f13.net

This is something I was thinking lately, it's a very simple problem but it may be more serious than how it appears.

Till now the repetition of endgame raid instances (but also the repetition in general) has been a strategy to keep a balance between the time needed to produce content and the time the players need to go through it. Since the players go a hell of a lot faster we have the grind as a workaround that allows the devs to "buy time". So the very low drop rates and faction farming.

But let's imagine a scenario where this problem doesn't exist and where the dev teams have become so competent and efficient to be able to push out content at an incredible pace, faster than how the players go through it. The production of content wouldn't be anymore a problem and there wouldn't be anymore the need to artificially "stretch" the gameplay by adding timesinks. You would be able to get your fat loot in a couple of runs, obtaining all there is to obtain without no need for boring repetition.

But wouldn't this just break the game?

The problem is that the biggest is the repetition, the more the players will be unite, since they need to do stuff together: the same stuff. If there's an "infinite" amount of content everyone would be spread on multiple levels, without being able to find "other players" who share the same situation.

How would you be able to build even a small raid group if it would be really hard to find players who share the same goals? If instead of 4-5 instances there are 30 and if you are "done" with them after the first run, how you create a "pool" of players sharing the same goals, and so being able (willingly) to group together and have fun?

If I reduce by 50% the drop rates in a set dungeon like UBRS, I also obtain the players to create 50% more occasions to find themselves together. Again sharing the same situation.

If instead I increase the drop rates by 50%, those players will go 50% less times in that dungeon since they don't need it anymore, making 50% harder to find players available to go there in a casual, improvised raid.

Is there an exit point from this? Putting completely aside the problem of the production of content, how you can create a social PvE game without also the implied grind that unifies the players? Aren't these "walls" required so that the players can find themsleves in the same shit?

I find it hard to believe raids bring people together. Great, 50 people in an instance. Two of which I'll talk to and they're already my friends. The idea of "the raid" is faulty to the core.

I think that's the more important topic here, developers are hung up on bringing people together. If it can be assumed people will play together and not forced through content, will creativity increase in MMORPGs at the developmental level?

Great question. I don't know if it would break the game, but it would certainly break the current heirarchy of players and rearrange things socially. I'm someone who actually likes to play MMPORPGs and I've frequently commented to people asking about "the grind" that "the grind is the game." I think a system with unlimited content would appeal to people like me (even if we'd still never see most of the content). And I think it would make the content the focus of the game rather than the items you get. What I always thought was sad was that by the time I ever got close to any endgame content, it was down to a formula. High end zones flipped from nearly mathematical problems for ubergamers to figure out a scheme to do to that scheme being something your raid leader printed out for when you "ran" the zone. Nobody ever actually enjoyed it as an immersive experience.

COH/V is a good model to an extent with no end game and no high end loot. And you can definitely see a difference in the culture and I think in the positive. However, it's an obscure genre and it's more a lack of endgame than endless endgame. Asheron's Call might be another example, but I never got even close to the higher levels to know either way.

CoH/CoV doesn't have loot at all. That solves lots of things in the equation. Because there is little that the players feel is mandatory for their progression. The only obtainable item that is worth something in CoH/V is a respec. So except for the respec taskforces, players are pretty relax with their play time. No need to be hardcore, less requirements for others to behave well & be disciplined. This brings up a much more satisfying experience for players who are not hardcore players of the game.

Asheron's Call has quests but they're not the way to obtain either loot or XP. Loot is theorically dropped by any mob/chest indoor or outdoor (with the sufficient loot quality rating). XP is gathered from killing mobs over & over. AC with that system managed to make quests interesting without making them mandatory for progression. Devs gave "recall" skills after some missions as meaningful rewards but those were not mandatory for progression (although arguably very interesting to have to cut down your travel time).

While I liked CoH (and to a lesser extent, CoV), I feel one of the reasons the game isn't popular is because of its lack of loot. People aren't playing to hoard stuff only of course. But people do play to customize their characters. Loot gives them yet another way to do so in addition to level-unlocked abilities and ways to modify those with stat-points. So while its lack of loot does solve one problem, it introduces others.

The faster players can get content, the more content they'll want. In a never-ending cycle of consumption (how  the "popular" games are built), I don't foresee a day when developers can outpace the players.

People like goals, goals involve rewards, the most tangible rewards are stuff you can hold (like, items), and that those items you can hold provide short or long term benefits makes them worth even more to the player.

