Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Platforms
PCXboxPlayStationNintendo
Games
ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games

Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

EQ1 vs. EQ2 vs. WoW

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
oom - 13 Sep 2005 13:54 GMT
I played EQ1 since '01 and tried EQ2 this spring. I didnt get really
far but it looked cool. Then a friend of mine asked me to join their
guild in WoW and been playing that for a couple months now and I
wanted to get others take on the future of these games and whether
Sony learned their lesson from people or not. IMO EQ was punishing for
people. Death xp loss, quest reward vs. difficulty, no ability to solo
past a young level for most classes (just telling people to play druid
or necromancer limits the game somewhat). I have read that WoW is
today has the largest volume of subscribers and a LOT of people I meet
in the game are EQ players who love it.

should grouping be REQUIRED to play a game like this? in EQ1 you
couldnt do jack without a group. In WoW you can solo easily all the
way to 60  but it isnt nearly as good xp as instances and the grind is
boring and the loot isnt as good. You arent being punished but
encouraged.

should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
during certain levels by giving additional loss which i hated. It did
however make you more cautious a player. In WoW you get item damage
from death which can get costly to repair....is this a good tradeoff?

EQ has many more classes and races, more continents, planes etc....the
content of EQ was rich.......the graphics and game environment of WoW
however is rich. EQ2 is pretty good in that regard but i never got
past 12th so I wouldnt have seen much content there.

So whats your take on things? Could Sony learn from other games to
make EQ better and not lose the customer base or is it fine the way it
is? Could Blizzard learn from EQ and toughen up WoW a bit??
steve.kaye - 13 Sep 2005 14:32 GMT
> should grouping be REQUIRED to play a game like this? in EQ1 you
> couldnt do jack without a group. In WoW you can solo easily all the
> way to 60  but it isnt nearly as good xp as instances and the grind is
> boring and the loot isnt as good. You arent being punished but
> encouraged.

IMO grouping shouldn't be required but there are a number of options
out there and you take your pick based on what you like.  The fact that
WoW doesn't require grouping is bad if you really like to group.  It's
good for me though as I like to solo a lot and as a minimum requirement
I need to be able to solo whilst looking for a group (and for me to
feel that I'm achieving something - I didn't get that feeling in EQ2)

> should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
> during certain levels by giving additional loss which i hated. It did
> however make you more cautious a player. In WoW you get item damage
> from death which can get costly to repair....is this a good tradeoff?

This is, probably, my biggest gripe with WoW and EQ2.  I just don't
feel that death is penalised enough.  With EQ I fealt a big thrill when
I narrowly avoided death - I never got that feeling from EQ2 or WoW.  I
think that this is due to the fact that you don't lose experience in
either of them (experience debt didn't have the same impact for me).  I
also think that the fact that you reappeared at your bind point with no
gear and then had to overcome the difficulty of getting it back also
added to the thrill of a near miss.  In WoW, sometimes the easiest way
to overcome a problem is to die and I have seen posts recommending it
as a tactic.  I just don't think that is a good thing.  In EQ I would
never have even contemplated doing something that resulted in certain
death even if it did put me nearer my goal.

steve.kaye
BombayMix - 13 Sep 2005 14:56 GMT
>> should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
>> during certain levels by giving additional loss which i hated. It did
>> however make you more cautious a player. In WoW you get item damage
>> from death which can get costly to repair....is this a good tradeoff?

>This is, probably, my biggest gripe with WoW and EQ2.  I just don't
>feel that death is penalised enough.  With EQ I fealt a big thrill when
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>never have even contemplated doing something that resulted in certain
>death even if it did put me nearer my goal.

Not played the original EQ but losing your gear sounds like hell to me.
It bad enough losing soul shards in EQ2 and having to get them. I've
died many times trying to get and totally failed in one case and had to
rest the char for a week to get it back. Zero fun in my books and it
will turn people off the game fast.

In my opinion the best game for debt is one you didn't mention, Guild
Wars. If you die your char becomes 15% weaker up to a maximum of 60%.
At 60% the mission might become impossible to do and you have to quit
but once you do the debt goes away. So, there's no permanent effect
but losing hours of play is enough to stop people treating death easy.

As for SOE copying ideas, if you played EQ2 for longer you would know
they've been copying everything WoW and GW offers in an effort to get
subscribers. Some of the changes are good and necessary but I don't
think make EQ2 like it competitors will get many new subs just stop
people from leaving.
Palindrome - 13 Sep 2005 19:12 GMT
>In my opinion the best game for debt is one you didn't mention, Guild
>Wars. If you die your char becomes 15% weaker up to a maximum of 60%.
>At 60% the mission might become impossible to do and you have to quit
>but once you do the debt goes away. So, there's no permanent effect
>but losing hours of play is enough to stop people treating death easy.

Yes I think it works very well indeed, BM, although it was a strange
concept at first!  I love it now though  :)  Even better, there's no
monthly fee.

On a more general note, pertaining to the main thread topic, I played
the demo of EQ2 and I found it fairly poor. I realize this was a demo,
but there is no way in hell I would shell out and buy EQ2 on the basis
of this crummy demo.

I wouldn't mind trying WoW out, but there is no demo currently
available in my region, as far as I know.  No way am I paying for the
game, then finding I don't like that either, lol.  The reason I am
wary of trying it is from the input of online friends (they have tried
WoW and EQ2, but cancelled their accounts and prefer to play either
Guild Wars/Anarchy Online and/or EQ) who say the game has more idiots
per square inch than in any other game they have ever played - sounds
a bit bitter to me, but there might be an element of truth to it, heh.
Several have also said it is FAR too easy to solo up to high levels in
Wow.  Still, I'd love to see a demo of it, to make my own mind up.

Until something else comes along, I'll stick to EQ, Guild Wars and
maybe some Delta Force Online.

