 |
 | 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 / March 2008Will your quest ever end???
Or will you be searching forever in Everquest??? Everquest sounds like an unplayable game!!! > Or will you be searching forever in Everquest??? > > Everquest sounds like an unplayable game!!! Well, I hope so but I do need to take some time out for a spot in a television special where we will be exploring my meaningless existence questing forever in my mom's basement and such. Otherwise yes, forever hopefully which makes it quite playable and this question nearly as silly as the invitation to be scrutinized as a percieved antisocial misfit in need of therapy. Next... >Or will you be searching forever in Everquest??? > >Everquest sounds like an unplayable game!!! You sound like a fuckwit :) 2/10 for trolling. Can do better. Palindrome > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 04:38:16 -0800 (PST), Gene Stonerly > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 2/10 for trolling. Can do better. I bit generous, don't you think? -- Richard Carpenter On Feb 5, 7:22 am, Palindrome <damon-no...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 04:38:16 -0800 (PST), Gene Stonerly > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 2/10 for trolling. Can do better. I bit generous, don't you think? -- Richard Carpenter Tough crowd. You guys don't fool around. Then again years of this kind of BS and no wonder... > On Feb 5, 7:22 am, Palindrome <damon-no...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Tough crowd. You guys don't fool around. Then again years of this kind of BS > and no wonder... Perhaps if you had better conveyed the intent of your post, people wouldn't be left to guess at its most likely context when responding in kind. If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll... -- Rich Carpenter >If it looks like a troll and smells like a troll... Well, it could be "illusion of troll"... Actually, that's what they should have done with the "chimera" mobs. Had them take on the illusion of any other npc in the zone, only when you con them it says "a disguised chimera eyes you with complete disdain: don't even bother"... >On Feb 5, 7:22 am, Palindrome <damon-no...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 04:38:16 -0800 (PST), Gene Stonerly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> 2/10 for trolling. Can do better. >I bit generous, don't you think? Well, it was short and to the point, and the spelling was ok :) Palindrome > Or will you be searching forever in Everquest??? > > Everquest sounds like an unplayable game!!! Sony is doing their best to kill it. I've thought about going back, but unless there's a button to make my main character level 80 with 1000 aa's to spend, I just can't do anything in game. All the zones I'd go to would be empty and I would not have the spells/levels/gear/aa's to be of use to any current players. > > Or will you be searching forever in Everquest??? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > empty and I would not have the spells/levels/gear/aa's to be of use to any > current players. Nah. I find myself soloing often enough, but there are groups to be had. As long as you're an appropriate level for the zone you're in, people will find a use for you. The only time I have a bit of trouble is when I need to put together a complete group for a specific task, like my epic or something. Also, it's about to get a lot easier to play AA catch-up. They're getting ready to implement an AAxp curve that will give nice bonuses to AAxp (like double) for those with fewer AA's. -- Rich Carpenter >Also, it's about to get a lot easier to play AA catch-up. They're >getting ready to implement an AAxp curve that will give nice bonuses >to AAxp (like double) for those with fewer AA's. Ummmm, so, if I have 1200 AAs and I group with someone who has 2 that other guy gets more XP per hour than I do? Doesn't seem fair :-) The curve plateaus out, not sure at what point as yet, but the person with 1200 AA will still end up moving through the higher volume of AA sooner than the person playing catch up. With the number and spectrum of classes changing as some players go into semi-retirement, this will allow the remaining people to group more effectively whether it be with new mains or support alts. Not such a bad idea if SOE want to stabilise the player base and content access. On Feb 18, 12:53 pm, "JK" <greenm...@netzero.com> wrote: > "Gene Stonerly" <stolen_ene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > empty and I would not have the spells/levels/gear/aa's to be of use to any > current players. Nah. I find myself soloing often enough, but there are groups to be had. As long as you're an appropriate level for the zone you're in, people will find a use for you. The only time I have a bit of trouble is when I need to put together a complete group for a specific task, like my epic or something. Also, it's about to get a lot easier to play AA catch-up. They're getting ready to implement an AAxp curve that will give nice bonuses to AAxp (like double) for those with fewer AA's. -- Rich Carpenter That sounds good but they have done a lot that's hurt the game for me too which that wouldn't begin to address. I haven't played for a bit now and it seems like each break I return from, the return stay is shorter. :-( I don't like the damned card game being foisted on players ingame. I don't like the