious >>endgame it won't happen until GoD endgame is very old news. > > You need only be elemental or so to one-group Velious endgame. So we agree then? You assert that someone EP and beyond is able to one group Velious endgame. That sounds like the more hardcore crowed at the moment. But the casual player? He won't be EP and beyond for another 6 months to a year. GoD will be old hat by then... which is in line with what i claimed. > Personally.. if you ask me.. if they know the characters, which can be > learned by casual play... casual player X sets aside a couple months > of evenings where they can put in 30 hours a week, ebay a 65 with > 100-200aa.. app an uber guild.. get the rot loots from time/god.. > deguild and go to playing casual with a mack character. Then you can > go one-grouping Velious endgame all you want on a casual timeline. Other than the distaste I have for the suggestion... it doesn't even solve the problem. What is worthwhile to do for a casual deguilded time equipped player in EQ? One group Velious endgame? Sure can do... but whats the point? How is that worthwhile? That was my point... > You are also dealing with a different segment of the market, with > different issues. If EQ2 gets people in the door and playing.. they're > not going to suddenly jump to WoW upon its release. You mean, like what happened when people were jumping ship from EverQuest to try out DAoC? And, if EQ is any indication, EQ2 will be a disaster for the first 6 months. That'll leave plenty of people eager to try something that doesn't suck. > Something like > Starcraft and Diablo, the other games in that market were very easy to > let go.. and just take up Starcraft and Diablo to see how they work > for you. If Blizzard thinks a 'one strategy fits all' is an option for > all segments of the video game industry, they really need to reassess > or get run over. Blizzard has a reputation for releasing high quality products that are balanced pretty well. That says something about them in general. With any luck those same attributes will shine through in WoW as well. > >> Man, this is going to be some race, eh? More than ever, timing will > >> be critical. All other things being equal, whoever gets out first has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That said, I wouldn't put any substantial money on EQ2 being out much > sooner. I wouldn't put any money on a September release, but I would on a 2004 release. Well, ok, not "substantial"...I'm not really the gambling sort. :P But I'm pretty confident that they'll make a 2004 release. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Foxeye Vaeltaja Journeywoman Character Portrait Artist http://www.foxeye-art.com Foxeye 4 Kinetic/Psychic Magic Defender Bluejay 6 Invulnerability/Energy Natural Tanker Usenet 2 Fire/Fire Technology Blaster Reading I post I find not a person who has set their cap to hate EQ2, but simply one who fears that they will lose something that they currently have. YOu don't *want* EQ2 to fail, but you think it will. Am I correct? > * EQ2 will snowball into an EQ-sized game because of player-base size > * EQ will shrink past the the ability to attract players back from WoW > * Guilds and other community infrastructure will fall apart in EQ > * New players will join EQ2, find limited community and leave, never > seeing EQ WHy do you feel that EQ2 will have a limited community? I have spent countless hours on the EQ2 fan boards, and now the official boards, and there is already a very strong community present. For the most part it is also a reasonably mature one (which will no doubt fluctuate). > I started with EQ just afer Velious came out, and I'll stop just after > EQ becomes unplayable due to lack of subscriber-base. At that time, > I'll just switch to climing mountains for fun, and say a permanent and > fond goodbye to my online friends. How many others like me are there? > How many others who will go to WoW because you're "pushing them out"? > How many who will go to CoH, NWN or some other non-MMOG? How many quit EQ long ago and will actually be reclaimed by SOE because of EQ2? You might be surprised at the huge number of people in the EQ2 community who have not played EQ for a long time and would not play it for all the modifications you suggest. Of course, if EQ2 were a poorly-made game it could tank. BUt if it is truly a good enough game that it would destroy EQ, then it is a good enough game to build a community just as good as EQ did. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Foxeye Vaeltaja Journeywoman Character Portrait Artist http://www.foxeye-art.com Foxeye 4 Kinetic/Psychic Magic Defender Bluejay 6 Invulnerability/Energy Natural Tanker Usenet 2 Fire/Fire Technology Blaster > Reading [your] post I find not a person who has set their cap to hate EQ2, but > simply one who fears that they will lose something that they currently > have. YOu don't *want* EQ2 to fail, but you think it will. Am I correct? Well, as a player of EQ, I want EQ2 to stop, not fail. I, and many others who play EQ will simply not play EQ2. I love the community in EQ, and the game is sometimes very fun, but SOE has taken a "strip it down for profit and fun EQ2" approach to EQ that makes me never want to do business with them again. So, do I want EQ2 to fail? I guess I don't care. I just don't want to play it. If SOE releases EQ2 and it kills EQ, I'll either just stop playing or go to WoW. I know at least 20 people who feel the same way, and yet I don't think SOE yet understands just how much they've disenfranchised their player-base by reducing customer support, leaving petitions unanswered for days, failing to fix bugs, releasing broken patches and releasing two painfully obvious stopgap expansions (LoY and LDoN) that added little content and forced users to upgrade in order to gain access to features users had demanded since the game was released (e.g. mapping). On the other hand, others have been correct. EQ has been pronounced dead at least a dozen times in the past 5 years, and even though I've come to dispise SOE's business practices, I'll continue to play EQ as long as it's out there because I've made some great friends here, and have a lot of memories in-game that I don't want to leave behind. > WHy do you feel that EQ2 will have a limited community? I have spent > countless hours on the EQ2 fan boards, and now the official boards, and > there is already a very strong community present. For the most part it is > also a reasonably mature one (which will no doubt fluctuate). EQ2 will have a limited community because it's being released after an SOE failure (SWG), concurrent with three other big releases (EQ: OoW, WoW, CoH), and the fact that there is a general fear that customer support will be ok for the first year or two, and then fall apart as soon as SOE decides it's time to start work on EQ3. Remember that these customer bases are measured in tens or hundreds of thousands. An active discussion board can be built around dozens. > Of course, if EQ2 were a poorly-made game it could tank. BUt if it is > truly a good enough game that it would destroy EQ, then it is a good > enough game to build a community just as good as EQ did. The problem is that it doesn't have to be a good game to destroy EQ and even if it IS a good game, it will likely fail to capture the audience it needs to survive. If it just does "ok", the player base will shrink and eventually attrition will kill the game. At which point SOE will likely have lost EQ *and* EQ2. Re-name it, "Fantasy World" and run it un-connected to EQ. I'd be fine with that. Let it sink or swim on its own just like SWG, but don't release a "sequel" to EQ. The very concept is absurd. You can't have a sequel to a community and that's what EQ is. > If SOE releases EQ2 and it kills EQ, I'll either just stop playing or > go to WoW. I know at least 20 people who feel the same way, and yet I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > access to features users had demanded since the game was released > (e.g. mapping). Whoa whoa whoa...first you start off by saying "if EQ2 destroys EQ I, and many others, will leave". OK, following you so far. My husband is bordline "I'll never play another SOE product" himself. But then you talk about all these failure's on the part of EQ...and they are none of them a direct byproduct of EQ2. Maybe they are due to budget allocations by SOE, but these things...they started happened SO long ago, before we had even heard about EQ2, that I find it hard to believe that they are all the fault of SOE dreaming up a sequel. I do agree they should have named it something new. My reasons are different from yours, of course. I would like it because then folks would stop making so many gorramit assumptions about the classes and game mechanics due to their EQ-L experiences. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Foxeye Vaeltaja Journeywoman Character Portrait Artist http://www.foxeye-art.com Foxeye 4 Kinetic/Psychic Magic Defender Bluejay 6 Invulnerability/Energy Natural Tanker Usenet 2 Fire/Fire Technology Blaster > > If SOE releases EQ2 and it kills EQ, I'll either just stop playing or > > go to WoW. I know at least 20 people who feel the same way, and yet I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > many others, will leave". OK, following you so far. My husband is > bordline "I'll never play another SOE product" himself. Correct. > But then you talk about all these failure's on the part of EQ...and they > are none of them a direct byproduct of EQ2. Maybe they are due to budget > allocations by SOE, but these things...they started happened SO long ago, > before we had even heard about EQ2, that I find it hard to believe that > they are all the fault of SOE dreaming up a sequel. You are correct. I am not saying *at all* that EQ2 is the bane of EQ... EQ has been mis-managed ever since SOE started stepping in an replacing