f13.net

Rasix's take on login2crush (http://www.f13.net/index2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094580850&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&).

I had a similar experience. Marc was the first level 50 on my EQ server...

I wasn't that amazed with WOW. I didn't delve that deep however, so I'm sure HRose will tell me I'm totally wrong. Then again, I realized I didn't want to do the quests again in release, it would become a quest-treadmil.

PvP is where WOW will shine from what I have seen. The fights last the right amount of time. Levels make a bit of a difference, but not at the EQ level 49 always looses to a level 50 type of thing.

If I do play on opening day, it will be on the PvP server with 4 friends.

I enjoyed the review because it recognized the strengths of EQ the rest of us many not necessarily enjoy and how WoW has improved on them.

What intrigues me is the holy trinity in WoW.  The mage has limited crowd control - but no class seems to stand out in this regard - am I missing something?

I am confused about the warrior report.  On the one hand I hear that WoW has done great things to give warrior options for combat.  On the other hand, given the way taunt is set-up, the warrior has to use all his rage just to hold aggro.  He becomes a defecto EQ style "taunt bot" since there is not enough rage to utilize his extra strategic options.

Any warrior experiences folks can report on whether there is enough raget to both taunt and do something useful?

The druid description is ironic to me coming from Blizzard.  My impression of EQ was that the Druid was the most popular class and a lot of subseqent "balance" changes kept the advantage of this class.  My friend speculated based on class popularity WoW would be wise to make this class superior to appeal to the Druid oriented players of EQ.

Well when I heard Druids have taunt...

At this point I don't even think Paladins have taunt.  Correct?

WOW is not falling short of the EQ 1.5 billing in anyway.  It may even be favoring the same class imbalances potentially with the druid?   (Warlock = Necro = best solo class would be the next revelation).

Thanks for the write-up Rasix.

Paladins have a taunt... although I don't know if it's enough to pull a mob to the character it is cast on, it does make them more "sticky".

WoW is halfway to getting a thumbsdown from me due to near impossibility of soloing, particularly for Elite quests.  I know, I know... they are Elite.  But I'm totally against forced grouping, and the rewards for the quests are fixed at a particular level.  So what that means is, 5 level 18s can do an elite quest and get the reward at 18, but a soloist won't be able to do it until, what, 21?? ... and the reward will no longer be valuable to them.

The biggest problem with soloing is swarming mobs.  You take so much damage just dealing with one mob of even lower level that 2 or 3 are pretty much impossible to handle at once, unlike many other MMOGs.  The fact that Paladin heals are subject to interruption means you need lots of health potions... but there's a timer on health potions, too.  I'd be tempted to try soloing with a Rogue, but they get even less armor.

I like the quest-directed experience now, but I'm not going to subscribe to this game over EQ2 unless they make it dramatically easier to solo.

Bruce

I can attest that a rogue can take 2 guys easy because of sap.

As for the paladin, doesn't he have that invincibility so he can heal himself uninterrupted?

I am not sure how much more soloability they could add without making the game a complete joke for difficulty. Heck my rogue a class arguably not a great soloing class solos quickly and easily.

When soloing its mainy a matter of paying attention to what you are fighting and how close together things are. Yes you can get swarmed if you try pulling a mob from the middle of a campsite.

Hell for the first 20 levels unless you are hunting in an elite dungeon soloing is MUCH easier and quicker than grouping especially during the stress test. With so many people around its hard to find enough mobs of your level to support a group.

If not for elite mob dungeons there would be no point to grouping at all as things stand.

If you are so against ever grouping then likely a mmrpg is not for you.

edit paladin taunts.

Paladins innately have a bit extra taunt in their attacks but trust me if you have a rogue and or a mage around the paladin is going to have SERIOUS issues pulling agro. They really need some kind of low end taunt ability to help them out a bit.

Kaid

Rogues have sick evasion.  I saw a level 13 warrior fight an equal leveled rogue and the rogue barely squeaked it out because the warrior was missing almost every other time.  The warrior had something like 2.5 times the AC of the rogue.

I've yet to have any difficulty at all soloing, but I really didn't get to play that much so I didn't go too deep into the game. I got a druid to 11.5, a warlock to 5, and a hunter to 4.  All could solo with ease and when I got mobbed I could easily run away.  The warlock is a really interesting take on the necro from EQ.  Their curses, dots, dd's and versatile pets make them a fun class to tinker around with.

I never even died in the stress test.  I got close once, but the fact that the druid regen is insta-cast has saved me a couple times while fleeing.  

Even though I despise forced grouping, I can see myself asking for the help of others if it means completing a quest I might not be able to do solo.  I don't mind grouping with people I don't know for an hour or so, but when it comes to needing to be in random groups for hours at a time, I'm not playing.

The warlock gets really fun when you get the fear spell.

DoT, DoT, fear, shadowbolt, fear, DoT  all the while little Juk'dron is casting firebolt on the thing, you hardly get hurt.  it's great.

Well, since I said specifically elite quests, then this should have tipped you off as to where I was going.



No, THIS mmorpg is lkely not for me.  Another solo-friendly MMOG would be.  Examples: EQ2, AC2, etc.

Bruce

Paladins arent finished yet. Any class without talents is not finished, and yes talents make that much of a difference.

I have played 4 classes past 15. I have played 3 past 25. All of them can solo fine. 3 of the 4 have talents, so there you go. None of them are Paladins but I do hear more paladin work is coming.

As for being forced to group, you arent. You will still have many quests in your quest list that arent Elite status. You can go do those. If what you meant was that you want every aspect of the game to be soloable, then you will be disappointed in this and every other MMOG to come out. That includes AC2, EQ2, whatever else.

You can get from level 1 to the level cap doing quests the entire time, and never do an Elite instanced quest. You just have to look around to make sure you have all your quests from the various towns, if you get low.

It's funny, I picked up the opposite impression: World of Warcraft is too solo friendly.   The game lacks a compelling purpose as a result, becuse there's very little social hook.   Any groups I got into were simply temporary things get a particularly hard quest completed, but in another two levels I oculd have soloed them as well.  I don't think I'll be buying WoW.  I can't even get myself to log into it right now.  

But then, I was supporting SWG and am playing FFXI now, so perhaps I have no taste.   Or, at least, not appreciation for the kind of game WoW is.   It really heavily resembles City of Heroes in some ways - the action is very spastic, and the players as well.    

My current theory is that WoW will do about as good as CoH.   1-3 Months of relative oohs and aahs, followed by everybody whining at top levels because they've no idea why they're even logging in anymore due to lack of compelling purpose within the game.

I'll give WoW another spin in Open Beta and see if my opinion has changed since then.   I suppose if you're grown bored of FFXI and CoH, then WoW is pretty much the only game in town.

You do know that the upper tier game is primarily going to be raids and instanced content that will require a group?  Or consentual player v. player.  Of course, I could be wrong but that's just what I've been hearing and reading.

While the content climb may be overly solo friendly, remember, this game is being designed by people that make even a hardened catass like yourself look casual. There's no reason to believe they'll make the game into a giant version of Morrowind at the extreme higher levels.

And early grouping in EQ was just about the same at launch. Spastic retards having no goddamn clue on how to play the game. The game really didn't settle down and mature for a while.  I'd wager the same will happen here.

"Like Everquest".  Ok.  So that's all I needed to know.  Thanks for saving me 50 bucks!

While I might come off as a bit of a catass to say I want the game to have a compelling purpose to stick around, I've standards.  The game has to be fun too - I wouldn't be caught dead playing Lineage 2.   WoW, fortunately, is reasonably fun, but I also need that compelling purpose to stick around.   Color me catass if that's what that means.

Here's hoping.  Right now, things are feeling cheapened.   A giant version of Morrowind would be more epic than how WoW feels right now.

