 |
 | 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 / July 2005I just cannot decide which to play :(
Vote for me.. 1 = wow 2 = EQ Of course you have no idea what my tastes are. And since this is an EQ discussion area I expect you all to say EQ...hehe 2 __________________________________________________________ Submitted by: Vidden This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel of the game. A thousand threads have been spawned on this subject, but I'll break it down like this: EQ is hard. Lots of grinding, lots of repetitiveness, a long, long haul to get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is perhaps the better description. You need a certain kind of mindset to sit for hours in one place gathering XP. WoW is easy. You can get very high very quickly with no knowledge of the game whatsoever. The game is very good at leading you along from one area to the next, allowing you to explore and build your character all at the same time. EQ is huge. There have been nine expansions now and a tenth is on the way. You can wander endlessly about and not see even a tenth of the world. The sheer amount of content in EQ is staggering; you'll never run out of new things to see. WoW is small. The world is fairly self-contained. New expansions are on the way to add more to the world, but for now, it's easy to see the whole world. EQ has terrible, terrible PvP. EQ tried various ways to implement PvP, but in the end they couldn't get around the fact that the game was designed for PvE, and PvP was only added on due to customer demand. They tried, but they just couldn't get PvP to work effectively. WoW has terrific PvP. The classes are well-balanced, and you're not automatically at a disadvantage just because you chose to play a certain class. WoW was designed from the ground up with both PvP and PvE in mind, and the effort shows. EQ has lots of end-game content, with extremely challenging mobs that require dedicated teamwork from a variety of players. SOE has had years and years to design and implement raid-level challenges, and nobody does it better. Plus there are so many raid-level encounters, so many different ways you can progress, it can make your head spin deciding what you want to do after you hit level 70. WoW has very little end-game content. Blizzard is working on this as we speak, of course, but for now, once you get to 60 you have a few instanced zones to go to and that's about it. EQ has an outdated graphics engine. They've tried updating it over the years, but you'll still feel like you're in a five-year-old game much of the time. SOE will release yet another graphics update in the next expansion to try and catch the game up. WoW has a beautiful graphics engine. Very immersive. Perhaps not HL2-calliber, of course, but still quite lovely. EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. SOE recently contracted servers, and now have half as many as they used to. Don't get me wrong, the servers that remain have fairly stable populations. But still, you won't see many true newbies anymore. WoW is still growing, adding more servers around the world. They have an impressive number of subscribers and a thriving community. So, which game is best for you? I can't hardly say, I don't know you. Just look around at what people have written and decide for yourself.  Signature-Richard Monual Lifegiver Prelate of Rodcet Nife Triton Povar server > Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com > and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is > perhaps the better description. EQ isn't that hard. And I wouldn't go with boring either. It certainly gives you all the tools to hang yourself with. (Falling into the Hole Dragons, Werewolves, and Giants in zones with much lower level content, seemingly random npc faction related aggro as you pass huts, or villages, npcs just standing by a tree... runners causing swarms of adds, etc... EQ will kill your character often with little warning or hope of escape until you've really learned the ropes. EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires long xp grinds to level up. But the random deaths keep it from getting too boring. ;) Frustrating more than hard or boring. > You need a certain kind of mindset to sit > for hours in one place gathering XP. The power-levelling alts of old-timers know whats the best xp/hour and that's all they care about. They won't move much, the rest of the herd follows them... few have the inclination to go anywhere outside the box. I guess its hard for many people to justify leaving a safe, simple, recognized 'best xp' camp to go somewhere that's suboptimal at the best of times and will likely as not get you slaughtered ...owing to lack of knowledge about the layout pathing mob capabilites etc... not to mention the aforementioned wandering dragons, murderous npcs, and gaping holes in the ground... it takes a true adventurer. :) > WoW is easy. You can get very high very quickly with no knowledge of the > game whatsoever. The game is very good at leading you along from one area [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the way to add more to the world, but for now, it's easy to see the whole > world. Both however are growing. > EQ has terrible, terrible PvP. EQ tried various ways to implement PvP, but > in the end they couldn't get around the fact that the game was designed for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > class. WoW was designed from the ground up with both PvP and PvE in mind, > and the effort shows. /agree > EQ has lots of end-game content, with extremely challenging mobs that > require dedicated teamwork from a variety of players. SOE has had years and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > speak, of course, but for now, once you get to 60 you have a few instanced > zones to go to and that's about it. As before both however are growing. :) > EQ has an outdated graphics engine. They've tried updating it over the > years, but you'll still feel like you're in a five-year-old game much of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > WoW has a beautiful graphics engine. Very immersive. Perhaps not > HL2-calliber, of course, but still quite lovely. /agree > EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. It seems to be dieing in fits and spurts more than slow and gradual. Each new mmorpg bites off a chunk. And it doesn't appear that EQ is attracting new players anymore in remotely significant numbers. >> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com >> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >EQ will kill your character often with little warning or hope of escape >until you've really learned the ropes. Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ. >EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires >long xp grinds to level up. And it requires long waits for groups to do the long xp grinds. >But the random deaths keep it from getting too boring. ;) Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ. >> You need a certain kind of mindset to sit >> for hours in one place gathering XP. > >The power-levelling alts of old-timers know whats the best xp/hour and >that's all they care about. They won't move much, the rest of the herd >follows them... few have the inclination to go anywhere outside the box. Yes,and SOE supporting this mind set,caging in all players in one zone which gives the best xp,leaving the explorers or people who like some variety(me) in the cold,or why is the xp in places like Veksar,Droga etc. so horrible? >I guess its hard for many people to justify leaving a safe, simple, >recognized 'best xp' camp to go somewhere that's suboptimal at the best >of times and will likely as not get you slaughtered ...owing to lack of >knowledge about the layout pathing mob capabilites etc... not to mention >the aforementioned wandering dragons, murderous npcs, and gaping holes >in the ground... it takes a true adventurer. :) Even more adventurous types like me are driven away from out of the way places,cause the xp there is laughable compared to the latest expansion,way to go Sony,I will never buy another expansion,I dont like to be blackmailed. >> EQ has lots of end-game content, with extremely challenging mobs that >> require dedicated teamwork from a variety of players. SOE has had years and >> years to design and implement raid-level challenges, and nobody does it >> better. Plus there are so many raid-level encounters, so many different >> ways you can progress, it can make your head spin deciding what you want to >> do after you hit level 70. Sure,you have to be level 70 to enjoy the game. :p >> EQ has an outdated graphics engine. They've tried updating it over the >> years, but you'll still feel like you're in a five-year-old game much of the >> time. SOE will release yet another graphics update in the next expansion to >> try and catch the game up. Nice,instead of adding content and fixing bugs,we get another graphics update,remember the last one? :p >> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. One can wonder why SOE doesnt simply pull the plug,instead of making it so that more and more players cancel,with half the the players now than 2 years ago it cant be very profitable,maybe they are hoping for EQ players slowly move to EQ2? :p Meldur >>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. >One can wonder why SOE doesnt simply pull the plug,instead of >making it so that more and more players cancel,with half the the >players now than 2 years ago it cant be very profitable,maybe >they are hoping for EQ players slowly move to EQ2? :p I'm sure that was their original plan but EQ2 hardly attracting new players. Most have left for WoW or gone back to EQL. SOE must now be scratching their heads about what to do with two EQ games with a low subs >>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >scratching their heads about what to do with two EQ games with a low >subs Obviously they will shut down EQ,not EQ2 in some time, I am anxious if they are that bold to demand to buy the CDs from their EQ customers to play EQ2. Not that I would ever touch another game from Sony,I hate their attitude trying to squeeze the last cent out of the players. Probably its not only SOE but the entire Sony group,who has this problem,I read some weeks ago in a German newsmagazin,that their share of the world market for electronics entertainment has diminished from 15% to 10%. Meldur > >>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I am anxious if they are that bold to demand to buy the CDs > from their EQ customers to play EQ2. I wouldn't bet on EQ being shut down before EQ2. EQ *still* has more subscribers than EQ2 according to recent figures, and looking at the trend it appears it is retaining more to boot. >> >>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > subscribers than EQ2 according to recent figures, and looking at the > trend it appears it is retaining more to boot. I won't predict which will shut down first, but, I will not simply move to EQ2 if EQ is shut down first. I will find some other game, as EQ2 just doesn't really do it for me. It was a decent pastime for when I got bored with EQ. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons On Steamfont Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest> Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner >> >>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >subscribers than EQ2 according to recent figures, and looking at the trend >it appears it is retaining more to boot. There were some numbers some months ago on a public press release from SOE stating EQ2 has around 600,000 subscribers,though it wasnt clear if these were only EQ2 subscribers or "station pass" subscribers,negative as I am usually are here,I would suspect the latter,seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle about 10k subscribers,my guess is that the number of EQ subscribers is much lower than the number of EQ2 subscribers. Well,I wouldnt mind EQ running longer than EQ2,all my postings about how bad SOE's business strategy is would be turn out to be right. =) Meldur > ...seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle > about 10k subscribers... Say what? Are you seriously claiming that each server can handle only about 500 subscribers? Heck, my server has more characters than that just in the Bazaar! -- Don. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm -- -- Sukrasisx, Monk 56 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail, -- Terrwini, Druid 52 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you -- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s" -- Teviron, Knight 21 on E. Marr >> ...seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle about >> 10k subscribers... > > Say what? Are you seriously claiming that each server can handle > only about 500 subscribers? Heck, my server has more characters > than that just in the Bazaar! I believe the claim is 10k per server, which would make that 210k subscribers. Not that I think the number is necesarilly correct. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons On Steamfont Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest> Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner >>> ...seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle about >>> 10k subscribers... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I believe the claim is 10k per server, which would make that 210k >subscribers. Not that I think the number is necesarilly correct. There was this article some weeks ago,which talked about the tecnical aspects of MMORPGs,maybe you remember it,there the number of average 10k per server was mentioned. Another hint would be from the time,when Verant showed us the number of players currently online,in the average on SolRo this was about 2.5k. So I think 10k active accounts per server is pretty close. Meldur > >> >>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > about 10k subscribers,my guess is that the number of EQ subscribers > is much lower than the number of EQ2 subscribers. http://www.mmogchart.com Speaking with authority should only be done when properly informed. =) > Well,I wouldnt mind EQ running longer than EQ2,all my postings > about how bad SOE's business strategy is would be turn out to > be right. =) EQ2 was a terrible concept from the start. Regardless of whatever game mechanics I don't like about the game, regardless of... well, anything... it was aimed at essentially the same market. The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths: A) Create a *different* game. Name it something else. Don't make it depend on cannibalizing your own successful product's userbase in order to succeed itself. Yes, it will still draw on some of the same userbase, but not as heavily, and all those "EQ sucks" people (like yourself) don't refuse to even try it based on preconceptions. B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine. Shutdown EQ and transfer everyone to EQ2, which *is* EQ, just with a complete overhaul. Market it as a brand new game, enjoy the benefits of a pre-existing userbase. Instead they tried to create a sequel. A mind bogglingly bad idea. Asheron's Call 2, in every way a far superior game to Asheron's Call, flopped with a vengeance. Pay attention. =P >> >> >>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Speaking with authority should only be done when properly informed. =) Well,lets have a look where he got his numbers from(taken from his FAQ). >2. Where do you get your numbers? My numbers come from a variety of sources, and some games have more than one source. These sources include the following: a) Corporate Press Releases When was the last time SOE published an official press release about subscribers numbers in EQ? Link it please. b) Corporate Documents see a) c) News Articles From time to time, reporters for both online and offline publications are able to get a hold of numbers that I have not. Care has to be taken, though, as sometimes a reporter can confuse total sales with subscribers, or may simply regurgitate a number that is many months old. Still, if I find a number that appears to be credible, I will generally use it. Well,if he finds a number *credible*,he will use it,lol. d) Public Comments Game developers and publishers will sometimes make public comments about their subscriber numbers These can be right or wrong,who knows? e) Anonymous Sources I save me any comments on making up numbers from anonymous sources. f) Educated Guesses I save me any comments on making up numbers from educated guesses. >3. Your numbers are all made up or are just guesses! I assure you, they are not. It is true that many companies keep their subscriber numbers confidential, but others are more open about it. Almost all of the data I use comes from actual sources, although often those sources are insiders who only give the information on the condition of anonymity. I save me any comments on making up numbers from anonymous sources. All in all a very trustworthy source,rofl. Meldur > >> >> >>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > subscribers numbers in EQ? > Link it please. What the hell dude. The quote of yours that I was responding to, which you kindly didn't even snip out, was "There were some numbers some months ago on a public press release from SOE stating EQ2 has around 600,000 subscribers". You can't argue that both ways. =P That kind of logic is impossible to debate, or discern... > EQ2 was a terrible concept from the start. That's just silly. > The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths: > > A) Create a *different* game. They do have different games. > B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine. Shutdown > EQ > and transfer everyone to EQ2, which *is* EQ, just with a complete > overhaul. > Market it as a brand new game, enjoy the benefits of a pre-existing > userbase. And have no one new play it because it *is* EQ, with all the same flaws. Unless you're suggesting they move everyone to a new game as brand new characters and lose all the players who don't move simply because of the time invested in their characters. > Instead they tried to create a sequel. In a sense. What they really did was create a game which appealed to a lot of players who *liked* EQ but hated what they saw as flaws in EQ. It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ going. I think SOE would have been shocked to see a huge, permanent migration from EQ to EQ2. Instead, they got what they wanted - players who probably would have left EQ went to EQ2 while players happy with EQ stayed there to support eventual graphics upgrades, etc. <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote: > > EQ2 was a terrible concept from the start. > > That's just silly. Because the evidence shows how EQ2 left all its competitors in the dust... oh, wait, that was a different game. =P > > The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths: > > > > A) Create a *different* game. > > They do have different games. They *are* different games. Ironic that you snip out the rest that discusses marketing when the point was that the marketing was done completely and utterly wrong. > > B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine. Shutdown > > EQ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as brand new characters and lose all the players who don't move > simply because of the time invested in their characters. I've heard WoW compared to EQ more than EQ2 has been compared