Palindrome
Mary Poppins - 13 Sep 2005 22:04 GMT
damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk (Palindrome) wrote in
<tk4ei1pkp59nfr6hl2qd84596af41dcpl7@4ax.com>:

>Yes I think it works very well indeed, BM, although it was a strange
>concept at first!  I love it now though  :)  

I agree. The death penalty in Guild Wars is just painful enough.  

Guild wars is growning on me.
Don Woods - 13 Sep 2005 20:02 GMT
> Not played the original EQ but losing your gear sounds like hell to me.
> It bad enough losing soul shards in EQ2 and having to get them. I've
> died many times trying to get and totally failed in one case and had to
> rest the char for a week to get it back. Zero fun in my books and it
> will turn people off the game fast.

I think the current arrangement in EQ is a good balance in this regard
(though I know some people point to it as another "training wheels"
element in the game).  If you die at a low level, there's no penalty
other than the time to get back to whatever you were doing (and maybe
get fresh buffs and re-memorize spells).  After level 10, you do lose
experience (but not much until mid to high levels), but can get most of
it back via resurrection if you can find the corpse, and you have to get
to the corpse to regain your gear.  It used to be the big screw was if
you couldn't find (or reach) your corpse, because then the experience
loss was permanent and your items were gone.  Yes, it made players more
careful about dying, which is good, but stuff happens, and people did
occasionally lose all their gear.

A while back, they added Shadowrest.  If you died and didn't retrieve
the corpse, the corpse would appear in Shadowrest a week later and you
could at least get your gear back.  (It would be too late to rez.)  But
being unable to play your character for a week sucks, as does losing xp
permanently.

With the introduction of the Guild Lobby in the previous expansion(*),
players have a reasonable choice.  They can summon their corpse there
for a modest fee (based on level) and get it rezzed and get their gear.
But doing so means they're back in civilisation, and getting back to
whatever they were doing can take a while.  So people often still prefer
to bind closer to where they're hunting, with the intent to run back in
and get their corpse "in situ" if they die.  But if things go sour, you
have the Guild Lobby to fall back on so the penalty isn't as big as it
used to be.

    -- Don.

(*) Do I win anything for being the first to refer to Dragons of Norrath
as the "previous expansion"? :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 57 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 25 on E. Marr
Stanos Herkanor - 13 Sep 2005 20:15 GMT
> A while back, they added Shadowrest.  If you died and didn't retrieve
> the corpse, the corpse would appear in Shadowrest a week later and you
> could at least get your gear back.  (It would be too late to rez.)  But
> being unable to play your character for a week sucks, as does losing xp
> permanently.

Of course, there's always the really old option of keeping a bag of old gear
in the bank. :) Or create an alt.
Tim Smith - 14 Sep 2005 03:59 GMT
> Not played the original EQ but losing your gear sounds like hell to me.

It was indeed very annoying.  You've just done something that was beyond
you, and died.  You've been smacked with a heavy XP penalty, and have
learned your lesson.  So what do you have to do?

You have to go back to the place that you've just learned you should not
go, and you have to do it without your best equipment (or without any
equipment if you don't have a backup set).

Signature

--Tim Smith

42 - 14 Sep 2005 05:51 GMT
In article <reply_in_group-41A7D6.19595613092005
@news1.east.earthlink.net>, reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...
> > Not played the original EQ but losing your gear sounds like hell to me.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> go, and you have to do it without your best equipment (or without any
> equipment if you don't have a backup set).

Of course it goes without saying that you will have inevitably de-
leveled on what was then at a 'spell' level in the process --- and thus
also don't have access to an entire set of spells you've just come to
rely on. :P
Richard - 14 Sep 2005 19:57 GMT
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in news:reply_in_group-
41A7D6.19595613092005@news1.east.earthlink.net:

>> Not played the original EQ but losing your gear sounds like hell to me.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> go, and you have to do it without your best equipment (or without any
> equipment if you don't have a backup set).

Some of the most fun I remember having was the entire guild going back in
after a wipe all dressed in mage summoned gear.

Death is too meaningless in EQ now.  There is no penalty other than a small
loss of time now.  Summon your corpse, get a rez, and you are off again
with an almost meaningless XP loss.

Signature

Hmm, guess I need to do my sigs on this computer.

Mary Poppins - 14 Sep 2005 20:34 GMT
richardrapier@netscape.net (Richard) wrote in
<Xns96D184C7C6F35rrapiernetscapenet@216.168.3.44>:

>Death is too meaningless in EQ now.

I don't agree the time it takes to get back in to action is enough penalty.      
Well for older game content death isn't a high enough penalty but for newer
content it seems balanced enough for me.
Tony Evans - 14 Sep 2005 23:22 GMT
In alt.games.everquest, mary@perfect.com (Mary Poppins) wrote:

>richardrapier@netscape.net (Richard) wrote in
><Xns96D184C7C6F35rrapiernetscapenet@216.168.3.44>:
>
>>Death is too meaningless in EQ now.

>I don't agree the time it takes to get back in to action is enough penalty.      
>Well for older game content death isn't a high enough penalty but for newer
>content it seems balanced enough for me.

Wait until you play monster missions where you can earn XP and loot - and
if you die - well the mission just ends, no death, no xp loss, no corpse
looting, no rezzing.

Signature

Tony Evans      (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : David Gemmell
And your cry baby whiny-assed opinion would be...?
Meet the wife : http://www.darkstorm.co.uk/grete

Mary Poppins - 15 Sep 2005 19:08 GMT
${tony}$@darkstorm.co.uk (Tony Evans) wrote in <4328a33a$0$38040$bed64819
@news.gradwell.net>:

>Wait until you play monster missions where you can earn XP and loot - and
>if you die - well the mission just ends, no death, no xp loss, no corpse
>looting, no rezzing.