damned cards dropping off mobs and the fact that it is little more than a way to extract more revenue from players wanting the ingame toys. Most who buy cards don't even play the game. They want the mounts and familiars and potions, etc. I truly hate all that. Once upon a time EverQuest was a entirely an online ROLE PLAYING GAME. Gems was one thing. LoN is just a bit much, a lot much. That's how I feel anyway and I know from friends I am not alone in my disdain over that move. Smed talks business so constantly he forgets about the fact that the entertainment needs to be of the very highest possible quality first and the money will flow from that accordingly. Say what you will about WoW but that sort of thing is something Blizzard would not even consider, just as they reject RMT, etc. By the numbers it appears Blizzard must be doing something right whether its one's cup of tea or not. I don't like the ridiculously complex armor that is now battery powered and for which you need a calculator to consider the power factor across gear and weapons and remove and replace a damned battery all the time which one has to run missions to have currency for, else buy it. Battery powered epic stats armor. Oh my God... The game needed more to refine and improve what was always great about it from the start and not constantly invent new and needless complexity with each new expansion which seems to be the new norm of late. I for one am sorry to see that. I have never wanted to say this but I now see EverQuest as I once loved it is gone and the game as a whole is well on the way to fading into a UO-like obscurity. I let my "investment" in my main and my nostalgia for fun, friends and times gone by hold me for years but its just not enough while I watch the game go to hell in a handbasket. Such is the end of the road for MMOs I guess, not just EQ but any of them as they age, populations dwindle, new ones come along, etc. The world we hoped might never go away in mind largely already has. It pains me to say all that. I loved EverQuest and I spent more time than I would want to admit to in Norrath over some six years. Like someone else said my choices now are play alone or grind till I can play with others. Neither is what the game was ever meant to be and I guess I am simply not willing to pay those kind of dues in terms of time to get to where the fun is. They'd need to give away copious amounts of XP to fix that and in doing so would of course be breaking a lot else. It's too late. It's terminal. :-( > I don't like the damned card game being foisted on players ingame. I don't > like the damned cards dropping off mobs and the fact that it is little more > than a way to extract more revenue from players wanting the ingame toys. > Most who buy cards don't even play the game. They want the mounts and > familiars and potions, etc. I truly hate all that. I really don't see any impact from LoN. As a matter of fact, with the cards dropping in the game, I've considered checking it out. I kind of liked Magic the Gathering, though I never really played it much. I could see where an EQ-themed game of that type would appeal to me. I don't think it affects my experience in EQ, though. /shrug > Once upon a time > EverQuest was a entirely an online ROLE PLAYING GAME. Gems was one thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > numbers it appears Blizzard must be doing something right whether its one's > cup of tea or not. They're doing something right, alright. It's called appealing to the drooling masses (no offense to those upstanding, well-educated folk who also enjoy WoW). I've often referred to WoW as the "cotton candy" of MMORPG's. Some people really love the taste and just eat it all the time. Others really like it at first but can only stomach so much. Others just don't care for cotton candy. In any case, substantive is most definitely not a term that should be used to describe it. It is what it is, something simple and fun that appeals to a lot of people. Chess and Monopoly appeal to a lot of people as well, but I wouldn't pay a monthly fee to play them. ;) > I don't like the ridiculously complex armor that is now battery powered and > for which you need a calculator to consider the power factor across gear and > weapons and remove and replace a damned battery all the time which one has > to run missions to have currency for, else buy it. Battery powered epic > stats armor. Oh my God... Yeah, I thought the energetic stuff was kind of lame. > The game needed more to refine and improve what was always great about it > from the start and not constantly invent new and needless complexity with > each new expansion which seems to be the new norm of late. I for one am > sorry to see that. Complexity I like. It can make for a more rich game world and more involving player experience. However, complexity for the sake of itself it just a bad idea. I agree with you in that I just don't think they needed to go there at that point. Deteriorating items have never been a part of EQ. I don't understand why they feel that's a viable game element. > I have never wanted to say this but I now see EverQuest as I once loved it > is gone and the game as a whole is well on the way to fading into a UO-like [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They'd need to give away copious amounts of XP to fix that and in doing so > would of course be breaking a lot else. It's too late. It's