Part of the issues I'm having with lack of motivation to log into WoW may stem from the knowledge that my characters are toast after the 7 day stress test period are over.   Perhaps things would feel a bit more epic once the sense of knowing my character's going to exist as long as I'm willing to subscribe to it manifest.

Is PvP nonexistant in WoW? I don't see how tank/nuker/healer model will translate well into PvP, for fun PvP your character should be profficient in both dealing and countering damage, with one-sided characters PvP is very one sided.

To answer a few questions:

PvP is in WoW in a limited form.

Grouping is pretty much required from level 35-40 on. Almost all quests are difficult if not impossible to solo at that level. Even the non-elite ones.

Warriors in early levels are great fun to play. In later levels they are expected to be nothing but taunt-tanks at all times. People literally will kick a warrior out of a group if that is not how he wishes to play.

Warlocks are greatly underpowered according to most people who play them. Druids are as well. Druids can taunt but only in bear form. Paladins cannot taunt. Rogues solo probably the best of any class except the mage.

One problem before the last patch was that people only wanted warriors priests/pallys/druids and mages in their groups at higher levels. Rogues and warlocks were almost literally begging for groups. Things have changed for the rogues though not the warlocks.

Also all the elite mobs got vastly buffed after the last patch and some of the instances have become almost impossible now.

Anyway, I'll be happy to answer questions if anyone has them and they are legit. No "So how much is WoW going to suck compared to EQ2" type of questions. This means you Schild.

Don't worry, I've changed my, *ahem*, tune. But WoW suxx0rs, am i rite? ^_^

Ok, Ill try to get a few points in.

1) Warriors and taunt stuff. Warriors are GREAT solo'ers, and great groupers, that is due to having multiple "stances". Warriors start in Battle Stance, and get the majority of their cool abilities in Battle. At lvl 10 you do a series of quests, that end up earning you Defensive stance. At level 30 you get another serties of quests that earns you Berserker stance.

Battle stance is GREAT for solo play. You have charge (what I consider the coolist ability around) you also get a pretty badass snare, and a few good offinsive attacks, including a dot, and a conditional attack, that is usable after the target dodges.

Defensive stance is for grouping higher level mobs, and instances. You get taunt, sundering strike, disarm, and a few others. Sundering strike is a 20 second STACKABLE armor debuff. While it is true that after the last patch, when in def stance, you will spend a LOT of range doing taunt. But taunt is an instant ability, so its not like you arnt doing any damage while you taunt. Also in def stance, you get bloodrage, where you can turn hit points to rage, with a good priest you will be spamming this.

So, a warrior COULD spend his whole time in a group spamming taunt, but a good warrior wont.

2)

I like this, I dont think this is a bad thing. Some time you want to use some thing in your bag while in combat, and you dont want your character sheet comming up at the same time. If it REALLY bugs you just hit "C" "B" really quick, and there you go. I dont think this was an oversight at all, I think it was a design choice, and unlike you, I for me, it was the right one.

3) To Bruce. If you read the description of an elite mob, it says "A monster designed with group play in mind." If you dont want to group, then dont. Skip these quests. They are easy to identify, they say "Elite" by them. You dont HAVE to do them.

Now, I know your responce, they have the best loot. That is not true. They do have good loot in the dungeons, but you can also find drops just as good in the wilderness soloing.

I think it is good that solo is so viable, but they have put in harder mobs scaled to grouping. Like grouping? group and do an instance. Dont like grouping? dont group, and go solo some other quests, pretty simple.

Try soloing with a rogue, they solo fricking great. Also, right now, due to talants and the spirit bug (spirit is not regenerating as much mana as it should) casters are at more of a disadvantage in solo.

4) Talants at release. I dont see any way they can NOT have all talants in for release. With every thing they have shown so far, they are making sure every thing is good, and balanced. They could supprise me, but I think that would be a desaster, and they know it.

5)

As one of those one sided classes you mentioned, a warrior. I do GREAT in pvp. Am I the most powerful? no. but I can play my character well, and in a 5 level spread, I win about 75% of the time. See my points above about warriors.


Im calling my shots now, and saying that schild will like WoW, a lot.

*EDIT*

5) Hotbars.

I dnot have enough hot bar spaces, even with the hotbars switching when I change stances. I have a 3rd party program call thottbott, that add one hotbar on each side of the screan, and another one above the vurrent one. Blizzard is learning from thottbott, and slowly implementing most of the features. At release, expect to have the option to add sidebars.

Then I would say the game isn't solo-friendly.  I'm like level 18, and over half my quests now are Elite quests.  About half of the quests I've completed after level 15 or so were also elite.  There's very little else for me to do right now.



No, that's not my response.  My response is "make content accessible to everyone."  The elite, group-only content isn't really available to me as a soloist.  At least in City of Heroes, the group-only content was segregated into very limited and specific areas, which I could still choose to accomplish but which were not required for me to enjoy the other missions in the game.



I can't disagree more.  No, the DON'T have to put in harder mobs scaled to grouping -- that's an old-fashioned solution to the problem, and a bad one at that.  Better solutions have be developed, such as simply allowing groups to kill more of the same mobs faster, having the loot and/or mobs scaled to the size of what they are fighting, instanced content, and so on.



I might, but I probably won't, because I don't want to be a Rogue.  I would much rather play another game where I can pick the class I want and still be a viable soloist.

Bruce

This whole debate is curious.  MMORPG's are made to be played and enjoyed with others through design.  WOW is one of the most solo friendly games, if not the most solo friendly, that is on the market in its respective genre.  I'm not going to talk down to you, and tell you that you would be better off playing a conventional RPG, which by and large share the same game mechanics and offer more tailored and "epic" gameplay.  What I felt obligated to point out however; is that of the other games you mentioned (AC2,EQ2) well, the former is complete crap and the latter has yet to be released.  I respect your opinions, you are obviously an intelligent person, and have been writing about MMO's for some time; but I struggle to understand why this is so when MMORPG's are so obviously keyed in on interacting with other people.  Personally, I am not going to buy WOW, I think it is decently fun but I am waiting for something that takes a big leap, or failing that, until enough time has passed so that many baby steps finally constitute said big leap.  Having said that, I don't believe there is a legitimate gripe here as all the quests are not implemented and all the classes are not finished.  Blizzard has repeatedly said that soloing with all classes will be a viable option.  Will it happen?  Fuck if I know, but as that is their stated intention, then I assume it will be so, until I hear differently or the game is released and it is not so.  As to your potential solutions, well...perhaps.  But I suppose that is for another debate eh?  Cheers.

You and other people have a problem understanding this concept too, I know.  It's been argued numerous times before and I'm thinking of writing a definitive explanation to post on a web site so I can just hand out people the URL when they ask.

Basically, the point is MMOGs are like going to the movies.  You can go to movies WITH your friends, but you don't HAVE to in order to enjoy the movie.  And yet, the experience of being AT the movies, by "yourself" and yet with lots of other people, is part of a collective enjoyment.  Same as any similar activity where large groups gather to enjoy entertainment together -- concerts, sporting events, etc.

If MMOGs were only about "the group", then people would just play NWN or FPS games with their friends... and lots of people do.  And yet others enjoy a game where there are thousands of "others" they interact with in that world, yet do not have to be part of their "group" that enjoys specific content.  The same applies to the soloist; it's simply a "group" of one.  The fact that there are thousands of "others" outside the group is the same in either case, so going down that path to discount solo play is a red herring.

Bruce

I haven't gotten to the point where I have epic quests (mainly because I dont' want to ruin too much of the game).  So I don't totally understand when you say that WoW isn't solo friendly.  But I will say that this is a VERY good description of an MMO.

I would say, maybe 5% of the quests are elite, thats pretty solo friendly.

Move to a new zone or do the other half of your quests, and by that time, you should have outleveled the elite quests any way.

I do not agree with you that ALL quests should be doable solo, and scale for party size.

You bring up COH and how the Group Quests are in only a little seperated area. Thats what elite quests are, they are mostly in epic feeling dungeons.