Getting back in to action is penalty enough at least for me.  
Tony Evans - 16 Sep 2005 10:59 GMT
In alt.games.everquest, mary@perfect.com (Mary Poppins) wrote:

>${tony}$@darkstorm.co.uk (Tony Evans) wrote in <4328a33a$0$38040$bed64819
>@news.gradwell.net>:
>
>>Wait until you play monster missions where you can earn XP and loot - and
>>if you die - well the mission just ends, no death, no xp loss, no corpse
>>looting, no rezzing.

>Getting back in to action is penalty enough at least for me.  

In the Naggy mission it only ends if Nagafen dies, giants can just run back
from within SolB.  In the Freeport mission I think it only ends if
everyone's dead otherwise you can just run back from the dock.

There isn't any delay getting back into the action.

Still great fun though.  142% of an AA on a level 70 warrior for doing the
Freeport one (obtained in BB).

Signature

Tony Evans      (ICQ : 170850)
GCv312 GCS d s+:++ a C+++ UAL++++$ P+ L++ E W(++) N+++(N--) w++$ R+ tv-- b++
Frogs are smart ... they EAT what bugs them.
Meet the wife : http://www.darkstorm.co.uk/grete

Beal - 13 Sep 2005 21:18 GMT
> In WoW, sometimes the easiest way
> to overcome a problem is to die and I have seen posts recommending it
> as a tactic.  I just don't think that is a good thing.  In EQ I would
> never have even contemplated doing something that resulted in certain
> death even if it did put me nearer my goal.

You never raided?
Faned - 13 Sep 2005 21:37 GMT
<bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > In WoW, sometimes the easiest way
> > to overcome a problem is to die and I have seen posts recommending it
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> You never raided?

Very few raids in EQ involve certain death (if you're winning that is).
Sony actually left the "deathtouch" concept behind, or rather, they made it
something you could strategize past unlike the original implementation of
it.  Current "deathtouch" fights generally have a delayed and "fixable"
implementation so that people only get insta-killed if they don't do
whatever is necessary to stop it from happening.
Beal - 13 Sep 2005 21:54 GMT
> <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Very few raids in EQ involve certain death (if you're winning that is).

I have never faced Mata Muram but I believe that the first time you
encounter him as a guild, you can pretty much count on certain death.
Yeah, I know it isn't "certain" however.

In any case, while I agree that before you hit 70, 65, whatever max
level, death mattered; while I also was wary of doing anything that was
almost certain to cause death, once I have reached the highest level I
have never been bothered by death.  Heck I have sacrificed myself on
numerous occaisions in order to just help position a mob or to pull a
named so that my group could kill it once I had snared it and suicided
off the adds.  And back in the Tactics days, I used to eat deaths all
the time.  I knew I was going to die a lot, but the experience made up
for it.  Unrezzed deaths?  Pfff, who cares?  My druid partner and I had
just looted 100k worth of crap from the named and I had 50k worth on my
trader.  Over any long period of time, death was certain.  I still
soloed or duoed Tactics all the time.  Need to see what is up in fear?
Hell I used to just strip off all my gear, run in naked, and circle the
zone for as long as I could, mashing track.  That was certain death as
well.

How do find out if your group can handle an unknown named in a knew
expansion?  You send mikey in to tag him and see how hard he hits,
that's how you find out.  Certain death.  I know I will eat lots of
deaths learning about new mobs in this, just as I have in previous
expansions.
Mary Poppins - 13 Sep 2005 22:07 GMT
bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com (Beal) wrote in <1126644868.075348.194420
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>Yeah, I know it isn't "certain" however.

Raiding new content death is almost certain.  

Old content is not raiding, it's farming.

EQ has lost a lot.
Vidden - 13 Sep 2005 22:43 GMT
Mary Poppins wrote:
> bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com (Beal) wrote in
> <1126644868.075348.194420
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> EQ has lost a lot.

I hope EQ1's next expansion (oh god.... another one?) will be something
for all levels. When was the last expansion geared for all levels?
Luclin??

__________________________________________________________
Submitted by: Vidden
This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum
Prelgor - 13 Sep 2005 23:52 GMT
> I hope EQ1's next expansion (oh god.... another one?) will be something
> for all levels. When was the last expansion geared for all levels?
> Luclin??

That depends entirely on how you count.  PoP had the books, which
everyone could use.  LoY had more bank space, and I think the in-game
maps.  GoD had the Abysmal Sea tradeskill mecca.  DoN had the Guild
Hall and corpse summoners.  I can't recall an expansion since PoP that
did NOT have some little game-enhancing goodie designed to draw in even
someone with a level 15 main.  If nothing else, the latest expansion
will allow anyone to "play as a monster", won't it?  Luclin was the
last expansion that had new monsters for a level 5 to kill, but
everything since then has offered *something* for even the lowbies.
You can form your own opinion whether this constitutes "geared for all
levels", but there is invariably *some* content for everyone.  Can't
miss out on a potential customer just because s/he is low level...  ;)
42 - 15 Sep 2005 22:41 GMT
> > I hope EQ1's next expansion (oh god.... another one?) will be something
> > for all levels. When was the last expansion geared for all levels?
> > Luclin??
>
> That depends entirely on how you count.

Or don't understand what the phrase 'geared for' means.

>  PoP had the books, which
> everyone could use.  LoY had more bank space, and I think the in-game
> maps.  GoD had the Abysmal Sea tradeskill mecca.  DoN had the Guild
> Hall and corpse summoners.

>  I can't recall an expansion since PoP that
> did NOT have some little game-enhancing goodie designed to draw in even
> someone with a level 15 main.

> If nothing else, the latest expansion
> will allow anyone to "play as a monster", won't it?  Luclin was the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> levels", but there is invariably *some* content for everyone.  Can't
> miss out on a potential customer just because s/he is low level...  ;)

More bank space is not "Content", and "having an expansion geared for
you" does not mean there is 1 zone filled only with NPCs that you can
visit.