terminal. :-( Well, I don't find it to be all *that* bleak. Sure, the population is dwindling, but there is a difference between that trend in EQ vs. the same in UO. I knew people who continued to play UO for years after it was already considered washed up. They each only continued to play it because it was free to play (on the shards they played on, anyway). They didn't see any other MMORPG's worthy of a monthly fee. My brother was one of those people. However, when I bought him the SoF box, he gave it a try and was immediately hooked. My point is, while the EQ population is a fraction of what it once was, the people who still play are generally very enthusiastic about the game - enough so to continue to pay a monthly fee, even though it is largely considered well past its prime. Most of us have tried most of the other MMORPG's that have come along over the past several years, each time eventually returning to EQ. WoW is doing something right, but it's not doing EQ, and that's what keeps this group of players coming back. SoE needs to recognize that. -- Richard Carpenter >They're doing something right, alright. It's called appealing to the >drooling masses (no offense to those upstanding, well-educated folk [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Chess and Monopoly appeal to a lot of people as well, but I wouldn't >pay a monthly fee to play them. ;) As someone who played Everquest for about 5 years, played EQ2 for a few months, and played WoW from about a month after it came out till right now, I wonder what your basis is for this comparison that Everquest is for the educated elite, and WoW is for "the drooling masses". I'm sorry, but I just don't see it, and whenever I've challenged such a statement, I've never gotten back anything other than "cause I say so". Is it enormously easier to level in WoW than in EQ? Well, that's the popular perception... but I wonder. I recall that when LDoN came out in EQ, my enchanter was in his 40s. What I found was that 2 LDoNs (say at most 3 hours) was a level. I can guarantee you that's faster than my characters level in their 40s in WoW. It did get slower to level via LDoN as I moved up, but even at 59 it was about 10 LDoNs per level, maybe 10 hours (at most) which is comparable to WoW. So... is EQ more complex than WoW? Better boss encounters? Better back story? Better quests? Better crafting? Just saying that it appeals to lots of people so it MUST be dumb doesn't work... by that measure, Everquest, which was the 800 lb gorilla of its time, must have also been dumbed down. Ok, gotta go level my rogue... may we all enjoy the game of our choice. By the way... if you are comparing WoW to chess, I'm impressed... WoW would certainly be in good company in that case! >>They're doing something right, alright. It's called appealing to the >>drooling masses (no offense to those upstanding, well-educated folk [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Chess and Monopoly appeal to a lot of people as well, but I wouldn't >>pay a monthly fee to play them. ;) >As someone who played Everquest for about 5 years, played EQ2 for a >few months, and played WoW from about a month after it came out till [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >challenged such a statement, I've never gotten back anything other >than "cause I say so". Sounds about right :D >Is it enormously easier to level in WoW than in EQ? Well, that's the >popular perception... but I wonder. I recall that when LDoN came out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >level via LDoN as I moved up, but even at 59 it was about 10 LDoNs per >level, maybe 10 hours (at most) which is comparable to WoW. My lvl 28 made 16 levels in 2 days, and as you say, at first it was around 2 levels per LDoN. Sony ram-raided XP to players to get them all so high they could enjoy the new stuff. It really angered me to have a game I loved become a "Monty Haul" joke. People were earning AA points by the hundred, I kid you not! People who earned levels and AA points the hard way were disgusted, at least in my guild and from what I saw in OOC. Typical Sony balls-up. >So... is EQ more complex than WoW? Better boss encounters? Better >back story? Better quests? Better crafting? Just saying that it >appeals to lots of people so it MUST be dumb doesn't work... by that >measure, Everquest, which was the 800 lb gorilla of its time, must >have also been dumbed down. Yeah - the MUD my pals and I played on the BBS was far more sophisticated and much better suited to the gaming intelligentsia. Graphics were for the poor drooling masses who lacked any imagination whatsoever. :P (Sounds as stupid as his comment, you reckon? Maybe not.) >By the way... if you are comparing WoW to chess, I'm impressed... WoW >would certainly be in good company in that case! Making EQ the equivalent to Noughts and Crosses :D Palindrome >My lvl 28 made 16 levels in 2 days, and as you say, at first it was >around 2 levels per LDoN. I meant 1 level per 2 LDoNs. Palindrome > As someone who played Everquest for about 5 years, played EQ2 for a > few months, and played WoW from about a month after it came out till [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > challenged such a statement, I've never gotten back anything other > than "cause I say so". Caveat: I've only played EQ (and LOTRO), but my wife and other RL friends play WoW so I've heard a lot of descriptions. Still, my impressions are