I enjoy it. I solo most of my time, but some times I like to group up, for those times I hit an elite dungeon.

Your posts have almost reach the Anit-HRose point of being trollish in steadfastly trying to make the game fit in to what you want from it. I dont think thats going to happen, I also dont think from your nitpicking of what I consider a ver fun game, that you will find a MMOG that suits your needs any time in the near, or far, future.

Also, just so I dont sound like a rabit fanboy, I agree this game is not for every one, I also agree it has problems. Quite a few. But UNLIKE any other beta I have been in, Blizzard is doing a GREAT job at fixing and balancing. Damnit, now I sound like a fanboy again.

Anyway, you cant solo all the content, so you dont like it. We get it. Time for you to move on and be disapointed in yet another game.

Yah, I know, at times you want access to just your backpack and not have your screen obscured during a quest or battle situation.  That's what I was trying to convey in the last sentence.

With how they've designed quests and with the limited amount of hotkey space, I can see how it's a valid and useful design decision.  Still doesn't prevent me from being annoyed. And I still (or did, going out of town so my beta ends here /sigh) hit "i" all the damn time. That's just been so ingrained into my brain.  I suppose I could always remap my keys and stop bitching.

For your last point in the post, I hope Blizzard does allow more ingame UI customization.  It seems so flexible, it would be a shame if you had to script all of it.

Woah.  Did someone just say that they are going to EQ2 because a small segment of the content in WoW is group-only?  You DO know that a significant slice of the EQ2 content will be group-only/raid-only as well, right?

It is not necessary to ever enter an instance or ever do an elite quest or ever group with another person to get to max level.  There are no spots where you are forced to do anything but solo quests (though the Horde is very thin on quests in a couple level ranges, a problem that they have identified already).  The game is trivially easy in solo mode, and you can get everything you need to solo just from soloing.

In fact, one of the things many people say is one of WoWs biggest weaknesses is the fact that, while the instanced dungeons are for the most part extremely well-done group experiences, they are inefficient to enter.  The most efficient way to play is to level outside to the cap, and then go to the last few instances for gear.

Rasix, nice review.  I agree with you almost completely.  If you are still playing (I dont remember when the stress test ends) go get the user interface Cosmos (there is a link to it on thottbot.com).  It's a very solid UI.  36 hotkeys up at once, and other assorted goodies.

I've seen nothing of or about World of Warcraft to indicate it is nothing more than a 6 year backslide for MMOGs as a genre.

Unless you're talking about the minimum hardware requirements. Tell me some of the things that WoW is presenting for the 'first time anywhere' that makes it an 'evolution' on the EQ (which means MMOG genre as a class) formula.

I ask this, because here's the skeletal version of this update:

WoW is evolutionary because....

1. Interface: all the buttons are in good places, much of them are like any other MMOG

2. graphics: *gush* *gape* *gasp*

3. gameplay: its just like EQ

4. Summary: WoW has graphics that aren't cutting edge but 'fit the game' (huh??), WoW doesn't crash to desktop, WoW has features that most MMOGs have - and I'm only half sure I will buy it.
---------

So I'm left wondering why this site, by and large, thinks WoW is the robot Jesus of teh future. Sounds to me like very soon, our choices will be EQ 1.5 (WoW), or EQ 2.0 (EQ 2.0).

No, I said I'm probably going to EQ2 because it is, generally and supposedly, more solo-friendly than WoW.  I think WoW has a largerly percentage of group-only content than you suggest, and EQ2 has a lesser percentage than you imply.  Of course, I could be wrong; I've only gone by what each has said and what I've seen first hand in WoW.

Bruce

Does for me.  Sometimes in mid-gameplay for no particular reason.  Quite often when I'm quitting from the login screen.

If you think EQ2 is more soloable than WoW, you are wrong.  I know a person in the beta and you have to group for at least 2 quests (arguably 3) even on the newbie island.  Maybe that is just to teach people how to group, but in those cases it is 'forced' on you if you want to do the quest.

You can choose not to, but according to your definition chosing not to is still not solo friendly.

I hate fileplanet.  So I did not take that road into beta and have yet to receive a magic email.

Can anyone enlighten me on how the design of the world is done?  I found DAOC way to drab and lifeless after a time.  EQ presented such variation in design of its zones and was one of the reasons I stuck with it for more than a few months.

The grouping concern is not a big issue for me, though I do spend a good amount of time solo.  I am a little concerned the travel downtime, but that is all subjective.

Thanks for the right up!

World design is more EQ like.  But with brighter more cartoony colors.  There seems to be large variance in scenery depending on zone, just like in EQ.  A good feeling of location.  Many have said you could be dropped in almost any zone, spin around and immediately know at least what zone you were in.  From what I have seen I would say that is true.

I'm wondering too... I've been saying pretty much the same things about both WoW and CoH.  Yes, they are improvements... but they are more new builds of the tired old mmog platform we've seen since EQ's debut.  Couple this to the fact that I get gushing fanbois emails on almost every site I post because some web designer at Blizzard adopted the same handle... it makes for a nightmarish hell.

I guess I need to take a step back and look at WoW this way: if people are having fun, then why not.  It's their money.  I just wish there were something else worth playing.

This leaves me wondering: Is WoW an example of "baby steps" within the genre or are mmogs stuck in an abyss that investors are afraid to break away from?

Thanks Alluvian.  Damn, read over my post and it looks like crap I typed in highschool.

Nebu,

I guess you did get the treatment.  I can only imagine the grief your getting.

People keep arguing back to the DIKU'sque and what will break out of that mold.  I keep seeing three huge barriers to that feature, one revolves around character advancement, another revolves around the current concept of grouping, and the third revolves around preceived limitatations/greifing of PVP.

Right now DIKU is safe.  Which is not really a barrier, but a matter of fact statement, though Horizons might show the flaw in the word safe as applied.  Anyway, when I get some more time, I will have to write up something to post in the Dev section.

If you are pinning your hopes of eq2 being a soloers game I think you are in for a surprise. There is soloing content in eq2 so that you can solo but the game is designed around group vs mob group combat so much of the content will be geared towards at very least small groups of players. Also mobs are split into tiers where the lower the tier the lower grade loot the mob can drop. The solo mobs will in general be lower tier than mobs you would take on in a group.

I have a level 16 rogue in WoW and I have all of 2 elite missions both to the same dungeon. I have probably a good 20 other non elite missions pending. If you want to do instanced dungeons in wow you will likely need a group. If you want to do instanced dungeons in eq2 you likely will need a group.

I just cannot wrap my noodle around why having content designed to be a challange for a group is a bad thing in a massivly multiplayer game.

Is wow a huge leap forward for MMRPG nah its a good implementation and I think many folks will enjoy it. Myself I think I lean more towards eq2 as it is designed to be more group oriented. WoW so far just seems a bit to directed at solo play for my tastes.

kaid

I agree that making CoH and WoW out to be these innovative, groundbreaking games is a mistake.  Saying that they are fun and worthwhile is not.

It is always little baby steps, in all genres.  Unfortunately, since an MMO is based on the concept that you'll play for more than a couple weeks, baby steps aren't fast enough for most people thay play MMOs.  As examples, I offer two games that I've been playing recently (one, that I just got today.)

Burnout 3:

It is a good bit like Burnout 2...  It has a couple new modes, some new tracks, cars, etc.  But, really, it is a racing game.  It is just like EVERY OTHER racing game I've played, with slight tweaks.  But, I'll probably play it for a few weeks, beat the solo play, get tons of phat cars, and then it'll be a multiplayer-only game.  After a month or two of playing it multiplayer occasionally, I'll most likely sell it, and use the cash to buy a new game.