That's like saying a Lamborghini Murcielago is "geared for" soccer Moms
because there's room for a deflated soccer ball in the trunk and driving
your kids to practice one at a time is still an improvement over walking
down the freeway.
Prelgor - 15 Sep 2005 23:23 GMT
> > > I hope EQ1's next expansion (oh god.... another one?) will be something
> > > for all levels. When was the last expansion geared for all levels?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Or don't understand what the phrase 'geared for' means.

You seem to have entirely missed my point.  Perhaps I made it
ineffectively.  Or perhaps you are my straight man.  :)

> > You can form your own opinion whether this constitutes "geared for all
> > levels", but there is invariably *some* content for everyone.  Can't
> > miss out on a potential customer just because s/he is low level...  ;)

I thought I had tipped my hand with my last comment. :)

> More bank space is not "Content", and "having an expansion geared for
> you" does not mean there is 1 zone filled only with NPCs that you can
> visit.

By and large, I agree with you.  My highest character is level 60, and
I feel that I got almost nothing from GoD and precious little out of
PoP, Omens and DoN, so far.  It doesn't help that I haven't played my
level 60 in some time either, failing to realize what only that
character might have gained from those expansions.

My point was simply to observe the trend that the high-level content
invariably gets bundled with other features that low levels can use and
may come to find indispensable.  I think my main killed a dozen or so
mobs in Natimbi, mostly for giggles, but I haven't killed or looted
anything else anywhere in GoD.  On the other hand, as a tradeskiller, I
have found the Abysmal Sea zone to be incredibly convenient.  If I
could bundle Abysmal Sea, the corpse summoners and the PoK books into
one expansion and sell back the rest of the content in PoP, GoD and
DoN, my own game experience would not change a whit.  (Well, OK, I've
been on one DoN mission and one Hedge raid...)  Undoubtedly, others
have different experiences, but for me, the high level content was
largely wasted.  Nevertheless, just about every expansion has something
that I can use, somehow.  Does this mean that I will rush out and buy
the latest expansion?  It's getting harder and harder to say "yes" to
that question, as time goes on...

> That's like saying a Lamborghini Murcielago is "geared for" soccer Moms
> because there's room for a deflated soccer ball in the trunk and driving
> your kids to practice one at a time is still an improvement over walking
> down the freeway.

I think a better analogy would be that a $1,500 PC is more "geared for"
your soccer mom than the $500 PC, not because it has faster graphics
and a better sound system, but because it also comes bundled with a
utility for organizing the family photos that she takes.
42 - 16 Sep 2005 00:12 GMT
> > > > I hope EQ1's next expansion (oh god.... another one?) will be something
> > > > for all levels. When was the last expansion geared for all levels?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> You seem to have entirely missed my point.  Perhaps I made it
> ineffectively.  Or perhaps you are my straight man.  :)

Uh... yeah...

Lol... nope I'm afraid you came off defending SOE just enough that I
thought you really beleived that low levels had gotten something
worthwhile with each expansion instead of being baited with some minor
feature that would make their life better -- often hyped into being much
more useful than it actually was... (tribute, the task system, the charm
slot.), or worse would be left seriously behind if they didn't have it
(pok for example...or the DoN lobby)  

More importantly, a great many high level players do think its "enough
content" to justify the price to lowbies.

> > > You can form your own opinion whether this constitutes "geared for all
> > > levels", but there is invariably *some* content for everyone.  Can't
> > > miss out on a potential customer just because s/he is low level...  ;)
>
> I thought I had tipped my hand with my last comment. :)

That comment can swing both ways.

> > More bank space is not "Content", and "having an expansion geared for
> > you" does not mean there is 1 zone filled only with NPCs that you can
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> the latest expansion?  It's getting harder and harder to say "yes" to
> that question, as time goes on...

> > That's like saying a Lamborghini Murcielago is "geared for" soccer Moms
> > because there's room for a deflated soccer ball in the trunk and driving
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> and a better sound system, but because it also comes bundled with a
> utility for organizing the family photos that she takes.

Better analagy maybe but not quite the same visual. :)

Then again, maybe not... I wouldn't wish a $500.00 PC on even a soccer
mom. Sure you don't need a GeForce 7000 series... but a memory starved
celeron on a budget PC hobbled by Norton Monstrousity and 20 other tray
dragging it to a crawl in order to give you "fast" (ironic isn't it)
access to rarely used features like changing your colour depth.

-cheers
Richard Carpenter - 17 Sep 2005 15:06 GMT
"Prelgor" <prelgor@aol.com> wrote in news:1126651979.127319.301850
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

>> I hope EQ1's next expansion (oh god.... another one?) will be something
>> for all levels. When was the last expansion geared for all levels?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> levels", but there is invariably *some* content for everyone.  Can't
> miss out on a potential customer just because s/he is low level...  ;)

Well, as 42 has also mentioned, those features you mention hardly qualify
as new content. They were each little more than single compelling features
to entice players of all levels to purchase expansions that were geared
primarily to the high level player.

Those were the types of features that a MMORPG should push out in patches,
not use to squeeze money out of your customers that have little reason
otherwise to purchase the expansion.

Signature

Richard Carpenter

Davian - 16 Sep 2005 02:36 GMT
> I hope EQ1's next expansion (oh god.... another one?) will be something
> for all levels. When was the last expansion geared for all levels?
> Luclin??

LDoN

You can argue that it wasn't particularly good content, but it was content for
level 20 - 65.

Signature

Davian / Dearic  (Bloodhoof)

"We need a new Mario game, where you rescue the princess in the first ten
minutes, and for the rest of the game you try and push down that sick feeling
in your stomach that she's "damaged goods"... When Peach asks you, in the
quiet of her mushroom castle bedroom "do you still love me?" you pretend to be
asleep. You press the A button rhythmically, to control your breath, keep it
even." - Joey Comeau on increased realism in gaming.

Faned - 14 Sep 2005 14:27 GMT
<mary@perfect.com> wrote:
> bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com (Beal) wrote in <1126644868.075348.194420
> @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Yeah, I know it isn't "certain" however.
>
> Raiding new content death is almost certain.  

