EverQuest 1: 51/50 server

[Tale]

In a few hours, the original EverQuest will launch a new ruleset server as part of its 10th anniversary celebrations.

Basically all new characters start at level 51 with 50 Alternate Advancement points to spend. Other than that, it's a fresh server with nothing in the economy. With titles for server first kills, it's essentially a progression server without the 1-50 grind. Vox and Naggy will be the most endangered MMORPG mobs in history.

I'm going to play this for a few days of fun. Here are the rules in full:

We are pleased to announce that the Mayong (51/50) Server will be opening up at 11:00 am (PDT) Tuesday, June 30, 2009.

The rules of this server are the same as a standard server but the server does have the following differences:

    * All new characters will:

          o Start at level 51
          o Start with 50 unspent AA points
          o Start with a complete set of Flawed Defiant armor and weapons (Recommended level 50)
          o Start with all spells and abilities through level 51
          o Have all available skills at their maximum level (Spell specializations excepted)
          o Tradeskills will not be set to a higher value initially

    * Special Titles: There are a series of server first titles for the first defeat of various encounters.

The Mayong (51/50) Server is named after Mayong Mistmoore, one of Norrath’s most renowned vampires! Check back tomorrow as we share lore surrounding this historical figure.

P.S. EQ1 now has "mercenaries" which are paid NPC tanks or healers with fairly good AI. Each player can hire one mercenary to group with them, so it plays more easily than the old forced grouping days, and there's no struggle to get a group. Just warning anyone who considers reinstalling for this event that it plays quite differently. I've only played about 6 days of this game in 6 years, so that's all I know.

[kondratti]

P.S. EQ1 now has "mercenaries" which are paid NPC tanks or healers with fairly good AI. Each player can hire one mercenary to group with them, so it plays more easily than the old forced grouping days, and there's no struggle to get a group. Just warning anyone who considers reinstalling for this event that it plays quite differently. I've only played about 6 days of this game in 6 years, so that's all I know.

This won't stop Bioware from claiming they did it first.

[Nebu]

P.S. EQ1 now has "mercenaries" which are paid NPC tanks or healers with fairly good AI. Each player can hire one mercenary to group with them, so it plays more easily than the old forced grouping days, and there's no struggle to get a group. Just warning anyone who considers reinstalling for this event that it plays quite differently. I've only played about 6 days of this game in 6 years, so that's all I know.

This is admission of either a) forced grouping sucks or b) there aren't enough people playing to find groups or the lesser c) playing support classes sucks. 

No matter which (or all) is/are true, it's a positive sign that devs recognize these things. 

[DLRiley]

Guild Wars says hi.

[Grimwell]

This is admission of either a) forced grouping sucks or b) there aren't enough people playing to find groups or the lesser c) playing support classes sucks. 

No matter which (or all) is/are true, it's a positive sign that devs recognize these things. 

It's also been in the game for over a year and made our customers pretty happy. If you want to rant incoherently about the game you should at least try to do so in a timely manner. :D

[Yegolev]

Guild Wars says hi.

BBCode says

[Falconeer]

The way of the EQ mercenaries is where Final Fantasy XIV is going, and gambits will make it a beautiful, flexible thing. Then, no other future MMORPG will release without mercenaries.

EDIT: Henchmen come from Diablo, and neither Diablo or Guild Wars are MMORPGs anyway.

[sam, an eggplant]

I'm not a big fan of mercenaries ala diablo2/guildwars/eq1, where you hire a NPC to follow you around and provide buffs/healing. Like someone said earlier in the thread, it feels like a copout.

I find granado espanda's core concept infinitely more attractive, where each player actually controls multiple characters. Not to imply that game is any good, just that the designers had one good idea.

[proudft]

5150 eh?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)   

[Morfiend]

5150 eh?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)   

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title also.

[Ingmar]

The way of the EQ mercenaries is where Final Fantasy XIV is going, and gambits will make it a beautiful, flexible thing. Then, no other future MMORPG will release without mercenaries.

EDIT: Henchmen come from Diablo, and neither Diablo or Guild Wars are MMORPGs anyway.

Whatever, I could hire NPCs to tag along with me in freakin' Pool of Radiance, as long as we're talking about games that are "not MMOs". And in a few more posts, someone will surely point out somewhere before that where it could be done.

[Lantyssa]

I'm not a big fan of mercenaries ala diablo2/guildwars/eq1, where you hire a NPC to follow you around and provide buffs/healing. Like someone said earlier in the thread, it feels like a copout.

I find granado espanda's core concept infinitely more attractive, where each player actually controls multiple characters. Not to imply that game is any good, just that the designers had one good idea.

Have you played with Guild War's heroes?  They're a lot more flexible than henchmen, since you set their skills and equipment.  Granola Espadrilla's multiple characters was neat.  Really it's not that far off of what GW is now with heroes, except you can take direct control if you want.

I think we'll start to see more of this, AIs will be refined, and I'll be happy.