Star Ocean, Till the End of Time:

It is a console RPG.  It has some new systems, of course, just like a game from Enix or Square (each final fantasy has new systems.. materia for 7, guardians for 8, item-learning for 9, sphere grid for 10, etc, etc, etc.)  It actually has better combat, like Tales of Symphonia... but the Tales series started on, what, Saturn?  Maybe earlier?  And it has had real-time combat for a while.



Anyways, my point is, games aren't innovative.  I think there is two directions MMOs can go.  

1.  Try and take huge steps, like say Shadowbane (Shadowbane failed its jump check and fell on it's face though.)  This is unfortunately a hard thing to do, because of publishers, obviously.

or

2.  Take small, safe steps, and be very careful to not step on something.  CoH and WoW are both very quest-centric, and that is their small-step.  Saying they have good art-styles and don't crash every 10 minutes isn't something we should praise them for, that should be expected (contrary to popular PC gamer belief, it seems).  In EQ, you only did a quest for faction or a good reward, because the exp wasn't enough to notice.  Quest-centric games make you feel like you are killing foozles for a REASON, which is more enjoyable for a lot of people.  The other key to this approach, I think, is frequent content updates.  Either that, or a small/no monthyl fee.  Say I play WoW for 2 months, I can justify paying $50 for that.  It is like buying a game I'll play for 3 weeks, except that I won't get my $10 back for selling it.  But, monthly fees almost make me want to rush to get finished (if there aren't content updates) because if I pay monthly fees, now I'm paying $65 or $80 for a game...


Man, I rambled a lot, my bad.

I would like to make a few points.  Firstly, I have seen very few people labeling WOW a revolutionary game.  I have lurked the boards a bit, and the consensus is that WOW is just like every other game out there, but manages to "get things right."  I take what they mean by this are things such as style, interface, and minor gameplay enhancements or features.  This is just like any other Blizzard game I would argue, where they approach a genre and do it their way, for good or ill.  

Secondly, this whole milieu where everyone is a jaded gamer seems silly to me.  Personally, I have played UO, EQ, DAOC, FFXI, and WOW.  I enjoyed them all, with UO and EQ being my favorites.  There aren't going to be any revolutions in this genre, at least not anytime soon.  What I'm trying to say is I liked EQ style gameplay, I liked UO style gameplay, I like MMORPG style gameplay.  Sure, I got tired of EQ, but only after 2 years of playing it.  These games will evolve and become more immersive, but most people can only agree on the fact that old UO was the pinnacle of MMO's.  These games at their heart, are all the same.  Just like all RTS games share certain elements.  

Lastly a MMORPG must have a social hook, this is what keeps people playing for the long haul, so we should all stop fooling ourselves.  SirBruce, your movie theatre analogy was a good explanation of why you enjoy these games despite your apparent consummate anti-social beahavior.  Still, this is the social hook that keeps you playing, or at least, I would argue it is.  That's totally cool too, but there will never be a game specifically tailored for that style of play.  Unless you count single player games.  I don't give a shit about WOW, but it is more than possible, arguably optimal, to max out the level cap in WOW strictly through soloing.  I apologize if this would seem pedantic, cheers.

Stress Test extend till Sunday.

But here's the rub; there is a difference between a social hook and having the majority of your gameplay require other people.  That's not a hook, that's a shackle to some of us.  Why?  Simple, just like everything else in these games, forced social interaction requires TIME, something which is already at a premium for the non catass crowd.  Take EQ or DAoC, both games I played and enjoyed for a while.  If I had an hour to play, spending half of that time just trying to find a group to play with drove me nuts, yet you had pretty much had to do it b/c while solo gameplay was technically possible, it was slow as molasses flowing uphill in winter.

I love playing these games, yet my playtime is limited and I'm not alone. I believe if we want the mmorpg market to keep expanding games will have to appeal to those players who don't average 20 hours a week in game; more like 1-10. The largest part of that is being able to play effectively by yourself so no matter how much time you have, you can log and PLAY immediately, not log on and spam guildchat for a group or go LFG while you twiddle your thumbs for 20 minutes before action.

In this way I want what bruce wants; a game that gives me access to lots of other people, but I choose when I want to make use of that potential, not the game.  Right now that game for me is CoH.  Now, it can certainly be argured that CoH needs to add more social hooks to keep people playing long term, but it seems to be doing quite well despite it's cried lack of depth (besides, they can and are adding in that direction).  It's a far different cry to take a game that begins with forced social interaction and seeks to reduce it.

As to WoW, it sound like it's getting mixed reviews on the easy of soloing vs grouping front.  IMHO an end game of pvp and high level raiding screams only catasses need apply.

In the long view, when mmorpg's are treated just like any other mass form of entertainment, be able to deliever fun NOW will be critical which mean all the elements of a game design which "waste" time will be negatives.  B/c these game are still niche, they can get away with it more.

Xilren

While I think it's a sad reflection on the MMORPG industry, I feel my support for this game is accurately depicted by the statement: "If I have to settle, this will do." I've given up on innovation.. the players in the insustry have proven that there is no innovation on the horizon. A successful formula has been devised and anyone with half a business mind will follow what they know will work. I find it likely the first true innovation in the MMOG industry will be a colossal failure, with a good portion of the population looking for another EQ to play.

I like playing MMOGs, not because I find them particularly challenging or complex, but because they are an entertaining distraction I can play with my friends. I've learned not to expect well-written, deep storylines or complex character systems that would take years to navigate completely. I play to enjoy the content with others, and then try to enjoy it as long as possible. I know full well that there probably won't be a game *ever* that can keep me entertained for longer than a few months straight.

As a player with odd hours, I give a lot of credit to any game that can making soloing viable for any class. Nothing makes me tire of a game quicker than sitting around waiting for people to log on so I can do a quest, or worse yet, camp somewhere for a few hours. Every game should be a single-player-friendly game.. because sometimes you're going to be a single player.

I want a game I can log on for an hour on a weeknight and actually achieve something meaningful. It shouldn't require extensive planning just to advance my character, only to sit around waiting for everyone to be fully prepared.

They've taken the best features of current MMOGs and refined them into a system that provides a niche for most every type of player, and that'll have to do for me. I don't have the patience to wait for the killer MMOG that will innovate and engross us all. In fact, I'm guessing the expectations for these games have outgrown the reality of the implementation. The most innovate ideas have fallen flat for various reasons, leaving only the time-tested EQ-esque ontology.

When the ultimate MMOG shows up on the radar you can bet I'll be watching it, but my faith in business-driven online gaming has faltered, so I'll take what I can get. In my humblest of opinions this is as good as it gets. When (not if) I get sick of it, I'm thinking it's time to write off the MMOG genre.

My question is simple:  How much character individualization is there?

Are all Warriors the same, save for level?  Once I decide on, say, a Rogue, how many different directions can I take him in?

I am curious what the spread on this board of WoW vs EQ2 will be.

I am guessing from what I know of them that WoW will win maybe 3 out of 5 with at least 1 out of 5 saying neither even if not given that option in a survey.

My guesses on differences:
-EQ2 will have technically better graphics which will also strain computers more.  Graphics preferences will end up being personal taste.
-Looks like wow will have fewer, but more rewarding quests (in terms of advancement).
-Looks like wow will have less downtime for the solo player
-EQ2 will PROBABLY end up more group dependent but also probably have better group dynamic
-WoW will probably have more differentiated classes, but that will be a strength and a weakness depending on point of view and the most recent balance pass.
-EQ2 will have smaller scale (in terms of players involved) endgame raid content
-WoW will have some sort of limited PvP where none will be present in EQ2
-EQ2 will have more in depth crafting, but whether it is more rewarding/fun/or useful ingame has yet to be determined.



edited to add:
I think both EQ2 and WoW will be good INCREMENTAL games.  Neither is going to blow the roof off the genre.

Just read this morsel:

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-stresstest&t=67552&p=1#post67552




Fucking lovely.  I don't know why people complain about this shit....  Just enjoy the damn game and not rush through it you fucktard.  Some real morsels in there to read, fucking idiots all of them.