Hardly.  The first time I saw Quarm (at 65), I saw Quarm die.  That applies
to a whole lot of other mobs along the way as well.  There are of course
mobs that pose problems and need to be learned, and I'm not saying that
those first encounters are pretty, as they usually aren't, but it's far from
certain death.  The "deathtouch" encounters referenced earlier in this
thread, and the difference from the old version of "deathtouch" encounters,
means that some mobs will be very hard to learn and have an element of luck
even after they are fully learned.  If you go in with a good set of
instructions and a raid force that can pay attention and follow instructions
perfectly, even those are far from certain death on the first try.

> Old content is not raiding, it's farming.

I guess that being in a "hardcore" raiding guild...  I only raid once every
six months.  Interesting viewpoint.  =P

> EQ has lost a lot.

And none of its competitors has managed to provide what it has lost.  In
fact, they started out with more "lost" than how EQ is currently.  In the
raiding game, no other game on the market compares to EQ.
Mary Poppins - 14 Sep 2005 15:08 GMT
faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndig9aq.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:

>If you go in with a good set of
>instructions and a raid force that can pay attention and follow
>instructions perfectly, even those are far from certain death on the
>first try.

By new content I mean firsts not spoiler raids for the slow... ;^)
Faned - 14 Sep 2005 15:22 GMT
<mary@perfect.com> wrote:
> faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndig9aq.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> By new content I mean firsts not spoiler raids for the slow... ;^)

How many gamewide firsts have you accomplished?  Any?  I have a few, but not
many.  It's tough to beat every guild from *every* server to the punch.  I
have considerably more server firsts, but of course those are meaningless
when talking about not having any sort of spoilers at all.

I'll be glad to match my list up against yours.  I have a set, tried and
true method of dealing with unknown encounters, which has an incredibly good
track record for producing wins on the first try.  =)
Mary Poppins - 14 Sep 2005 15:39 GMT
faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndigch3.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:

>It's tough to beat every guild from *every* server to the punch.

Just don't use spoilers or read them or look for them.  It's hard these
days.  I don't know how many firsts we have...  
Faned - 14 Sep 2005 22:53 GMT
<mary@perfect.com> wrote:
> faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndigch3.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:
>
> >It's tough to beat every guild from *every* server to the punch.
>
> Just don't use spoilers or read them or look for them.  It's hard these
> days.  I don't know how many firsts we have...  

Strangely enough, not looking for spoilers, or looking for them for that
matter, has zero impact on whether you get a gamewide first...
Mary Poppins - 15 Sep 2005 19:06 GMT
faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndih6ui.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:

>Strangely enough, not looking for spoilers, or looking for them for that
>matter, has zero impact on whether you get a gamewide first...

Correct.  Just it requires spoiler sites to know if you done something
first or not.  
Faned - 15 Sep 2005 19:48 GMT
<mary@perfect.com> wrote:
> faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndih6ui.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Correct.  Just it requires spoiler sites to know if you done something
> first or not.  

On some things, sure.  Mostly stuff that requires multiple steps to get to
(such as final boss in NToV/Kael/VT/Time/GoD/Anguish).  Other things, such
as easily accessible Kunark dragons, Ssra named, PG trials, WoS raid
targets, etc. and post-revamp raiding are easier to know with a reasonable
degree of certainty, though of course are damn hard to prove if someone else
was doing it simultaneously (one of my gamewide firsts is the new Sleeper's
Tomb, done right after the servers came up from the patch that put it in,
and I have no doubt that someone would argue that they got it done before I
did  =).
Mary Poppins - 16 Sep 2005 14:53 GMT
faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndijgg3.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:

> that they got it done before I
>did  =).

True but the fun is your firsts, done by you with your idea of what was the
best gear, and your team/guild's best tactics.  

Spoilers are just that, spoilers.  

Back to the orginal point, we are experienceing some deaths in this
expansion.
Mary Poppins - 13 Sep 2005 22:06 GMT
faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndiee3m.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:

>Very few raids in EQ involve certain death (if you're winning that is).

What? Are you on drugs?  Most raids on new content are certain death.  Old
content is not raiding it's farming.
Faned - 14 Sep 2005 14:35 GMT
<mary@perfect.com> wrote:
> faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndiee3m.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:
>
> >Very few raids in EQ involve certain death (if you're winning that is).
>
> What? Are you on drugs?  Most raids on new content are certain death.  Old
> content is not raiding it's farming.

Mobs *I* died on for the first try...  very very few.  I love feign death.

Beyond that, though, the *majority* of first encounters I've faced over the
years have been wins.  There are some glaring exceptions of course.  I spent
a month watching my guild die to Tallon Zek in Time (and the day we finally
beat him we dropped every other mob without a wipe).
Mary Poppins - 14 Sep 2005 15:11 GMT
faned@wyld.qx.net (Faned) wrote in <slrndig9o9.766.faned@wyld.qx.net>:

>Beyond that, though, the *majority* of first encounters I've faced over
>the years have been wins.  

That's because you weren't raiding you were farming via spoilers.  That's
my opinion and if you consider new content baking recipes that's your call.

This is what EQ has lost and I am lucky enough to find in other games.  
Unspoiled challenges.   I still enjoy EQ and the new expansion is awesome
but getting in before the spoilers get out just gets harder and harder.
42 - 14 Sep 2005 01:52 GMT
> <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Very few raids in EQ involve certain death (if you're winning that is).

That IF should be in fifty-foot letters though.

> Sony actually left the "deathtouch" concept behind, or rather, they made it
> something you could strategize past unlike the original implementation of
> it.  Current "deathtouch" fights generally have a delayed and "fixable"
> implementation so that people only get insta-killed if they don't do
> whatever is necessary to stop it from happening.