[Yegolev]

I had henchmen in most RPGs I played, although I often did not hire them and they came loaded with dramatic baggage, like those assholes in KotOR and the fucksticks in Baldur's Gate.  Some, however, were great, like the ones in Fallout.

[Ingmar]

I had henchmen in most RPGs I played, although I often did not hire them and they came loaded with dramatic baggage, like those assholes in KotOR and the fucksticks in Baldur's Gate.  Some, however, were great, like the ones in Fallout.

The ones who shoot you in the back without a care?

[Yegolev]

I had henchmen in most RPGs I played, although I often did not hire them and they came loaded with dramatic baggage, like those assholes in KotOR and the fucksticks in Baldur's Gate.  Some, however, were great, like the ones in Fallout.

The ones who shoot you in the back without a care?

Only if I did not stay behind them.  Which I did.

[sam, an eggplant]

Have you played with Guild War's heroes?  They're a lot more flexible than henchmen, since you set their skills and equipment.  Granola Espadrilla's multiple characters was neat.  Really it's not that far off of what GW is now with heroes, except you can take direct control if you want.

Yes, that's the difference, you have full control of multiple avatars. That's an innovation I'd like to see more often.

[Ingmar]

Have you played with Guild War's heroes?  They're a lot more flexible than henchmen, since you set their skills and equipment.  Granola Espadrilla's multiple characters was neat.  Really it's not that far off of what GW is now with heroes, except you can take direct control if you want.

Yes, that's the difference, you have full control of multiple avatars. That's an innovation I'd like to see more often.

Most of the people I play with have a hard enough time controlling one character at a time. 

[DLRiley]

You greatly underestimate how many people would love to feel like a commander on a battlefield if you give them the proper tools and customization. And besides there are always playing with other human players if your not able to handle controlling npc's.

[Tale]

This is admission of either a) forced grouping sucks or b) there aren't enough people playing to find groups or the lesser c) playing support classes sucks. 

No matter which (or all) is/are true, it's a positive sign that devs recognize these things. 

It's also been in the game for over a year and made our customers pretty happy. If you want to rant incoherently about the game you should at least try to do so in a timely manner. :D

What he said. This is about the 51/50 server, not about a feature already discussed to death (it did not end forced grouping, there's a fairly visible population, and people still play support classes). I mentioned it because if you played again, it would be the most immediately useful change to know.

What I'm not sure about is whether this server idea will work. The way the economy fills out on a new server with everyone starting at level 1 is always more interesting than playing on an established server. It will fill out much faster with everyone starting at 51, and most of the population will just grind up to 80 while a Fires of Heaven type guild gets all the one-off titles.

I think they'll need to end the ability to start characters at level 51 after the server settles down, or add it as a "skip levels 1-50" option on the other servers. But if not, I guess there will always be a nostalgic Naggy/Vox raid on offer (as I recall, 51 is the max level for attempting them).

[Tale]

Logged on and created a character - apparently it's been up for 3 hours and some people are already level 55. And according to general chat, titles don't work :)

[Nebu]

It's also been in the game for over a year and made our customers pretty happy. If you want to rant incoherently about the game you should at least try to do so in a timely manner. :D

I said it was a positive sign.  That's a GOOD thing.  Have you become so gun shy that you overlook positive statements from us jaded folk?

Also, forgive me for not being current on a game that I quit when Velious released.  I've been very positive in my support for EQ2.  That should make up for my lapse!

[Ingmar]

It was a pretty back-handed positive post as such things go. 

[Surlyboi]

Tried it, EQ crashed three times before even starting up. Gave up. 

[Typhon]

You greatly underestimate how many people would love to feel like a commander on a battlefield if you give them the proper tools and customization. And besides there are always playing with other human players if your not able to handle controlling npc's.

Maybe he's one of those people like me that, due to massive RTS burnout, may never willlingly choose to play a game where I have to control multiple characters.  It's not that I can't, or that I'm not good at it, I just don't find it fun.

[Kageru]

I prefer EQ remains a fond memory firmly ensconced in the past.

Also agree about controlling multiple characters. Part of the fun of an RPG is considering the character to be a virtual self and that is diluted by having multiple characters and more micro-management.

[Tale]

Tried it, EQ crashed three times before even starting up. Gave up.  

Get a computer that works. It's a robust 10-year-old app. Runs on my netbook, runs windowed on my desktop, alt-tab all over the place, never skips a beat.

[Surlyboi]

My computer eats yours for breakfast.

[shiznitz]

I'm not a big fan of mercenaries ala diablo2/guildwars/eq1, where you hire a NPC to follow you around and provide buffs/healing. Like someone said earlier in the thread, it feels like a copout.

Don't complain when an MMO company tries to repair a mechanic that many have criticized in a way that doesn't force those who are happy with the mechanic as it originally was - especially if the "copout" actually works well.

[sam, an eggplant]

Huh? Who gives a shit about EQ?

I was talking about how some version of that mechanic could be applied to new titles.