God Damn.  That's the reason I stopped playing DAoC.

World of Warcraft is definately lacking that "epic" feeling that makes for a good MMORPG.  

However, increasing the length of the treadmill is the absolute worst way to establish this.

A pity the developers will not realize they're adopting the misinformed player's suggestion instead of realizing the true problem.

Excellent point(s) you bring up.  I completely understant time constraints, my schedule is hellacious.  What I would say to you however, is to keep in mind that people like you and me are not in the majority.  Sure, it can be legitimately argued that if the market is to grow, then an effort needs to be made to produce a more casual gameplay for MMOG's.  But let's not forget the inescapable fact that all games geared towards the casual fan to date, scanty as they may be, have failed.  I personally believe that the MMOG market will be a niche market for the forseeable future, the once heralded revolution or explosion in numbers of subscribers will not happen for quite some time, if ever.  

Personally, I like catassing when I have time, I'm a big fat catass.    These games don't require the skill of chess, or produce the excitement of football, they just produce a mania in most people to reach the next carrot.  I have no problem with this, it's how it has always been, and is how it always will be.  Also, some of your post was a tad inaccurate as the majority of content in WOW is indeed soloable.  I understand how this could be annoying, as I believe I am largely in the same boat with you time-wise, but once again I must stress, that I think to be successful a MMOG simply cannot afford to abandon the hardcore players, as those create the bulk of MMOG constituents.  Perhaps instead of wondering  whether or not ALL content in a game must be soloable, including the singularly powerful creatures and dungeons (assuming, as I would argue that most players want to group) we might make slightly better use of our time exploring the channel SirBruce exposed; and that is, is their a better aleternative?  

As it is, people have argued that soloing is the most efficient path, and the game is too short/easy.  Now what is wrong with having content designed for groups, and if there is something wrong with that, would instancing/killing more monsters in a shorter period of time, or anything else really effectively solve this problem, or simply alienate the majority?

Wont happen. The devs have already stated they have the EXP curve about where they want it. They cant go messing with it, with out adding a WHOLE SHIT LOAD of quests. I mean, if they added that much exp needed to level, they would have to increase the amount of quests post 40 by about 1000%, not happening.

Dont worry about what stupid people on the boards are saying, from the look of development so far, Blizzard isnt.

And your evidence to back this up is?  If you define hardcore as the upper-end catasses, then the most public study (http://www.nickyee.com/eqt/demographics.html#6) of MMO player demographcs says otherwise.  Of course, the data is 3 1/2 years old now so things have changed.  I dobut, however, they've changed enough that the 60+ hour a week player is the majority.  

The average was ~20 hours a week then. The industry insiders who hang out around here kick ~20 hours a week out as the average when they respond.  Most of these games are achiever-personna havens, and if achievers don't bother averaging more than ~20 hours to reach goals, it'll take a lot more than virtual carrots to keep the others around.

If you define hardcore as min/maxers, then you're still wrong.  If the majority was min/maxers then games would be filled with Necros, Fire Tankers, Fire Blasters and other flavors of the week with few other character types.  At the start of a game it certainly appears this way, but after the first month or two when the min/maxers have gotten bored and the fans of a game are left, it's amazing how the classes spread-out.

So how, exactly, are you defining hardcore here?

You had me at PvP.

I've heard differently.

EQ2 will have better graphics from a realistic standpoint while WoW's will be more...artistic for lack of a better term.



I don't think this is accurate. I constantly have to delete quests because my quest log is full. Every level I have ever made it to has been largely quest-driven. The only time I get non-guest XP is impulse kills or if I decide to farm some loot.



Very, very little downtime in WoW.



I am interested to see how the archetype thing plays out to be honest. If it works right it could conceivably mean all classes have roles in groups. My guess is that some will still end up being preferred despite the current Marketing hype Sony is putting out. On another note, WoW becomes almost totally group dependent at higher levels. Don't believe the hype. From around 35ish on, most quests are very, very hard to do solo.



The archetype thing does have potential to limit differentiation. WoW has an odd problem in beta where it is possible to differentiate but the playerbase discourages it. IE, if you don't build a warrior who is made to be a tank from the ground up you will not be invited into groups. It could be said this is also partly a game fault, since it relies so heavily on the aggro control model of combat.




For me this is a mixed blessing. Honestly, I give EQ2 the edge here. I don't really have much interest in needing to devote 6 hours of my life to doing something with my 100 closest friends.



Again I give EQ2 the edge. I don't believe that PvE and PvP can be successfully mixed for many reasons. In WoW it's already an issue because the opposing side can kill ride NPCs and quest NPCs.



WoW's crafting is pretty indepth. what are you basing the EQ2 being indepth on?





I am going to play EQ2. Though fair warning. If it turns out to be the painful clusterfuck that was SWG I will be firebombing Sony HQ.

EQ2 won't have PvP (http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=30497&#M30497) . So says Moorgard (http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=130029&#M130029)

Reportedly EQ2's crafting is mini-game based.  I don't follow much in the way of EQ2 sites, or news, or anything, but I do recall them saying crafting was going to be based on a minigame.

IIRC, WoW crafting is the fairly typical method of harvest X, turn X into Y in device R, use device P to turn 3 Ys and a Z into useful item A...  Where by 'device' I mean a window with a list of recipies, possibly tied to an in-world or in-inventory object, like to SWG or Horizons.  If it's changed since the 'guide to WoW crafting' thing I read awhile ago, I appologize.

--
Alkiera

No offense, but a minigame does not imply depth to me. It does sound kind of cool depending on how it's implemented but it's not depth. WoW has quite alot of crafting options and each of those has alot of recipes in them. That to me is depth.

Maybe it'd be more accurate to say EQ2 crafting might be more fun?

I see him saying it may or may not be in. The only definite thing he says is...

Key is, PVP balancing is an extremely difficult process that need to evolve over testing and time.

There is already extensive testing for WOW pvp beta. In the PVP test server zones are divided into friendly / contested / and hostile, and players can engage other players of the oppositing faction so long as they are in a contested or friendly zone to them.

So far, there have already been extensive class balancing when certain class/skill/race combos are discovered to be overpowered. NPCs are also being tweaked to fit into the framework of the global conflict betwen the horde and alliance faction that makes up the world of WOW.

Even after all these, Blizzard is considers the existing PVP framework to be largely work-in-progress - issues like PVP rewards and penalties are still under planning.

While I agree that a great balance of PVE and PVP is extremely difficult to achieve, I feel that a reaonable balance will make a very attractive MMORPG - far more attractive than a pure PVP or PVE game, especially if there is good content woven in.

Since EQ2 have yet to even decide upon going PVP, much less actually starting a framework for player testing - I would tend to conclude that PVP for EQ2 is nowwhere on the horizon, and maybe nowwhere ever likely to appear.

No PvP = a better PvE game.

So far no developer has been able to balance the two gamestyles with level based advancement and a statistically based combat system. Blizzard isn't going to be the first, either.

That alone make EQ2 a viable choice. You may enjoy WoW, but it'll be in spite of the PvP, not because of it. Or vice-versa. If they're going to rely on PvP as their end game, they're going to have lots of trouble...just like Mythic. One is going to push the other into the background sooner or later.

CoH or Guild Wars may be able to pull this one off. Maybe. Can WoW (EQ1.5)? I very seriously doubt it.

As to EQ2 vs WoW?

I won't be playing either.  Ill stick with CoH and play all the great (I hope) games coming out for all systems for the next 4 or 5 months that I won't all be able to buy anyhow.  I mean, X Men Legends, Metroid Prime 2, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War, Phantom Brave, Mech Assault 2, Megaman Command Mission, Paper Mario:Thousand Year Door, Midway Arcade Treasures 2, Civilization 3 Complete (Ok its a repack, but I don't have the game and they have a Warhammer Fantasy Total Conversion I HAVE to play!), Gradius 5, Metal Slug Collection PS2, Mortal Kombat Deception, Robotech Invasion, Bard's Tale, and almost as many other games I haven't gotten to buy that are out right now or are early 2005 releases.