to EQ. Beyond the amusement value, it illustrates just how wrong you are. All games have flaws, EQ is no exception. WoW was a "re-thinking" of the concepts behind EQ, with a *stated* purpose to make another EQ but eliminate all of EQ's flaws (of course, they created a whole new set of flaws, which was to be expected). But no, "no one new" plays WoW. =) > > Instead they tried to create a sequel. > > In a sense. What they really did was create a game which appealed > to a lot of players who *liked* EQ but hated what they saw as > flaws in EQ. That would be a helluva lot easier to sell if we weren't all aware that they kept a lot of the flaws of EQ and created plenty of new ones too. It's the game design mindset behind EQ that creates what most consider to be the flaws in EQ. That mindset doesn't change with EQ2 (though to be fair, in the face of considerable competition, that mindset has been forced to change some in both games). > It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ going. I think SOE would > have been shocked to see a huge, permanent migration from EQ to EQ2. Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the something turned out to be EQ2). Why they never considered all the ramifications of that decision we may never know, but in the long run it probably led to *more* people leaving EQ *and* EQ2 for WoW than if they had just devoted themselves to their already-successful product, or at least worked the "new" angle on a game rather than directly tying it to their existing one. > Instead, they got what they wanted - players who probably would have left > EQ went to EQ2 while players happy with EQ stayed there to support > eventual graphics upgrades, etc. I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard got what Sony wanted. =P > Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing > playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > worked the "new" angle on a game rather than directly tying it to their > existing one. That's an interesting point because I've been thinking about that recently. I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't have been playing WoW if it wasn't for EQ2. I was happy with EQ and wasn't looking at replacing it in any way (I discovered it late and my highest character was level 36 - I had lots left to do). Along came EQ2 and it looked really cool - I don't think that it would have caught my attention if it wasn't a sequel. I tried it and it didn't keep my attention long but I didn't move back to EQ - I moved to WoW which I am still playing and enjoying lots. steve.kaye <nospam@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote: > > Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing > > playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but I didn't move back to EQ - I moved to WoW which I am still playing > and enjoying lots. I think that exact scenario was played out more than a few times. >> Instead, they got what they wanted - players who probably would have left >> EQ went to EQ2 while players happy with EQ stayed there to support >> eventual graphics upgrades, etc. >I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard >got what Sony wanted. =P Yep, I think you find the correct chain of events is "players who probably would have left EQ went to EQ2, decided that's not what they wanted and left for WoW" > "Wolfie" wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because the evidence shows how EQ2 left all its competitors in the dust... > oh, wait, that was a different game. =P No, the different game is WoW - which has the same "terrible concept" as EQ2... >> > The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths: >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > discusses marketing when the point was that the marketing was done > completely and utterly wrong. How's that? EQ2 was marketed as different than EQ. It's just set in the same overall theme, Norrath. >> > B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine. >> > Shutdown EQ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I've heard WoW compared to EQ more than EQ2 has been compared to EQ. Every fantasy MMORPG is compared to EQ. Again, if they'd just recreated EQ - with the same flaws that make it EQ - they'd have kept their userbase - and not gained very much. >> > Instead they tried to create a sequel. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > change > some in both games). Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due to mechanics changes. >> It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ going. I think SOE would >> have been shocked to see a huge, permanent migration from EQ to EQ2. > > Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing > playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the > something turned out to be EQ2). They DID have to do something. The server consolidations speak for themselves IMO. > I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard > got what Sony wanted. =P Sure, but I doubt Sony could have done anything about that. IMO an upgraded EQ - with all the same flaws - would have been an even bigger disaster. Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't. >> I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think >> Blizzard got what Sony wanted. =P [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't. That is my hope. I am one of those weird people who actually preferred EQ when it still had "the vision". Back when travelling took time, faction mattered, death mattered, and a corpse run was not a minor inconvenience. Guess that just makes me a masochist. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons On Steamfont Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest> Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner >>> I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think >>> Blizzard got what Sony wanted. =P [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > took time, faction mattered, death mattered, and a corpse run was not > a minor inconvenience. Guess that just makes me a masochist. I'm of the same opinion - about the vision, not your being a masochist. :P SignatureRumble "Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing." -- Benjamin Franklin >>>>I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think >>>>Blizzard got what Sony wanted. =P [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm of the same opinion - about the vision, not your being a masochist. :P I can't understand anyone who thinks the other way. <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote: > > "Wolfie" wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, the different game is WoW - which has the same "terrible > concept" as EQ2... If you think WoW is more like EQ2 than it is like EQ than you have either never played WoW, never played EQ2, or never played EQ. Or perhaps you just don't look at game mechanics and concepts in design and can't get past the superficial race/class/mob names/zone names. > >> > The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How's that? EQ2 was marketed as different than EQ. It's just > set in the same overall theme, Norrath. How was it marketed as different? How can a game called "Everquest 2" possibly be marketed as the Next Big Thing when the world is all too familiar with sequels? It's a metaphysical impossibility. > >> > B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine. > >> > Shutdown EQ [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > recreated EQ - with the same flaws that make it EQ - they'd have > kept their userbase - and not gained very much. Again, "compared to" refers to game mechanics and concepts in design. Many games are compared in very general ways with EQ, purely because of EQ's success, much like EQ was compared to UO. That is a different connotation, a comparison of markets/demographics, as nobody claimed that UO followed the same design concepts as EQ. > >> > Instead they tried to create a sequel. > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due > to mechanics changes. Interesting. So far the flaws I've heard (and seen) in EQ2 are the same as those that have been discussed for years with regard to EQ. Flagging, separation of hardcore and casual players, gear/level dependance, client/server stability, etc. The mindset of Sony, illustrated in pacing, lockouts, flagging, etc., transcends the actual mechanics of the games. > >> It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ going. I think SOE would > >> have been shocked to see a huge, permanent migration from EQ to EQ2. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They DID have to do something. The server consolidations speak for > themselves IMO. I can't tell whether you're one of those that will be purposefully obtuse in a lame attempt to try to appear right in the face of the realization that you aren't, or whether you're simply stupid. If you really feel that an after-the-fact (re)action was the full extent of Sony's planning, then you either have no concept of how corporations (and the whole rest of the world) work or you really think Sony is the worst run company ever. > > I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard > > got what Sony wanted. =P [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't. WoW is *so* much like EQ, with the world balanced and the pacing tuned for the "casual" player, that I, and a lot of others that I regularly talk to, got bored with it quickly. It's along the same lines of when I found god mode in Doom, and never played single-player Doom again because the challenge level just couldn't keep my interest in spite of the game itself still being brilliant. > If you think WoW is more like EQ2 than it is like EQ than you have > either never played WoW, never played EQ2, or never played EQ. I've never been interested in playing WoW but I've certainly played the other two. At least from what I've read here and on their forums WoW seems to resemble EQ2 a lot more than EQ but, no, I'm not positive. Just my impression... > How was it marketed as different? How can a game called "Everquest 2" > possibly be marketed as the Next Big Thing when the world is all too > familiar with sequels? It's a metaphysical impossibility. That's a difference in outlook - I saw marketing for EQ2 as very different than EQ's. I certainly didn't expect another EQ when I bought the game. > > Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due > > to mechanics changes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > illustrated in pacing, lockouts, flagging, etc., transcends the > actual mechanics of the games. Strange -- I've seen none of that in 50 levels of EQ2 (and all the heritage quests) that comes even close to the same issues in EQ. The flaws I was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and buff bots), killstealing, etc. They simply don't exist in EQ2. Flagging? Restricted to quest zones (ie, part of the quest even if given a different name and shared among several quests) or raid zones. They DID have level restrictions on certain XP zones you could bypass at an earlier level by a group quest -- but you did get in simply by leveling and all the mobs would still be yellow or better at that level. Gear/level dependance? I'm not sure what you mean. A grouping player can kill everything a raiding player can *for XP* wearing nothing he didn't loot/craft himself. A group of raiders would be a bit faster - but not enough to make a difference that matters. You don't see anything like the issues being discussed here with groups asking HP/gear questions - even if you're grouping with players from raiding guilds. Just as an example: the leading cleric on my server (guildleader of the top raiding guild) has different gear in *five* slots than a cleric I group with often - and the cleric I group with duos 95% of the time... Client/server stability? Not sure what you're addressing. They've had a couple of bad patches - which wouldn't have changed if they'd did a different game or "EQ right" or whatever. That's a SOE problem, not a game problem. > I can't tell whether you're one of those that will be purposefully > obtuse in a lame attempt to try to appear right in the face of the > realization that you aren't, or whether you're simply stupid. Yes, and ad hominem attacks make you look so smart in comparison. Are you seriously of the opinion SOE didn't need to do *something* in the face of competion? > If you really feel that an after-the-fact (re)action was the full > extent of Sony's planning, then you either have no concept of how > corporations (and the whole rest of the world) work or you really > think Sony is the worst run company ever. I think anyone who didn't see server consolidations coming after the release of EQ2/WoW had their head in the sand. EQ won't die as long as SOE wants to spend money on it but it's not the rising star it once was. It's an *old* game and was before EQ2/WoW became viable projects. SOE *did* have to do *something* besides channel money into an old title. >> > Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due >> > to mechanics changes. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > get in simply by leveling and all the mobs would still be yellow > or better at that level. Not as bad as EQ, but bad enough from personal experience. > Gear/level dependance? I'm not sure what you mean. A grouping > player can kill everything a raiding player can *for XP* wearing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > different gear in *five* slots than a cleric I group with often - and > the cleric I group with duos 95% of the time... Agreed on gear dependence, it is worlds different in EQ2 than in EQ. Level does matter possibly even more in EQ2 than in EQ. I know that I saw huge changes in what I could solo just by gaining one level. > Client/server stability? Not sure what you're addressing. They've > had a couple of bad patches - which wouldn't have changed if > they'd did a different game or "EQ right" or whatever. That's a > SOE problem, not a game problem. I'd have to say I personally have seen less issues with this in EQ2 than in EQ, but have heard of others having much more trouble. My personal problem with EQ2 is that they went to the extreme in making it easy to play compared to what EQ used to be like, EQ has also become much easier to play than it once was. From everything I have heard WoW is not the answer to that issue that I have. EQ2 is much more friendly to the casual player than EQ, and I understand that WoW is as well. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons On Steamfont Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest> Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote: > > > Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due > > > to mechanics changes. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and buff bots), > killstealing, etc. They simply don't exist in EQ2. Those aren't game design flaws, those are social flaws. I have, uncoincidentally, seen plenty of complaints about the fact that Sony tried to deal with social flaws through game design and the resulting immersion-killing heavy handed "solutions" they implemented. > Flagging? Restricted to quest zones (ie, part of the quest even if > given a different name and shared among several quests) or raid > zones. They DID have level restrictions on certain XP zones you > could bypass at an earlier level by a group quest -- but you did > get in simply by leveling and all the mobs would still be yellow > or better at that level. The sheer volume of comments regarding the recent change to this suggests that it was considered a "big problem" by a sizeable portion of the players. > Gear/level dependance? I'm not sure what you mean. A grouping > player can kill everything a raiding player can *for XP* wearing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > different gear in *five* slots than a cleric I group with often - and > the cleric I group with duos 95% of the time... Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate. Again, you're equating social issues and broad-stroke genre-wide concepts, with the game-specific mechanics. A good counterpoint to maybe give you an understanding of the topic would be the games Guild Wars and City of Heroes. Both have "gear". In both you can get "better" "gear". But in both of them the gear comes so easily and/or has such a miniscule impact that the games are never described as "gear dependant". > Client/server stability? Not sure what you're addressing. They've > had a couple of bad patches - which wouldn't have changed if > they'd did a different game or "EQ right" or whatever. That's a > SOE problem, not a game problem. Right... that was kind of the point. =P Same complaint, because it's the same company with their same mindset behind it. Guild Wars, which patches damn near daily (far different sort of patching system, specifically designed to let them do so without disrupting play) has never had a bad patch. There are other games that approach that elusive "never had a bad patch" goal. Sony games... don't even try. =) > > I can't tell whether you're one of those that will be purposefully > > obtuse in a lame attempt to try to appear right in the face of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > comparison. Are you seriously of the opinion SOE didn't > need to do *something* in the face of competion? Ok, purposefully obtuse. Thanks for clearing that up. At least you snipped out the "EQ2 was it" part this time so that your response wouldn't look totally vapid. =) As well, you should research the actual meaning of "ad hominem". A quick and dirty tutorial is "You suck, so you're wrong", hardly applicable to my "attack" which was "You suck" and "You're wrong because...". =) > > If you really feel that an after-the-fact (re)action was the full > > extent of Sony's planning, then you either have no concept of how [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > *did* have to do *something* besides channel money into > an old title. I reiterate my responsive paragraph above. =P >> The flaws I >> was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and buff bots), >> killstealing, etc. They simply don't exist in EQ2. > > Those aren't game design flaws, those are social flaws. Maybe, but they're still reasons why people quit the game. > I have,uncoincidentally, seen plenty of complaints about the fact that > Sony tried > to deal with social flaws through game design and the resulting > immersion-killing heavy handed "solutions" they implemented. Of course - some people will whine about anything. > The sheer volume of comments regarding the recent change to this suggests > that it was considered a "big problem" by a sizeable portion of the > players. See answer above. It wasn't a "big problem" - it was a limitation. People don't like limitations. > Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate. Which is why I asked what you meant - and you didn't answer. Do you have to have gear? Well, yeah. Do you have to raid for it? No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful than a level 20? Well, yeah. Can the level 50 kill a level 22 mob that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't. Levels and gear matter in EQ2 - but only as rewards for investment in the game. They're not critical the same way they are in EQ. So, again, I'm not sure of the point here. > Ok, purposefully obtuse. Thanks for clearing that up. At least you > snipped > out the "EQ2 was it" part this time so that your response wouldn't look > totally vapid. =) Well, let's follow the thread: You: Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the something turned out to be EQ2). Me: They DID have to do something. I'll stick by that statement: SOE would have been insane not to do SOMETHING to respond to threats by WoW (and Vanguard and anyone else developing competing products. The EQ product is an old product and was losing subscribers *prior* to WoW's release. I can't see how a fantasy offering not in Norrath would have been better nor how a team with SWG's success could have done another genre any better. Just upgrading EQ wasn't the solution - EQ would have it's own baggage to defeat. Frankly I find the idea that someone with a product as successful as EQ shouldn't leverage off that success on a new offering boggling... <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote: > >> The flaws I > >> was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and buff bots), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe, but they're still reasons why people quit the game. Agreed, but they are reasons why people will quit any game. It won't take you long to find someone posting somewhere that they are quitting WoW because of all the "b.Net kiddies". > > I have,uncoincidentally, seen plenty of complaints about the fact that > > Sony tried > > to deal with social flaws through game design and the resulting > > immersion-killing heavy handed "solutions" they implemented. > > Of course - some people will whine about anything. Of course you can compare game populations with world populations and make anything insignificant. I think we both realize that is pointless. Though I'm not sure you will realize how apt the analogy is. > > The sheer volume of comments regarding the recent change to this suggests > > that it was considered a "big problem" by a sizeable portion of the > > players. > > See answer above. It wasn't a "big problem" - it was a limitation. > People don't like limitations. So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big problem"? 20%? 50%? 75%? 2%? Hell, I might agree with you that Sony should ignore minorities in games, as it definitely follows my logic in another recent thread... > > Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but > the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't. Why won't the level 50 get the drop? Is he being punished for having accomplished something? See above about immersion killing solutions to social issues. =P > Levels and gear matter in EQ2 - but only as rewards for investment in the > game. They're not critical the same way they are in EQ. So, again, I'm > not sure of the point here. Levels are no more and no less critical in EQ2 as in EQ. They are both level based games and make no attempt to hide it. > Well, let's follow the thread: Impossible since you snipped out pertinent parts. Snipping the rest of it as meaningless to the original thread. > Frankly I find the idea that someone with a product as successful as > EQ shouldn't leverage off that success on a new offering boggling... I rather find the fact that they anyone would think they *could* leverage off the success to such a degree (i.e., creating a sequel) without killing off the original completely was possible. As has become obvious by EQ's continued dominance of EQ2's population, it wasn't possible, at least not by Sony. > So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big > problem"? 20%? 50%? 75%? 2%? Hell, I might agree with you that Sony > should ignore minorities in games, as it definitely follows my logic in > another recent thread... Your logic: yes. Your logic was consistent. Your assertion that raiders, the group you are in, actually make up the majority of the playerbase, seems to defy reality though. Even generous estimates of active raiders to active casual accounts leaves you outnumbered 2 to 1. But that's another thread...literally. :) > > > Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See above about immersion killing solutions to social issues. =P To the OP: No he's simply not being rewarded for accomplishing NOTHING worth rewarding. Oooooh you a beat 20th level challenge at 50th level... No prize for you! Get over it. In a similiar vein: I make a big deal out of it when my daughter "goes potty" on her own, and even give her treats. My wife on the other hand gets nothing for her efforts in that regard. You apparently call that, in your own words: "punishing her for having accomplished something"? (lmao... just the idea is cracking me up... ) <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > > So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big > > problem"? 20%? 50%? 75%? 2%? Hell, I might agree with you that Sony [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > (lmao... just the idea is cracking me up... ) EQ is a "world". Thus why I used the word immersion. Nobody gets rewarded for going to the bathroom in EQ. Even if you are a big game hunter in the real world, if you kill a squirrel you can still get some meat. > <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > > > So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > for going to the bathroom in EQ. Even if you are a big game hunter in the > real world, if you kill a squirrel you can still get some meat. EQ is and always will be at least as much a game as it is a world. The trolls watched with relative disinterest as the frogloks occupied their homeland. The good folk of Norrath as much as the evil *enjoyed* the march of evil into Firiona Vie. And nobody has raided the Overlord Mata Muram because of his immoral enslavement of other beings... it was always and only for the joy of defeating a challenge, and his shiny trinkets. Most people don't even know or bother with the backstory that supposedly provides them motivation. The don't need it... its enough to know they haven't killed it yet, and that it has neat toys if they do. <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > > <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > motivation. The don't need it... its enough to know they haven't killed > it yet, and that it has neat toys if they do. Man, I'm not any sort of roleplayer at all, and even I'm not that cynical. =) > There were some numbers some months ago on a public press release > from SOE stating EQ2 has around 600,000 subscribers,though it wasnt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about 10k subscribers,my