only second-hand. I think it's something of a misperception. Certainly some things are easier in WoW than in EQ, and that's not necessarily bad. E.g., the way they track your active quests and what step you're working on, EQ eventually did something similar with the Task window, but it's still pretty weak, and the limit of 15 Tasks is absurdly small. And I gather that WoW generally does not use EQ's approach of forcing players to camp place-holders for anywhere from 10 minutes to 100 hours to get a rare named mob to spawn. (WoW does still have mindless grinding, esp. for reputation (faction).) I've heard descriptions of some high-end raids in WoW, and they're at least as complicated as the stuff I've seen and heard about in EQ. I think WoW's reputation stems in part from the easier questing system and such attracting a wider variety of players, so it has collected a larger share of jerks and idiots, who tend to stand out and about whom many horror stories are told. But it certainly also has lots of skilled, intelligent players. If I had time to play two games I'd undoubtedly give it a try, but as it is I don't even have all the time I'd like for EQ, and have no urge to start over. >I think it's something of a misperception. Certainly some things are >easier in WoW than in EQ, and that's not necessarily bad. E.g., the Everything is easier in WoW. Contrast and compare two broadly comparable classes the Beastlord in EQ and the Hunter in WoW. In WoW with gear that I looted off mobs and random cheap AH items I can tear through endless mobs including Elites often up to 3 or 4 at a time with only the odd death to show for it which in WoW is painless enough to shrug off. Add a second player of almost any class and virtually every quest is possible. Even solo most quests can be knocked out no problem for often ludicrous amounts of extra experience. In EQ with expensive gear from the latest expansion right near the best that can be obtained from the bazaar I can be killed in melee by a single (slowed) mob multiple levels below me. If I back off and let my buffed pet tank while I frantically heal it and then myself I can resume meleeing but it's risky and time consuming. In WoW family guilds (super casual players, young kids and the like) can do older raid content and win. My old guild do this. Even many expansions old EQ content like Tacvi is too unforgiving for you to be able to do similar things in EQ hence the WoW-esque introduction of better quality bazaar gear with the last expansion. I'm sure WoW raiding at the very bleeding edge is much like EQ was a couple of expansions ago but a good chunk of EQ raid content remains untouched (it's almost certainly not tuned but that's another thread.)  SignatureSchadenfreude of Bristlebane schaden_freude@hotmail.com >>I think it's something of a misperception. Certainly some things are >>easier in WoW than in EQ, and that's not necessarily bad. E.g., the > >Everything is easier in WoW. Contrast and compare two broadly >comparable classes the Beastlord in EQ and the Hunter in WoW. Well, that's the misperception. Many things are easier in EQ than WoW. For example, travel. Click on a stone in PoK and you're there. In WoW there are a few mage ports to major cities, but basically you want to get somewhere, you fly, and it takes time. >In WoW with gear that I looted off mobs and random cheap AH items I >can tear through endless mobs including Elites often up to 3 or 4 at a >time with only the odd death to show for it which in WoW is painless >enough to shrug off. The "death is less painful in WoW than in EQ" argument is also a misperception. In fact, in EQ, you get a rez (which at the higher levels you almost always get) and death is free. In WoW, death *always* costs you, and if you've got decent gear, it costs you a fair bit. >Add a second player of almost any class and >virtually every quest is possible. Even solo most quests can be >knocked out no problem for often ludicrous amounts of extra >experience. Well, every quest that isn't a 5 man quest. WoW is certainly more "solo / duo" friendly than EQ, or at least than EQ used to be. > ... >In WoW family guilds (super casual players, young kids and the like) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >couple of expansions ago but a good chunk of EQ raid content remains >untouched (it's almost certainly not tuned but that's another thread.) I'm assuming you never got to the upper level raids of the original WoW content, or the Outlands raids like Kara. Those raids require very well coordinated groups that execute strategies to perfection. I would be extremely surprised if EQ has more demanding content. For example, in the Kara Moroes fight, losing CC on a single add means a wipe, and since the event is on a timer, a pretty good chance that you are going to have to clear to the boss. >>>I think it's something of a misperception. Certainly some things are >>>easier in WoW than in EQ, and that's not necessarily bad. E.g., the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >wipe, and since the event is on a timer, a pretty good chance that you >are going to have to clear to the boss. I was thinking about this a little more while shoveling snow (something I get to do a lot this winter) and I think the core problem is that experienced EQ players who try WoW are comparing level 70 EQ play against level 20-30 WoW. And obviously at that point, WoW is a lot easier. If you did the