Who the hell has time to spend catassing and spamming LFG?

Ive got GAMES to play, not to mention lots of live tabletop gaming with friends.  If I don't convert Eldar to Heroscape, who the heck will?

I am a registered Blizzard fanboy, so I might be able to fill in some of the info you are looking for.

The current plan is to have instanced faction-based consensual PvP (with NPCs involved) on standard serevers. They haven't put any into the beta so we can't judge them yet. The standard servers have no non-consensual PvP. The thing with killing NPCs without retaliation was basically a design flaw that has been fixed.



I have a level 50 warrior. She spends most of her time soloing, which she does just fine. She also does very well in a duo. For these she stays with her dual axes and battle stance (no taunt, more damage). In a full group (5), she switches to defensive stance and uses taunt. The funny thing is, getting hit generates rage, so if the mob is hitting her, she has plenty of rage to taunt with. One more thing to add, playing a warrior in a full group can be HARD. Against multiple enemies you need quick reflexes and good judgement, and you can always do a better job.

Druids don't have a very good taunt. They are best at healing. They do have the ability to fill any "gaps" you have in a group though.



I think every class has some form of aggro management (including palas), but paladins suck right now, so I wouldn't evaluate them just yet. The classes that are ready for criticism are the ones with talents: Warrior, Mage, Priest, Rogue



You can't do elite quests solo. At least not in any reasonable level range or amount of time. Elite quests are really something special. They are very difficult and you feel you have accomplished something when you finish them. Part of the specialness is that they are completely optional. If you find your log filling with elites just move to another area. Though I am guessing you were horde, in which case there are some gaps where it is hard to find quests. Blizzard has promised to fix this.



AC in WoW reduces damage taken. Dodge and parry are special abilites. Misses are from defense, which is based mostly on level, though some abilities/items give bonuses.



As I mentioned above I disagree with your asessment of the warrior at high levels.  I solo a lot. I've also been in groups where I effectively use berserker stance (which isn't even fully implemented yet). As with any class I switch strategies based on the monsters I am fighting and the party I am grouped with. Someone who refuses to switch strategies when the current one isn't working is just being an idiot. They should be off soloing where it won't bother anyone else.

So basically your party will let you do whatever you want as long as it effectively kills monsters. If your strategy isn't working, it is quite reasonable of them to request that you change your strategy.



Some background. The UI for WoW is completely customizable. It is written in XML and Lua, and we have full access to change/add files. People have set up things like the game connect 4, automatically shareed quest info, or even a global auction system, all in custom interfaces. The biggest collection of interface mods is called "Cosmos". Thottbot is a part of Cosmos that automatically reads some information from the game, and uploads it to a central database, which is then displayed on the web.

For example here is my character, the info is from the last time someone with Thottbot did a /inspect on her:   http://www.thottbot.com/index.cgi?p=Bonita

I think this has interesting implications all its own, but I won't talk about them here.



If you play through the game to 60 with one character, you will skip most of the content. Seriously, you CAN'T do all of it unless you do the quests after you stop getting exp for them. So just choose to skip the elite quests.



WoW is incredible in this area. You will not be disappointed.



I agree. Personally I would prefer that accusation of reinventing the wheel are premature if no working wheel has been made yet.


[/quote]

Going twice...

www.thottbot.com  Look under classes and check out the talents section. They're only imlemented for warriors, priests, rogues and mages, right now though.  The talent system is what differentiates one character from another.  You get a total of 50 talent points (One per level starting at 10.) but the thottbot planner lets you put in more than that so just keep checking totals.

Arguably, there's a few score builds you can do for warriors.  Of course, powergaming munchkins and min/maxers will tell you that if you do anything other than a 'defensive' based warrior, you're gimp and useless.  Having not played a warrior beyond 8, I can't comment beyond saying the powergaming min/maxers always shout about the holy-trinity being the only viable group as well, which I've found is only the case if taking on things well above your level. (5+ levels)

Oh... My... FUCKING... GOD.

I just had to post after reading this. I don't know why I'm continually amazed every time I see people like this, but I know most MMOG executives just love these little fuckers.

Do these people not realize that it really takes no skill other than patience to achieve the levels in these type of games? And that no matter how many cockblocks you put in place, if you give the entire player base enough time, EVERYONE will be level 55. Or 60. Or 890 bajillion.

Repeat after me. LEVELS DO NOT TAKE SKILL.

So long as these kind of retards are buying time-based gameplay, Diku-mud level fests will continue to be made.

Oh, WoW... I've seen it played, I've read a lot about it, and have yet to see anything to excite me. We've seen this all before.

Thanks Merusk.   The options look better than I thought.

Sadly, it looks like there are no (existing) talents for my planned thief.  Which is to say, a stealth/pickpocket/traps variant of the Rogue, AD&D-style.

Yah, a Diablo lvl50 didn't mean diddly. You were effectively done at about lvl44. Grinding (and I do mean GRINDING) the last few levels didn't mean anything to your character advancement. Not_a_thing. You did just to be 50. No other benefit (it was about impossible to find decent games post-40 even in Diablo's heyday).

Again, to max your levels only took time; nothing else. The only reason people bother in DAoC and EQ is the endgame (and I didn't bother in DAoC since I had no interest in PvP). I have a high boredom quotient, but mindlessly grinding away at levels isn't something I can tolerate for long.

One hurrah for Blizzard for at least getting armor function correct. All armor does is reduce damage once you've been hit. It's pure mitigation and has nothing to do with avoidance. Now, if they could figure out that you don't parry to block, I"d be developing a modicum of enthusiasm.

Does anyone really believe this game will ship in November? I seriously don't see this until early 2005 at best.

Yes, we have seen it all before.  We've also(most of us) read a book before.  We continue to read books because usually the story is different.

I'll admit that I was disappointed when the combat in WOW didn't jump up and tickle me silly, but I've taken all of the other nice things that exist and I genuinely like it.  Every little feature is done well, I catch myself saying, "oh that is nice" and "this is cool".  I can't really explain one little thing that makes it better than another MMOG, but taken as a whole it is a huge improvement.

New story, new characters, and a new world to explore.  I'll try it out.

I am taking this from the fact that there is no max number of quests you can have in EQ2 and information firsthand of having seen a friends beta character with 30+ quests complete at level 10 and some 40 more active.  The quests probably are front loaded as I guess a newbie can enter all the other newbie areas and get all the quests from all the areas.  Friend claims the higher level players still say they have dozens of active quests at any given time.  EQ2 is drowning in quests.

I have taken 2 classes to level 8 in WoW and they have had what seemed to be far less quests, but hard to say.  Some of what EQ2 would consider 1 quest WoW would break up into a bunch.  It is hard to count when WoW breaks each individual step into a separate quest.

Either way, it seems EQ2 has far more quantity at any given time.  I like the quality of SOME of the WoW quests.  I really cannot comment on the EQ2 ones.  Mixed bag I am sure.

edited to add:
If WoW has a quest where you visit 5 people trying to find a certain object or some info, WoW breaks that into 5 quests each with a different name.  Each step ends one quest and begins the next step.  In EQ2 that is all the same quest.  Steps get added to the same quest and when complete it is still listed as only one quest.

All books read the same way (right to left, English) for the most part. The story IS the book.

Whereas, in games, the gameplay is the thing. Unlike books, different games require me to learn an entirely new method of playing with each iteration. When they don't, it doesn't take long before I feel like I've played this before. With MMOG's, I can usually watch the game being played to figure out how much or little I will enjoy it.

Good point.  Innovative gameplay WOULD be nice, which is why I was a bit disappointed with the combat. (I don't really know what I want in that department though.)  Other than that I am excited about the new story.