Of course the older raids still require the sacrificial lambs. :)
Sean Kennedy - 13 Sep 2005 23:44 GMT
> This is, probably, my biggest gripe with WoW and EQ2.  I just don't
> feel that death is penalised enough.  With EQ I fealt a big thrill when
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> steve.kaye

The problem is that it is a thin line:  An overly harsh death penalty
is one of the reasons people invented the XP grind group - safe, steady
XP.  Also, you won't get 60's in WoW with much epic gear saying that the
death penalty doesn't affect how they play the game.  Repair costs get
pretty impressive at that level.
Signature

Arch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang
Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw
    Lanys T'vyl (Retired)

Mairelon, 47th Paladin
    Silverhand

42 - 14 Sep 2005 02:08 GMT
> This is, probably, my biggest gripe with WoW and EQ2.  I just don't
> feel that death is penalised enough.  With EQ I fealt a big thrill when
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> never have even contemplated doing something that resulted in certain
> death even if it did put me nearer my goal.

You must not have had a cleric around.

I suicide to accomplish goals without hesitation. Be it for insane
pulls, reaching an xp group (either by suicide train or corpse summon),
and even as a ghetto gate in some circumstances, and sometimes we'd take
a named knowing full well we'd never survive the adds. But the shot at
the item, even if we wiped 15 seconds after looting it was deemed
acceptable.

But I always had a cleric around. I might have thought twice if we
didn't.
murdocj - 14 Sep 2005 02:32 GMT
>> ...
>> should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>feel that death is penalised enough.  With EQ I fealt a big thrill when
>I narrowly avoided death

At the low levels in EQ  a good tight battle where you barely escape
death was a big thrill.  At  the higher levels in EQ, with 96% (or
even 90%) rez death wasn't such a big deal in EQ.  The main thing that
always worried me in EQ was the chance of losing gear.  That held me
back from really exploring the game as fully as I would have liked to.
That was certainly one of the attractions of LDoN... the knowledge
that in a reasonable amount of time my body was guaranteed to pop out.

And death in WoW isn't quite as painless as some people make out.  You
lose gear durability and you either have to carefully rez near your
corpse while trying to figure out which wandering mob is going to come
over and whack you, or you get to rez at the graveyard but take a big
durability hit and a temporary stat hit.  
42 - 14 Sep 2005 04:19 GMT
> At the low levels in EQ  a good tight battle where you barely escape
> death was a big thrill.  At  the higher levels in EQ, with 96% (or
> even 90%) rez death wasn't such a big deal in EQ.  The main thing that
> always worried me in EQ was the chance of losing gear.

>  That held me
> back from really exploring the game as fully as I would have liked to.

Why?

There are likely some inaccuracies below... but the gist holds true.

Original game had corpse locate spells/songs & 90% rez. Losing a corpse
was a real concern for many players in the very beginning. Although by
the time Kunark arrived there were enough 50ths wandering around that
getting a rescue was trivial; even Permafrost/LGuk/SolB were perma-
camped with waiting lists for dragons... if you lost your corpse you
could have just asked for help, and likely gotten it. The only exception
was the planes.

Kunark added summon corpse spell lines, and 96% rez, as well as giving
Necros Rez.

So by Kunark losing a valuable corpse was only really a concern in the
planes and VP. Although you did occasionally need a 'CR recovery
team'... a porter to get you out of a one way zone, a summoner to get
the corpse over, and ideally a rezzer to get you your xp back, and
perhaps even a cc or dps class for places like HS with aggro mobs right
at the zone in. Getting a full CR crew did present a legitimate
obstacle...but that's what guilds are for. You really couldn't actually
lose your corpse unless you were a very infrequent or antisocial player,
but yeah, it did take a fair chunk of effort/time to get it out of some
zones.

Velious & Luclin didn't really change anything. Although Pali's were
granted rezes with Luclin (iirc??). I didn't play a pali, but I thought
the pali and lowbie clr rezes were first available in shadowhaven.

PoP added graveyards. It didn't affect the rest of the game, but you
couldn't really lose a corpse in PoP itself.

With LDoN instances spat out corpses, as you noted. Again the mechanic
was limited to LDoN.

I beleive ShadowRest showed up sometime after LDoN. ShadowRest
permanently eliminated lost corpses with a 1 week wait. 0 risk of losing
corpses.

DoN made it so that for a few pp you didn't have to wait 1 week.

Veteran Rewards gave you another option if you qualified.

Its been reasonably easy to get your corpse out of *almost* anywhere for
a very long time, and for quite a while now there has been no risk at
all.

It really can't get much easier now.
murdocj - 15 Sep 2005 05:30 GMT
>> At the low levels in EQ  a good tight battle where you barely escape
>> death was a big thrill.  At  the higher levels in EQ, with 96% (or
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>could have just asked for help, and likely gotten it. The only exception
>was the planes.

that's the thing... for whatever reason, I really really really have
trouble doing the "/shout could any1 help me get my corpse" thing.
Don't know what it is, because in RL I don't mind asking for
directions.

> ...
>So by Kunark losing a valuable corpse was only really a concern in the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>but yeah, it did take a fair chunk of effort/time to get it out of some
>zones.

I think the "it did take a fair chunk of effort/time to get it out of
some zones" sums out why I didn't explore as much as I wanted to.

I was a member of a really good, medium sized guild (by good I mean
friendly) and you're right, if I was willing to ask, it wouldn't have
been too bad for most zones.  I hate bugging people to do stuff for
me.  And no, that didn't mean I was unwilling to help out others, I
was happy to do that when I could... just hate bugging people.

But here's one example where it was a pain... guild raid on some
dungeon or other (don't recall which, didn't raid much).  Getting
close to my bedtime, getting ready to log.  Server crashes and stays
down.  So now my bod is deep down.  Can't stay up till the guild
reconvenes and gets it out, that may be hours.  Go to bed thoroughly
pissed off.  Ended up not being as much a hassle as I thought (my wife
stayed up and got me out, so no hassle at all for me) but had that not
happened, I would have been stuck till next time guild raided there...
which might have been long time.