reverse, well, you'd come to the opposite conclusion. >I was thinking about this a little more while shoveling snow >(something I get to do a lot this winter) and I think the core problem >is that experienced EQ players who try WoW are comparing level 70 EQ >play against level 20-30 WoW. And obviously at that point, WoW is a >lot easier. If you did the reverse, well, you'd come to the opposite >conclusion. Pretty good point. I got fed up with EQ when my lvl 70 Beastlord couldn't even solo a light blue/green in the latest zones. My pal's Druid who had several thousand AA points (I just don't have his dogged determination) and excellent gear as often as not had to flee a zone as he couldn't do likewise. If the player numbers had been there to group with, that would have been fine, but the most you saw/heard in EQ zones was tumbleweed and crickets. I just got sick of having to try and solo. After that, ANYTHING seems easier. Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>I was thinking about this a little more while shoveling snow >>(something I get to do a lot this winter) and I think the core problem [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Pretty good point. I got fed up with EQ when my lvl 70 Beastlord >couldn't even solo a light blue/green in the latest zones. Cant follow you with the 70 Beastlord,they get slow AND snare(as a proc from pet),to my knowledge the only class with this combination of abilities,in fact seeing Bsts totally overpwoered was one of the (very minor) reasons I quit. >My pal's >Druid who had several thousand AA points (I just don't have his dogged >determination) and excellent gear as often as not had to flee a zone >as he couldn't do likewise. And who has ever heard of a Druid not being able to solo,not to speak of one with "several thousnad AA points" ? >If the player numbers had been there to group with, that would have >been fine, but the most you saw/heard in EQ zones was tumbleweed and >crickets. I just got sick of having to try and solo. I agree,finding pick up groups in EQ1 has become harder and harder, with DoN it even became worse,players only wanted to do the instance they need for progression,quite dumb if you ask me,lfg for hours for a special zone instead of being a little flexible and get at least some xp and who knows a somewhat valuable drop. >After that, ANYTHING seems easier. and less rewarding in the long run. Playing EQ2 on a rl friends account I had several burn out phases already in the 5 months since I started it because the "difficulty " level is simply much too low,and xping just a joke,one can solo easily from 1 to 80 with a *Cleric* class. Its the other extreme compared to EQ1,but I defintly would prefere EQ1 cause its much more rewarding in the long run. Sadly I am so p...ed about all those lieing and holding players on by SOE I will never again pay for a SOE game. >And who has ever heard of a Druid not being able to solo,not to speak >of one with "several thousnad AA points" ? There was a period when ALL the mobs in EVERY new zone summoned, making druid-ness rather frustrating. Much better now, with Icefall, Loping, and etc. >>And who has ever heard of a Druid not being able to solo,not to speak >>of one with "several thousnad AA points" ? > > There was a period when ALL the mobs in EVERY new zone summoned, >making druid-ness rather frustrating. Much better now, with Icefall, >Loping, and etc. Lol, yes, you reminded me of his pet gripe! I didn't really like it much myself as a Beastlord, either. We both got fed up and quit EQ, which was a shame after the years we'd logged, and left for pastures new. Never regretted it. Palindrome On Mar 3, 12:18 am, Ula...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:50:00 +0000, Palindrome > > >After that, ANYTHING seems easier. > > and less rewarding in the long run. That pretty well sums it up. -- Richard Carpenter > I was thinking about this a little more while shoveling snow > (something I get to do a lot this winter) and I think the core problem > is that experienced EQ players who try WoW are comparing level 70 EQ > play against level 20-30 WoW. And obviously at that point, WoW is a > lot easier. If you did the reverse, well, you'd come to the opposite > conclusion. Sir Counselot! mk5000 "Building with bent nails we're falling but holding, I don't wanna take up anymore of your time Time time time Sometimes time doesn't heal"--Jack Johnson, If I had Eyes >Well, that's the misperception. Many things are easier in EQ than >WoW. For example, travel. Click on a stone in PoK and you're there. >In WoW there are a few mage ports to major cities, but basically you >want to get somewhere, you fly, and it takes time. Ah yes click on a stone in PoK and you're at the Ashengate zone in.... err no actually wait a second. >>In WoW with gear that I looted off mobs and random cheap AH items I >>can tear through endless mobs including Elites often up to 3 or 4 at a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >*always* costs you, and if you've got decent gear, it costs you a fair >bit. Death is meaningless in WoW unless you're talking about multiple raid deaths in top end raid gear which hits only your wallet. Money is so easily acquired I fail to see how even four or five deaths in a day doing normal quests or xp could even be remotely considered anything other than a minor inconvenience. In EQ if you die and don't have a rezzer in group (or the group