There's a set of Q&A between EQTrader's Corner (http://www.eqtraders.com/) (penultimate EQ tradeskills site) and a dev here (http://www.mboards.eqtraders.com/eq2/showthread.php?p=442#post442).

Similar to Horizons, you have a crafting class as well as an adventuring class, but the archetype/class system works similarly to the adventuring system, meaning you eventually specialize in one craft.  Some might see that as a limitation, I look at is as a guarantee of no 8th shawl/10th ring style 'you personally must master every tradeskill' quests, which is a Good Thing.  You can also advance in a tradeskill independant of adventuring, there are apparently quests similar to DAoC's crafting quests that give you exp for your tradeskill level, or something similar.

Anyhow, the system looks pretty interesting, and looks to prevent some issues I had with EQLive, namely the _requirement_ to master annoying tradeskills to complete quests for incredibly desirable equipment.

--
Alkiera

I'll just reiterate that I find it humorous that people are so hard on MMOs.  Other games are exactly the same.  In a racing game, I either use A/X/Right Trigger for gas, and then I steer.  But people continue to buy those as well.

Now, as I mentioned before, MMOs are intended to be played for a long period of time, so they should try and take larger steps.  But in general, the gaming industy as a whole takes tiny little steps that barely amount to any real changes.

Therefore, I still think WoW can be minorly applauded at taking a few small steps in the quest-based progression area, and for cleaning up some of the bad things in previous MMOs.  The PvP also seems rather fun for the amount I've play (I'm level 17, and I've attacked/killed a few Alliance guys that invaded the Barrens, and I went to Teldrassil once to kill Night Elves), and it is nice to have combat chains (Gouge + Backstab for a rogue, for example.) that make combat less boring.

I think one of the big things the MMO community should do is try and 'prod' developers in the right direction.  Praise them when they've done things right, and let them know it is disappointing that they didn't fix bad things.  But, the entire game doesn't suck just because it isn't 100% new ideas (and if it was, would they be implemented well enough for you to consider it a good game?)

Given SWG as evidence, odds aren't good.  Incremental changes work because the developers can start with a pretty good idea of how the system works in practice, and make small changes to improve the situation in the way they want to.  Whereas with a completely new system, devs don't neccessarily understand how it's supposed to work, nevermind how players will (ab)use it once they have access to it.  Once they have the new system coded, they have to let people play with it, and then learn all the things they already knew about the older system, and then adjust it just like they would have had to if it was an older system.

Basically, new systems are a lot more work than they seem, which I think is what Raph discovered in the development of SWG.  It's alot easier to stand on other's shoulders than to try to reach the heights by yourself.

--
Alkiera

What you don't realize is that racing games have changed dramatically. Pole position was using a steering wheel and a gas/break combo to race from checkpoint to checkpoint.  There certainly are graphical updates to that game that people play.  But you can't discount all of the inovasions in the genre.  For example: split screen multiplayer, item pickups, role playing elements, track editors, online multiplayer, realistic physics, liscensing real cars, demolition derby games, car wars games, off road racing, motorcycle racing, spaceship racing, boat racing, cart racing, rc car racing, etc.

The problem is that MMORPGs aren't changing.  We've just got graphical updates to muds that have been around for 20 years where you whack a mole over and over and build your character.  When is the fundamental gameplay going to change?

You draw some good analogies and I've asked the question above many times.  I think I've found an answer:

MMOG's will change in gameplay when hundreds of thousands of people stop paying to play the current incarnation.  

As they are, treadmills seem to be cash cows.  Innovation hasn't produced a guaranteed cash winner.  Sure, one day someone will hit the gaming homerun.  Until then, it's safer from an investor's view to go with what brings home the bacon.

What about the fact that in WoW you dont wack-a-mole over and over to build your character?

CoH beat it at that category by a good 3-4 months.

Look doing quests where you get item x from person y and give it to person z isn't  anything new.  WoW is nice in that it tries to get you to explore over sitting in the same place playing wack a mole. However, it's hardly new in terms of gameplay.

Come now, whacking a mole as part of a quest to get exp is hardly different from just whacking a mole for direct exp gameplay wise.  No question I prefer doing the quest aspect of the two, but it's not THAT different.  The gameplay is still you do combat to advance your character, just with more purpose given.

Now if you could do enough quests that didn't involve combat at all and still advance an adventure type character (as opposed to crafting experience as a seperate curve), that would be new.  Show me a game where you can be a lvl 50 master explorer/sage/thief with no kills on his history and now we're talking...

Combat = exp is just easy, and known.

Xilren

But was it Pole Position, and then suddenly a game that had all of those things?  No, they were gradual.  I think MMOs as a whole are taking small steps toward innovation.

EDIT:  I guess I should add, that the racing genre evolution was much faster, but it is rather stagnant now.  With such a large market for games, people are afraid to take the big leaps that the pioneers took, because the potential loss if your game bombs is huge.  An unfortunant side effect of having a big-budget gaming industry.

DAoC having consensual PvP as an endgame was a good step, the problem was their treadmill to get htere was just so damn bad.

Shadowbane took huge leaps in the PvP endgame area, but they fucked it bad, and even if they fix it now (which my understanding is, the game is exponentially better than it was at release) they missed their chance.

WoW moving to a quest-and-exploration based exp system is another good step (though CoH beat them to the quest-based by a few months).  They also have consensual PvP in certain areas, though this system is still being worked out so I can't comment on whether it will be good or not.

I'll agree that it would be awesome to be able to be a master crafter with no combat xp.  As a matter of fact, Blizzard has heard this complaint, and my understanding is they are doing away with the Skill Point system, and moving to a just-money system.  Meaning, if you can get guild mates to get you crafting supplies, and you sell the items you make to learn new recipes, you could be a master crafter with no combat xp (this is my understanding, which may turn out to be incorrect.)

Baby steps to be sure, but steps.

Some steps forward, some steps back.

I'm under the opinion that City of Heroes made a bit of a U-Turn.  Many steps forward  with the genuinely fun gameplay.   Many steps backwards with the lack of compelling MMORPG-grade purpose to keep logging in.

World of Warcraft is feeling very much the same, but it's premature for me to say if this is because it genuinely lacks such purpose or if I just haven't found it yet.

Clearly my expectations in what I'm trying to find in a MMORPG are pretty dang complex (http://www.grimwell.com/index.php?action=fullnews&id=155).

It can be said to have changed in the form of Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates (http://www.puzzlepirates.com/).

What I would really like was a MMORPG that threw out combat. Right out. No whacking rats, no looting corpses. Gone! Instead, you have full-PvP economy, perhaps Uplink-style hacking, diplomacy, do missions for organizations for influence which you invest in access to other contacts, improved rank, access to better equipment, training etc.

That would be worth my money. Not the umpteen whackamole games.

Nope, the day after they announced the change they addressed the problem of guild mules by saying that each step in crafting will have a required level. 1, 10, 20, 35 I believe they were.

  This makes sense, since if you're limiting crafting "for the economy" (which is a bullshit reason, IMO) it makes no sense to allow a level 1 to be a master, since you can harvest with your main character and mail the crafting elements to your various craft mules.

A couple quick points. I saw mention of thottbot on this thread and I do hope that Blizzard takes a cue from it and implements some of the features, if only to cut down on the use of third party programs or to avoid the need for players to have them a la AC.

Second, there's already a working run speed hack for WoW. Not that this is a terribly difficult thing to accomplish, but it can play hell on PvP.

Lastly, I'm enjoying the game. I didn't think I would, but yes, the quests do make a difference to me. The highest character I have is a level 11 Nightelf Druid and I stopped playing that character for the same reason as was mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't want to feel like I'm quest treadmilling on release because I've already done all the quests up to X level. This is actually one MMOG that I could deal with not beta testing. The stress test has been plenty of a preview for me.

Would you say a dual wielding Warrior in berserker stance has as much damage potential as a rogue?