Verant (how good or bad a job Verant did, I leave for another discussion, as it's not very pertinent), and EQ2 was not the reason (at least, I don't *think* it was). What I am saying is that SOE cannot fix the EQ problems (of which there are many, and I cited examples) by releasing EQ2 because most of them are related to SOE's managment of the game. They treat it like a regular video game, and it's just not. So, why would I say, "oh good, EQ2 will be a better game, I'll go play that now"? No, I will either stop or play a non-SOE game. If EQ2 is changed, such that it's an upgrade to EQ, and existing characters are "migrated" (granted the system is different), then I would consider it, *only because* it would mean that many of my friends would also go to the "upgraded EQ". Why would SOE not do this, then? Because they think they'll get better retail numbers if they release EQ2 without an established player base (who wants to buy a game when everyone else is level-whatever and has good gear?) I understand this, but what I'm trying to say is that releasing EQ2 in this way means that both EQ and EQ2 take a serious hit in terms of player base available to them while WoW and CoH pull players away from both games. That's going to make it hard for EQ to keep a crittical mass of players (already is, and WoW/CoH aren't even out yet) needed to draw the WoW/CoH players back, should those games not live up to their hype, while not allowing EQ2 to build that crittical mass either... This is as if SOE had waited until DAoC was about to be released and suddenly banned half the player-base for a month. EQ survived the immense hype of DAoC (though it was less than that surrounding WoW) because of the size of the EQ player base and the draw that that presents. How will EQ (or EQ2) survive WoW/CoH with a divided player-base? > What I am saying is that SOE cannot fix the EQ problems (of which > there are many, and I cited examples) by releasing EQ2 because most of > them are related to SOE's managment of the game. They treat it like a > regular video game, and it's just not. So, why would I say, "oh good, > EQ2 will be a better game, I'll go play that now"? I can answer that. ^_^ Because you would be a hopeful fool who likes to tell herself that the folks doing EQ2 are somehow a different species from the folks in charge of EQ. And for the moment...man, it sure *feels* that way. But I fear that the warm relationship the community currently has with the EQ2 devs/cs/etc. will start to cool off once the game is live. > Why would SOE not do this, then? Because they think they'll get better > retail numbers if they release EQ2 without an established player base [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hit in terms of player base available to them while WoW and CoH pull > players away from both games. I do understand what you are saying. It's a valid concern, and not an easy one to express. > This is as if SOE had waited until DAoC was about to be released and > suddenly banned half the player-base for a month. EQ survived the > immense hype of DAoC (though it was less than that surrounding WoW) > because of the size of the EQ player base and the draw that that > presents. How will EQ (or EQ2) survive WoW/CoH with a divided > player-base? I can't speak for EQ...I've cut my ties to it very thoroughly. EQ2...I'm confident that it could survive CoH. CoH is a helluva lot of fun but I don't think it immerses many of us as much as we want to be immersed. That and at the end of the day we start missing swords and dragons and whatnot. Wow is another story, because many have commented that WoW and EQ2 have a lot of similarities. EQ2 has a major weakness going for it, which is the crappy rep of SOE compared to the good rep of Blizzard. WoW could survive on sheer anti-SOE-sentiment alone. Game mechanics are pretty similar...both are quest-driven games. Both are trying to have very content-rich, engaging worlds. I couldn't tell you which one is doing it better if I had a week to become an expert in both...we really don't know until the games are under way which mechanics are superior. EQ2 has some advantages in the area of character customization and a greater choice of races/classes. Not to mention the subtle but powerful advantage of the voice-overs. Hearing characters speak to you....well, it takes immersion to the next level in a way you don't expect until you experience it. I'd like to say "may the best game win", but my honest prediction is that both games will succeed enough to keep going strong, and the real winner will be determined by how the games continue to be maintained and built upon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Foxeye Vaeltaja Journeywoman Character Portrait Artist http://www.foxeye-art.com Foxeye 4 Kinetic/Psychic Magic Defender Bluejay 6 Invulnerability/Energy Natural Tanker Usenet 2 Fire/Fire Technology Blaster |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message