guess is that the number of EQ subscribers > is much lower than the number of EQ2 subscribers. First of all... iirc there are 25 servers left, not 21. I counted a few weeks ago. Second 2000 subscribers per server is ludicrously low. A server can easily support 10-20000 subscribers. Very few people play eq 24 hours per day. Many play once a week. :) Anyhow a reasonably respected site charting mmorpg subscription rates shows this: http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html EQ at ~475,000, EQ2 at ~250,000. Have a gander at the site: www.mmogchart.com He provides some good commentary in the analysis and conclusions. And don't forget to look at the Subscribers 120k+ to give you an visual idea of the magnitude of difference between the WoW and EQ2 phenomena. WoW is truly wow! > >> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com > >> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ. Where are you going with that? Nobody said it was the end of the world and you had to roll a new character. But death is not meaningless in EQ. As a newbie and a lowbie, death is *still* amaziningly inconvenient. Getting your corpse back, even via DoN, is still a pain. It still requires several zone hops to get back to where you were. And if you don't get a rez as part of the DoN summon package you could lose an hour of play or more (particularly irritating if soloing xp comes slow, or if farming greens with 0xp incoming, and taking a death do a random red popping on your a.s...) Getting a rez in the guild lobby isn't that hard, but it can take time. > >EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires > >long xp grinds to level up. > > And it requires long waits for groups to do the long xp grinds. Amend to some classes require long waits for groups and I'll go with it. Clerics never seem to have long waits unless they're really particular about where they want to go. > >But the random deaths keep it from getting too boring. ;) > > Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ. See above. >> >> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com >> >> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Getting a rez in the guild lobby isn't that hard, but it can take time. I wouldnt even have thinked about entering places like Howling Stones without a group before corpse summoners.Now I dont have to care any longer. >> >EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires >> >long xp grinds to level up. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Clerics never seem to have long waits unless they're really particular >about where they want to go. Mheldur 66 *Cleric* <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > > >> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com > > >> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > and you had to roll a new character. But death is not meaningless in EQ. > As a newbie and a lowbie, death is *still* amaziningly inconvenient. And of course a money sink. Which I wouldn't mind if they'd put a banker in the lobby. > Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from > www.everquest.com and try it for free for seven days. That's > something Blizzard doesn't currently offer. So you can at least > decide if you like the look and feel of the game. I just saw a WoW trial on the cover DVD of PC Gamer when I was in the bookstore the other day. Beyond that <shrug> WoW's fun, EQ was fun (but SOE pissed me off one too many times with the DX9 fiasco). SignatureArch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw Lanys T'vyl (Retired) Mairelon, 36th Paladin Silverhand >Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com >and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't >currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel >of the game. Actually Blizzard do. The US mag PC Gamer has a 14 day trail on the cover DVD. Only a matter of time before you can download it of the net. abryant1@shaw.ca wrote in news:1122499355.640381.298580 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Vote for me.. > > 1 = wow > 2 = EQ 1 Anyone stupid enough to ask this question on an EQ newsgroup should definitely go play some other game... SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons On Steamfont Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest> Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner > Anyone stupid enough to ask this question on an EQ newsgroup should definitely go play some other game... Read my second post retard. Anyway, as it stands I reactivated my EQ account last night and I was very inpressed with the new Graphics UIpdate. The only thing that bugs me is that my PC has MORE than enough power to run it, but it still graphically lags. Now I just have to decide what to play. I am leaning towards a Dark elf Necro to start with. : Anyway, as it stands I reactivated my EQ account last night and I was : very inpressed with the new Graphics UIpdate. The only thing that bugs : me is that my PC has MORE than enough power to run it, but it still : graphically lags. : Now I just have to decide what to play. I am leaning towards a Dark elf : Necro to start with. Make sure to check and turn off advanced lighting crap. K Hippie Ramone <kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote in news:dcb2kl$801$1 @brand.scrye.com: >: Anyway, as it stands I reactivated my EQ account last night and I was >: very inpressed with the new Graphics UIpdate. The only thing that bugs [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > K And shadows. That's a huge performance hit. SignatureRumble "Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing." -- Benjamin Franklin >Anyway, as it stands I reactivated my EQ account last night and I was >very inpressed with the new Graphics UIpdate. The only thing that bugs >me is that my PC has MORE than enough power to run it, but it still >graphically lags. >Now I just have to decide what to play. I am leaning towards a Dark elf >Necro to start with. of course =) Meldur abryant1@shaw.ca wrote in news:1122562748.542059.121070 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> Anyone stupid enough to ask this question on an EQ newsgroup should >> definitely go play some other game... > > Read my second post retard. Next time I'll put a smiley face on it so you understand it was humor... SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons On Steamfont Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest> Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.