And yes, I'm sure that if I bothered enough people, I could find
someone going in and tag along and do a CR.  See above.
murdocj - 15 Sep 2005 12:42 GMT
>But here's one example where it was a pain... guild raid on some
>dungeon or other (don't recall which, didn't raid much).  Getting
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>And yes, I'm sure that if I bothered enough people, I could find
>someone going in and tag along and do a CR.  See above.

Thinking about this, probably I wouldn't have had to fight my way back
in, I'd just have to get someone to summon my corpse.  I'm sure if I
asked in guild the next day I could have gotten someone to come.  But
I just hate getting people to stop what they are doing and help me
out.  And I also hate the feeling of "you can't play until you get
your corpse back, so you just get to hang out online".  That always
feels so unproductive... I might as well be watching the grass grow.

Anyway, back to WoW vs. EQ1 vs EQ2, I just like the way WoW does it.
The cash penalty is enough that you really don't want to rez at the
graveyard unless you have to... but if you need that option, it's
there and you move on.  I get stressed enough in RL w/o having to
stress in my online life as well.
Faned - 13 Sep 2005 15:02 GMT
<yng@zomg.com> wrote:
> I played EQ1 since '01 and tried EQ2 this spring. I didnt get really
> far but it looked cool. Then a friend of mine asked me to join their
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> boring and the loot isnt as good. You arent being punished but
> encouraged.

That's just blatantly wrong.  Even with the most well-oiled instance
crushing machine of a group, I could make faster experience solo in WoW.  A
big part of that is that the experience reward from quests was significant,
so while grinding through a quest I was getting experience the whole time,
comparable to the experience gained with a group in an instance (and better,
depending) and then a big chunk at the end of my grind from finishing the
quest.

> should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
> during certain levels by giving additional loss which i hated. It did
> however make you more cautious a player. In WoW you get item damage
> from death which can get costly to repair....is this a good tradeoff?

You never lost additional experience in certain levels.  Experience loss on
death has always been a flat equation.  It's the actual experience required
per level that had bumps (and in those "hell levels" death actually seemed
to hurt less due to this, with the death the following level seeming to hurt
more due to the contrast).  That's long long long been changed.  WoW's death
penalty is meaningless except for one thing, it punishes warriors (and, by
extension, groups/raids relying on those warriors).

> EQ has many more classes and races, more continents, planes etc....the
> content of EQ was rich.......the graphics and game environment of WoW
> however is rich. EQ2 is pretty good in that regard but i never got
> past 12th so I wouldnt have seen much content there.

WoW has incredible graphics, and *cohesive* content.  Right up until you get
to max level, then they did the same thing EQ did and start throwing in
everything but the kitchen sink (next expansion, "Kitchen Sink Wars").  For
a casual player who wants an immersive game, I highly recommend WoW.

> So whats your take on things? Could Sony learn from other games to
> make EQ better and not lose the customer base or is it fine the way it
> is? Could Blizzard learn from EQ and toughen up WoW a bit??

Those are the most idiotic questions I've seen in a long time.
Congratulations.  Everybody can learn from everybody, and does so
continually.
steve.kaye - 13 Sep 2005 15:39 GMT
> <yng@zomg.com> wrote:
> > In WoW you can solo easily all the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> depending) and then a big chunk at the end of my grind from finishing the
> quest.

It seemed like the OP was comparing solo grinding to group grinding in
instances.  I'd imagine grinding in a group anywhere would be better
experience than grinding solo.  I don't know for sure though as I
rarely grind solo and never grind in groups.

steve.kaye
Sean Kennedy - 13 Sep 2005 23:56 GMT
> WoW has incredible graphics, and *cohesive* content.  Right up until
> you get to max level, then they did the same thing EQ did and start
> throwing in everything but the kitchen sink (next expansion, "Kitchen
> Sink Wars").  For a casual player who wants an immersive game, I
> highly recommend WoW.

And not just one time - there are a number of paths to level up that have
only minimal overlap in quest lines.  I'd wager I can get my next
alliance character up to 60 and only overlap a few quest lines - I'm
aware of the existence of whole other zones of quests to do with them.

I'd also wager I can get a horde character up to 60 without much overlap
in zones/quests.

By then maybe something new will be out for it (Hero classes) or maybe
not - but that's a ways away for me (I don't get a lot of time to play
anymore).

>> So whats your take on things? Could Sony learn from other games to
>> make EQ better and not lose the customer base or is it fine the way
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Congratulations.  Everybody can learn from everybody, and does so
> continually.

EQ borrowed from other games - new games borrowed from EQ - EQ reborrowed
good ideas from them.  And so it goes - cross pollination is the norm.
Of course, not all ideas borrowed translate as well.

Signature

Arch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang
Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw
    Lanys T'vyl (Retired)

Mairelon, 47th Paladin
    Silverhand

Tim Smith - 14 Sep 2005 03:20 GMT
> > should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
> > during certain levels by giving additional loss which i hated. It did
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> penalty is meaningless except for one thing, it punishes warriors (and, by
> extension, groups/raids relying on those warriors).

Actually, death after hell levels *was* bigger in the old days.  The XP
loss on death at level N was a fixed percentage of the amount of XP that
level N-1 required to complete.

So, if the level XP requirements had been, say:

  N-2      80 million XP
  N-1     180 million XP (hell level)
  N       100 million XP
  N+1     110 million XP

(rough numbers for illustration...I did not bother to actually fit them
to the cubic XP curve that Everquest used back then).

then XP loss on death would be (using 12%, which is what I vaguely
remember the number being):

  N-1       9.6 million (5.3% of the XP bar)
  N        21.6 million (21.6% of the XP bar)
  N+1      12 million (10.9% of the level)

Signature

--Tim Smith

Faned - 14 Sep 2005 14:44 GMT
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > > should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
> > > during certain levels by giving additional loss which i hated. It did
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Actually, death after hell levels *was* bigger in the old days.