wipes) then you're faced with summoning your corpse to lobby (which actually is fairly costly now at level 80) before you can even think about begging for or paying someone for rez. Even then you'll start to see measurable xp loss after a few 96% rezzes. I don't think it's by accident that I know people who quit EQ for WoW who are now are on their 4th or 5th level 70 WoW character yet never even made level 70 on their years old 'main' in EQ. All their WoW chars have uber (sic) levels of tradeskills etc while 99% of them didn't do any in EQ etc. >>I'm sure WoW raiding at the very bleeding edge is much like EQ was a >>couple of expansions ago but a good chunk of EQ raid content remains [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >wipe, and since the event is on a timer, a pretty good chance that you >are going to have to clear to the boss. Reading comprehension for the win. My old guild do Karazhan and they all quit EQ having done nothing beyond Vex Thal, Sleepers and a chunk of PoP pre Time. SignatureSchadenfreude of Bristlebane schaden_freude@hotmail.com >so it has collected a >larger share of jerks and idiots Sadly this is true in my experience on a *RPG* server and made me quit forever after only 4 weeks although I had paid for 6 months. Hearing people talk about the consistence of their *sh.t* in a public channel on a RPG server was the last nail in the coffin,I am not exaggerating or joking. :( Other than that I really liked WoW,especially its great stabiltiy and bugless state it was released with,I played shortly after release. EQ1/2 looks like an Alpha product compared to WoW in regards of bugs and stability. Maybe SOE should look at those issues instead of making the games so easy that my hamster could play them,especially EQ2,to attract more players. On Mar 2, 1:29 am, Ula...@hotmail.com wrote: > >so it has collected a > >larger share of jerks and idiots [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > so easy that my hamster could play them,especially EQ2,to attract > more players. Actually, I was there when WoW launched, and I found it similar (but not quite as bad) to the SWG launch, in that, while there may not have been a vast *number* of bugs (though they both had their share), the bugs that did exist were pretty close to show-stoppers. In SWG there was the disappearing bank/inventory items and server crashes. In WoW there was the nasty, and I do mean *nasty*, lag spikes (can you say stuck loot window?) and general server instability. I've seen bugs that affected certain aspects of EQ (bugged quests, spells that didn't work, etc.), but I can't recall any that just made me want to not play until they were fixed. -- Richard Carpenter >On Mar 2, 1:29 am, Ula...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >so it has collected a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >work, etc.), but I can't recall any that just made me want to not play >until they were fixed. That's rather different from my experience with WoW and EQ. I started playing WoW a month after launch, and I'd have to say it's been extremely stable and bug free. EQ1 had quite a few bugs... none that made me want to not play but stuff like waiting for the boats and having no idea if they would ever show up... quests that you would start and then find out that they were broken... areas where you weren't supposed to stand and fight because the pathing was broken and fighting there would be considered an exploit, etc etc etc. My favorite one was doing a spell combine and having the results poof because it was lore and I already had a copy in the bank. wouldn't have mattered so much except that the only copy of that spell on the bazaar was listed at 18,000 plat Having it poof was kinda unfortunate. And of course there was the incredible bazaar lag where you had to look at a wall or the floor in order to be able to do anything. I haven't encountered anything remotely this bad on WoW. It's not perfect, but it's definitely a step up in stability. > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:51:05 -0800 (PST), Richard Carpenter > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > challenged such a statement, I've never gotten back anything other > than "cause I say so". Simple, WoW promotes accessibility to a fault. Character progression in WoW is just...easy. You don't have to group. You hardly have to think. Tradeskills are automatically acquired. All you have to do is skin what you kill or loot every applicable harvestable you find along the way, and the crafting process itself is overly simplified. Classes balanced for PvP are boring. None can have any sort of "cool" abilities for fear of upsetting that balance. There are too few classes (in the interest of further facilitating class balancing). Skills customization amounts to earning points to spend to increase the damage of your nukes by 1.6% or something silly per rank. Besides, I think you're being a bit overly sensitive to my "drooling masses" comment. It has been my experience that the percentage of the WoW population that would fall into that category is *much* higher than in EQ. I even went on to clarify that I am completely aware that segment does not comprise all WoW players. Basically, if the shoe fits... /shrug > Is it enormously easier to level in WoW than in EQ? Well, that's the > popular perception... but I wonder. I recall that when LDoN came out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > level via LDoN as I moved up, but even at 59 it was about 10 LDoNs per > level, maybe 10 hours (at most) which is comparable to WoW. Uh huh. How many players were required for that to happen? In WoW, you can do it all by yourself as in it's not as difficult as in it's easier. > So... is EQ more complex than WoW? Better boss encounters? IMO, yes. > Better back story? Yup, and much more of it. > Better quests? Easily. Every MMORPG should take a cue from the epic quests in EQ. Beyond that, FedEx and Kill x Mobs quests are offered a-plenty by both games. > Better crafting? It's no worse from the actual crafting standpoint, but, as I mentioned above, the elements that support crafting, from obtaining the components to the chance of actually (*gasp*) failing a combine do make for a more compelling system. > Just saying that it appeals to lots of people so it MUST be dumb doesn't work... by that > measure, Everquest, which was the 800 lb gorilla of its time, must > have also been dumbed down. You're putting a few words into my mouth there. WoW appeals more to the least common denominator. Let's just leave it at that. Again, of course there are plenty of fine, upstanding folks playing it as well, but it is at the same time most *definitely* the preferred playground for the "drooling masses". > Ok, gotta go level my rogue... may we all enjoy the game of our > choice. Absolutely. > By the way... if you are comparing WoW to chess, I'm impressed... WoW > would certainly be in good company in that case! Perhaps, but like I said, would you pay $15/mo. to play chess? I wouldn't, though I do like chess. /shrug -- Richard Carpenter >None can have any sort of "cool" >abilities for fear of upsetting that balance. There are too few >classes (in the interest of further facilitating class balancing). I'd say exactly the opposite. I've played a priest, a hunter, a mage and a rogue and each has had really amazing strengths (and weaknesses). Each one has been different and unique and interesting. EQ's classes felt a bit cookie cutter... like theEQ designers felt the need for a new class so they took a little bit from this existing class and a little bit from that class. >Skills customization amounts to earning points to spend to increase >the damage of your nukes by 1.6% or something silly per rank. Nope. Not even close. Consider the difference between a shadow priest and a holy priest. One is a face melting damage dealer... the other takes forever to kill things, but is a top notch healer. Both priests, but they've taken different talents. And unlike EQ, you can't just play a lot and get all the talents. You have to make choices. Hard choices. >Besides, I think you're being a bit overly sensitive to my "drooling >masses" comment. It has been my experience that the percentage of the >WoW population that would fall into that category is *much* higher >than in EQ. I even went on to clarify that I am completely aware that >segment does not comprise all WoW players. Basically, if the shoe >fits... /shrug I'm not particularly sensitive about it... you're just wrong. > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:21:33 -0800 (PST), Richard Carpenter > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the need for a new class so they took a little bit from this existing > class and a little bit from that class. Well, that certainly applies where the beastlord class is concerned. Aside from that...um, no. (though I wasn't particularly impressed by the berserker class, either) > >Skills customization amounts to earning points to spend to increase > >the damage of your nukes by 1.6% or something silly per rank. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't just play a lot and get all the talents. You have to make > choices. Hard choices. Pfft. "face melting" /rolleyes Anyway, WoW class diversity strikes me as little more than DPS and healing. If you're a healer you heal. If you're not, you DPS. They call the various skills and spells by different names, and they have different graphical effects, but you're still just applying damage, button press by button press. It just pales in comparison with regard to combat. In EQ, depending upon the class you play, there can be several different tactics employed on different types of mobs given different circumstances. There isn't much to think about in WoW. Hit the same few buttons (the three or so that do the most damage) over and over on just about any mob. > >Besides, I think you're being a bit overly sensitive to my "drooling > >masses" comment. It has been my experience that the percentage of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm not particularly sensitive about it... you're just wrong. If you say so. All I've got to go on is my own first hand experiences. -- Richard Carpenter >In EQ, depending upon the class you play, there can be >several different tactics employed on different types of mobs given >different circumstances. Loved to pull during LDoN era with my Cleric. :) Man,you should see how uninteresting pulling is in EQ2,it's the TANK's job,there is exactly *one* technique,tank approaches a group of mobs and hopes not to get too much aggro. 