Erp.  I wonder what else is done clientside in WoW.  The "Blizzard is weak against cheater prevention" angle just dawned on me as being a potential issue for WoW.

So I was reading more b.net WoW forums because I like that dirty feeling I get afterwards.  Since the stress test finishes tomorrow, I was curious to read what levels people got to in the last 9 or so days.

Seems like 40-42 is about the highest.  Now this seems fine to me because these people probably logged a solid 6d13h or whatever on thier chars in that time.  Which doesn't seem unreasonable.

However, I can almost smell Blizzard just looking for an excuse to make the leveling take longer.  God Damn.  I can't believe people complain, hey this doesn't take very long, make it take longer!

If Blizzard wants to bring anything to the table, let it be a relatively shorter leveling curve.  Let us play at the current pace at least.  Fuck.

Edit:  This was just posted by a blizz rep:

I think most everyone realizes that WoW is nothing evolutionary. That being said, after the shitacular year we have had for MMORPGs ala Shadowbane and SWG most of us are looking for something that is simply stable and fun to play.

Minor issues such as not being able to solo an elite mob (still lost on this one, why SHOULD you be able to take on leet encounters by yourself) or the fact that the graphics are not on Par with EQII are nothing compared to the fact that they are actually releasing a stable playable game that is not grossly imbalanced or has broken core systems.

Sorry if I sound jaded, but after the last few MMORPGs to hit the shelves, WoW to me is a Godsend. If you want revolutionary and not evolutionary you could look to games such as Mourning (aka Realms of Krel) but considering it is not released yet, nor have many played it... it could very well be another Shadowbane.

This remains to be seen, really.  I watch over the shoulder of a friend who is in beta3, and was playing a hunter.  That 20 minutes or so countered everything I quoted you saying, with the possible exception of 'playable' and 'game'.

The game CTD'd once, for no obvious reason.  His character was a night elf hunter, and his pet's damage is bugged to be far too low, hunters don't have talents yet, and the teleporter to get in (or in this case out) of his hometown was sketchy...  it ported him in fine, but it took him several minutes of running in and out of it to get it to port him back out later.

A finished game, it is not.  Nor has it been released yet.  It may well release in the state you claim above...  But I'll believe it when I see it, esp. if they hold to a November release.

--
Alkiera

Just heads up to those that care:



Here's the Link to NZone (http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_worldofwarcraft_beta.html)  

Give it a few though, I think the server is broke as is custom when shit like this happens.

The kind of pressure that comes from (a) people running away from life thinking advancement in a computer game beats having a real life, or (b) the professional eBayers.

I've long since given up why MOG companies think casual subs are a better long-term bet than burnouts, so I just don't buy their products.  I've giving WOW until the first major patch cycle before I consider a sub.

When will people learn that 'Just keep checking for the update!' is not a good marketing move?  It sounds good, 'cause people will refresh your site alot, and maybe see ads, or other topics on the site they find interesting...

But in almost every case, your site gets hosed by the extra traffic, and people end up thinking you suck 'cause you can't keep your site running.

--
Alkiera

I had a completely different impression of the game than I was expecting.

I only signed up for the Stress Test because I was curious to see how Blizzard would handle the lame tread-milling of a MMOG-style game.  To my surprise, I had a blast.

WoW’s graphics suck IMO and are akin to the aged Quake 3 engine’s level of detail (and sometimes worse).  Fortunately, after 15 minutes of game play, the graphics didn’t seem to bother me as much as I expected them to.  Their Warcaft 3-style presentation ran silky-smooth on a variety of test systems with all features maxed out (sans the water due to it not being enabled in the Stress Test).  I ran the game on:

P4 2.8 GHz, 1 GB PC1066 RDRAM, Geforce 6800 Ultra OC’d
P4 3.2 GHz, 1 GB PC3500 DDRAM, ATI Radeon 9800XT
P4m 1.9 GHz, 384 MB PC2100 DDRAM, Geforce 4Go 440

And received very similar results with all the bells and whistles enabled in the test (circa 30 FPS-65 FPS).  I ended up enabling 4x FSAA on the 6800’s system to try and squeeze all I could out of the graphics presentation but hardly noticed anything special beyond a framerate drop.  The FSAA was nice and jaggy-eliminating but didn’t change the horrible textures and low poly models.

I played a Night Elf Hunter and, throughout the 10+ day test, I only managed to advance to Level 14.  That may seem slow to many but I’m not a power-leveler/gamer and found my “slow” pace to be quite enjoyable.  Since I don’t appreciate being forced into a dependence on other players (the way SWG’s model worked), I find myself a 70% solo/30% group player.  This game fully supported my playing style and was a treat to explore and quest in.  The PvP and raids as well as the fear of the “other faction” was amazing to see unfold as bitter enemies within the same faction put aside their differences to drive off the opposition (saw it happen 3 times and thought it was a profound step in the right direction as far as game play design goes).

LevelQuest’s Planes of Power expansion inflicted a more hostile path on its players by forcing them to group and get flagged in order to progress.  This finite design is fundamentally flawed and, as a result, it looks like SOE’s answer to this problem is to force their playerbase into abandoning their characters of LevelQust Live and hop on over to LQ2 when it’s released…“Of course, we’re not making EQ2 to cannibalize our previous franchise!” SOE exclaims.  Well, it looks like they painted themselves into a corner if you ask me.  Omens of War is just another half-invested attempt to gouge more money out of its customers and EQ2’s poorly designed “We’ve built it for future hardware we’ve never tested it on” engine is yet another reason I’m not too happy with SOE.

Bottom line:  WoW’s graphics suck and it’s nothing revolutionary as far as a game in this genre straying from the same formulas, but it sure beats having to buy an over-priced system, multiple poorly-made expansions and a slew of “tweaking after release” we’ll be seeing from some of Blizzard’s competitors.

Wow, amazing how many people rip EQ as a failure when they are one of the biggest success stories in the industry.  So you don't like them.  Big hairy deal, hundreds of thousands of people still do.

And if you can't see that EQ2 will be different than your example of Luclin then you have not paid any attention at all.  EQ2 CANT pull off the big raids.  Four groups will be the max, which is still pretty big, but hardly the zerg rush of old.  Most content supposedly designed for single groups.  For those not going in with a group of friends it might be pickup group hell.  The soloability of the game is yet to be seen.  I will be going into EQ2 just like I played through EQ1, with a well balanced group of friends.  So I expect to enjoy it at least on some levels.  And when I stop liking it, I stop playing it.  

Try to separate your own opinions from global facts.  They are not the same thing.  I hated keying and all that crap as well, and have not been playing to see the last two expansions.  But there are still a lot playing that game.  Will WoW make a huge impact in EQ numbers?  Probably not, but you never really know.

WoW is a good game though.  I don't think in the end it is the game for me.  It was close, but something about it bothers me.  I think it was at least partly the graphics, especially the very boring simplisticly drawn enemies to fight.

I will try them both out in beta and see what I like.  I will be playing one of them.

I would just like to say, that I personally love the WoW graphics. I love how different the zones look, and you could pretty much be randomly teleported anywhere in the world, and run around for a minute and know where you are just by the atmosphere of the zone.

It really seems some people cannot stand the graphics, and its hard for me to understand, but to each his own I guess.

Don't you wish you could at least turn them up though?

I do, but on low settings they look so good already, I can almost forgive that. Also, they DO get better if you go up in resolution.

I just like the "cartoony" look so much, I think it give the world more "personality" than any MMOG so far, and they look so good already, that mostly, I dont feel then need to try and turn them up.

Don't get me wrong, I love them too.  It really feels like an escape when I play, like an alternate universe.  When I was in the stress test, I had all the options turned up, and there were still moments where I felt that the graphics needed to be 'rounded' or 'sharpened'.

I hate to state the obvious but most likely, they will have an option to increase the poly count by release or early next year. The important thing is they have the textures, animation etc down pat.