There was no "additional loss".  Leaving the rest of your post in as it's a
pretty good explanation of "death has always been a flat equation.  It's the
actual experience required per level that had bumps".  =)

> The XP loss on death at level N was a fixed percentage of the amount of XP
> that level N-1 required to complete.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>    N        21.6 million (21.6% of the XP bar)
>    N+1      12 million (10.9% of the level)
Tim Smith - 16 Sep 2005 03:26 GMT
> There was no "additional loss".  Leaving the rest of your post in as it's a
> pretty good explanation of "death has always been a flat equation.  It's the
> actual experience required per level that had bumps".  =)
...
> > then XP loss on death would be (using 12%, which is what I vaguely
> > remember the number being):
> >
> >    N-1       9.6 million (5.3% of the XP bar)
> >    N        21.6 million (21.6% of the XP bar)
> >    N+1      12 million (10.9% of the level)

I think you overlooked that 21.6 million.  That's approximately twice
the XP loss one would expect based on the loss at N-1 and N+1.

Signature

--Tim Smith

Faned - 16 Sep 2005 04:29 GMT
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > There was no "additional loss".  Leaving the rest of your post in as it's a
> > pretty good explanation of "death has always been a flat equation.  It's the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I think you overlooked that 21.6 million.  That's approximately twice
> the XP loss one would expect based on the loss at N-1 and N+1.

No...   I'd try to explain it with the math, but, well, the math is already
there so if you don't understand it you never would.   =)
42 - 13 Sep 2005 17:00 GMT

> So whats your take on things? Could Sony learn from other games to
> make EQ better and not lose the customer base or is it fine the way it
> is? Could Blizzard learn from EQ and toughen up WoW a bit??

Why does one have to "learn" anything and be more like the other?

What's the point of making them the same. Let the people who want to
play WoW play WoW, and let the people who want to play EQ play EQ.

If the WoW formula is better than the EQ forumla in terms mass appeal,
so be it. Monopoly sells more copies than Risk; I don't want Risk to be
made more like Monopoly though.
Mark Rafn - 14 Sep 2005 18:27 GMT
>IMO EQ was punishing for people. Death xp loss, quest reward vs. difficulty,
>no ability to solo past a young level for most classes (just telling people
>to play druid or necromancer limits the game somewhat).

Of course, all of these are changed in today's game.  The biggest change,
though, is player expectations.  This is something that can never be regained
in EQ1, or in new games.  

>should grouping be REQUIRED to play a game like this? in EQ1 you
>couldnt do jack without a group. In WoW you can solo easily all the
>way to 60  but it isnt nearly as good xp as instances and the grind is
>boring and the loot isnt as good. You arent being punished but
>encouraged.

Umm, bad xp, bad loot, and boring grind IS the punishment most people cite for
soloing.  I miss old-time EQ grouping requirement, though I hated it when it
was in place.  It is an example of what I wanted (easy soloing when I felt
like it) not matching what was the most fun (making friends, overcoming
challenges).

>should Death XP loss occur? In EQ they even punished you further
>during certain levels by giving additional loss which i hated.

No additional loss per se, but since some levels were different sizes, it
could look that way.  The death penalty is another area where I really hated
it at the time, but look back on it as one reason for some of my fondest
memories.  Having to actually get back to your corpse was an INCREDIBLE
challenge sometimes.  Would I do it voluntarily today?  Nope.

>So whats your take on things? Could Sony learn from other games to
>make EQ better and not lose the customer base or is it fine the way it
>is? Could Blizzard learn from EQ and toughen up WoW a bit??

Neither.  Customers now have more choice in what they play, and we will never
again see the mix of casual players and hardcore environment that we had in
EQ1.  I strongly prefer playing with people who don't live and breathe the
game, scour messageboards for hints, etc., but do take it seriously enough to
have fun overcoming difficult challenges.  I don't think there are enough of
those people to make a game successful, now that there are alternatives.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  
Mary Poppins - 14 Sep 2005 20:31 GMT
dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote in <253mv2-lhg.ln1@hydra.dagon.net>:

>I strongly prefer playing with people who don't live and breathe the
>game, scour messageboards for hints, etc., but do take it seriously
>enough to have fun overcoming difficult challenges.  I don't think there
>are enough of those people to make a game successful, now that there are
>alternatives. --

Try Guild Wars, seems to have a good mix right now.
Krunk - 18 Sep 2005 17:54 GMT
I understand where you are coming from as most of us become MMORPG
Nomads (mainly after EQ2 was released).  I think the bottom line with
all these games is just getting into a good guild that accomplishes
what you want to accomplish.  That is what will continue to make any
game you play fun.  

Unless you want to solo consistently and still get good exp(and WoW
seems the best for that so far), it is imperative that you get into a
large guild.   That's pretty much the bottom line.   You can't go
wrong and there is always something to do and someone to group with.

>I played EQ1 since '01 and tried EQ2 this spring. I didnt get really
>far but it looked cool. Then a friend of mine asked me to join their
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Windsun - 19 Sep 2005 16:23 GMT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In WoW you can solo easily all the
> way to 60.......

And that IMO is one of the main problems with WOW and to some extent EQ2.

Because it is so easy to solo, nobody groups. There is no sense of
community. Even in the guilds I was in it seemed like you did not really
have a guild, you had a private chat channel for 250 solo players that would
occasionally group up to farm something and then all go their own way again.

Been there, done that, and I am back in EQ1 again and liking it much better
than either of the others.
murdocj - 20 Sep 2005 02:59 GMT
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> In WoW you can solo easily all the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Been there, done that, and I am back in EQ1 again and liking it much better
>than either of the others.

I'm sure that varies in WoW according to guild.  I know our guild
always has guild groups going for many hours on end.  The nice thing
about WoW is that you *can* form casual groups quickly, accomplish a
task, and move on.  You have a chance of running into some real
idiots, but I ran into my share in EQ1 as well.
 
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.