1 pulling class + 1 technique surely makes for great diversity,lol. Sorry for hijacking a thread about EQ1 and Wow,but I still cant get over how unbeleivably they have dumbed down the game play in EQ2. Thinking that they took my monthly fees from EQ1 to develope this piece of boring crap still makes me want to pull my hairs out. Just entered a 2nd phase in only 5 months with a seriuos burn out - I deleted EQ2 from my harddisk 2 days ago,note a rl friend let me play for FREE on his 2nd account. *starts Diablo2* > Anyway, WoW class diversity strikes me as little more than DPS and > healing. If you're a healer you heal. If you're not, you DPS. They [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the same few buttons (the three or so that do the most damage) over > and over on just about any mob. Hell, I've never even played WoW but I'll call bullshit on this one. (I *have* heard my wife and other friends discuss it ad nauseum. :-) There are certainly more variations than just healing vs DPS, though I don't know which classes have which choices. But warriors can be spec'ed for DPS or for tanking, and there may be other choices (either a combination of DPS and tankage, or other axes entirely, I don't know). And frankly, I find combats in EQ are often closer to the "same few buttons" approach. Sure, if I'm in a group I may have to adapt to situations when we have adds or a mob has a DS or summons or whatever. But in a raid battle when all I care about is DPS, I mostly play whack-a-mole with the same few buttons, plus throwing in a few combat discs (where I usually have to choose between discs that share a cooldown timer). And yes, some tactics change depending on the mob, and I'm sure the tanks have more choices to think about. But I think both games have their share of "fall into the rhythm and grind out the fight". Mostly, I suspect that neither game can be fairly evaluated except by someone who's played it at the higher levels. -- Don. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm -- -- Sukrasisx, Monk 75 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail, -- Terrwini, Druid 60 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you -- Teviron, Knight 59 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s" -- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr > > Anyway, WoW class diversity strikes me as little more than DPS and > > healing. If you're a healer you heal. If you're not, you DPS. They [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > spec'ed for DPS or for tanking, and there may be other choices (either > a combination of DPS and tankage, or other axes entirely, I don't know). Sure, it was perhaps an oversimplification, but the point holds true. Add tanking as a third function, and you've got the game mechanic that, while all MMORPG's are based on it, is not developed nearly to the degree that it is in EQ. It's just watered down. > And frankly, I find combats in EQ are often closer to the "same few > buttons" approach. Sure, if I'm in a group I may have to adapt to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > both games have their share of "fall into the rhythm and grind out the > fight". Raids have their purpose: gearing up. Even though raiding seems to be the primary focus of the devs these days, it's hardly what defines EQ, IMO. As you say, it tends to reduce players' roles a bit depending on the target mob. However, when you're talking about 40 players being involved, playing your respective role is the logical tactical approach. Step away from that, however, and you've got the group/solo experience, where all your tricks are required, unless you're content to stick to content that offers little risk. In the latter case, yeah, you become a button masher. > Mostly, I suspect that neither game can be fairly evaluated except by > someone who's played it at the higher levels. Yet you chime in having "never even played WoW"? ;) -- Richard Carpenter >And frankly, I find combats in EQ are often closer to the "same few >buttons" approach. Sure, if I'm in a group I may have to adapt to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >both games have their share of "fall into the rhythm and grind out the >fight". Well I *HAVE* played both games (still have an active WoW account in fact because a lot of my old EQ friends play it) and I've found WoW combat much easier and more straightforward. How to solo a mob as a Hunter: Send pet in. Shoot. Two keys. How to solo two mobs as a Hunter: Send pet in on mob A. Shoot mob B. Set trap. Trap mob B. Shoot mob A. Wait until pet kills mob A. Send pet in on mob B. Heal pet (usually not required, mind you) Shoot mob B. My Hunter isn't level 70 purely and simply because I don't play him often enough due to the fact that - and whisper this - levelling him is unchallenging and things I find unchallenging bore me. SignatureSchadenfreude of Bristlebane schaden_freude@hotmail.com >Hell, I've never even played WoW but I'll call bullshit on this one. >(I *have* heard my wife and other friends discuss it ad nauseum. :-) >There are certainly more variations than just healing vs DPS, though >I don't know which classes have which choices. But warriors can be >spec'ed for DPS or for tanking, and there may be other choices (either >a combination of DPS and tankage, or other axes entirely, I don't know). By coincidence a podcast I listen to (World of Warcast) just had a roundtable on druids, which are a very flexible class. Based on the talent spec, they can be DPS, top end tank, or top end healer. If you are curious (I suspect you aren't THAT curious) their site is http://worldofwarcast.com/ |
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.