What you're actually asking is how to avoid the intrinsic problems of games built on raw-consumption. To date, attempts to do this have met with some success, but never have gained the popularity they needed for true emulation. But that lack of popularity has been based on things I think can be solved. I think those can be solved:

• Combat is the most important element if you want popularity. At least right now. Maybe someday it won't be, but anyone who's working on a game today that wants to hit the high hundred-thousands hopefully is focusing on engaging and relevant.
• Objectives. People want stuff to do, and the majority of them do not want to stand around inventing their own game. That's what they're paying developers to do. Maybe when we all have a Holodeck the dream of player-created content will be accepted en masse. But I'm not holding my breath. Not everyone's a creator.
  
• True localization: Don't think pulling a multi-zillion-temporary/forgotten-account game from another country is as easy as changing the language. It's not. Everything from style of play to style of look needs to be assessed (ie, the default EQ2 models weren't going to fly in Asia, so they made new ones that even U.S. players prefer... were we just accepting less?)
  
• Low barrier of entry. None of this grind2fun crap. See previous point: it may work in some places, but it's because cultures are different. That's why there's demographics. Use them. Give people clearly defined goals, a clear path to them, and fun along the way. There's a reason why the online gaming market in the U.S. exceeds 50 million people, and that MMORPGs still, even with WoW, only account for 5% of them.
  
• Quality: Developers need to know their true limits, not those dictated by ignorant higher-ups who aren't going to play the game nor read the player comments anyway (yet will always come calling, even years later, when print publications give them bad reviews). There should be enough collective wisdom on a team and in a company to somewhat predict true needs of a project, or they wouldn't be handed checks for tens of millions of dollars. Beautiful snowflake design won't sell if nobody can play it.

"Being able to find other players" has nothing to do with "Being forced to associate with shit-dips for hours on end".  You can talk about grouping design or treadmill curve, but not both at the same time.  I only have so much spare brain.

Your implied starting hypothesis: that the only reason raid guilds form is because people find themselves in the same raid instance over and over again, is incorrect.  People form raid guilds because they want the shiny and they can't get it in a group of pubbie motards banging random keys.  Right now you have to hit raid zone A 20 times, then raid zone B 20 times, then raid zone c 20 times, etc.  In your world you do raid zone A once, raid zone B once, raid zone C once, raid zone E once, etc.  What does that have to do with whether or not raid guilds will form?  Nothing.  If anything, it will encourage even tighter raid guilds assuming (a) that the zones represent a loot progression needed to succeed in later zones or (b) that the zones get progressively harder requiring better tactics and tighter organization/discipline/familiarity among the group to complete.

PS: add "motards" to spellcheck prz.

The problem HRose is trying to point out is very valid.

It works nice on paper when no one has done Raid Zone A, so you come in, find a group of 40 people you can live with, then do Raid Zone A, everyone is happy, does Raid Zone B, everyone is happy, etc.

Then you get to Raid Zone G and 4 guys quit because they have children and can't keep up with the guild.  So you start looking for someone who is of an equivilent class to help with Raid Zone G, but you only find people who are on Raid Zone E and Raid Zone R.  So now you either have to get your entire group to go back to Raid Zone E and move from there (something you're already done with, so you all gain nothing by being there) or talk some guy into coming along for a bunch of raid zones he's already done (so in turn, he gains nothing for a long while).

In the meantime, I buy the game after it's been out for 2 years.  I level up and start trying to find a group for Raid Zone A.  But all the guilds in game now are established, and are spread out amongst Raid Zone W and Raid Zone Z.  None will bring me because without having gone through Raid Zone A through V, you can't do Raid Zone W, so the entire guild would have to move back.. thus why would they want me?

Eventually this trend continues to the point where the entire population is spread out amongst the infinite content levels, so no one can do any content at all, because it all requires multiple people to do it.

You also leave off the following Cevik. You play a healer and you play the game with your RL friend who is a warrior. The guild is only looking for healers, and won't accept new warriors as they have too many already.

>The problem is that the biggest is the repetition, the more the players will be unite, since they need to do stuff together: the same stuff. If there's an "infinite" amount of content everyone would be spread on multiple levels, without being able to find "other players" who share the same situation.

I see this problem in EQ2, everyone has an assload of quests in various stages of completion and getting eveyone on the same page becomes a barrier to grouping.

A lot of MMORPGs doesn't work like that. Take AO for example, back in the days reaching lvl 200 was hard as hell, now it's done in less than a month. Back in the days killing tarasque required a full well equiped group. Now he's soloable. This isn't because of raid progression, but because the level has been increased. New equipment, not only from raids also contributes.

What do you think will happen when the level cap gets increased in WoW? Nobody knows for sure but I wouldn't be suprised if blue level req 70 gear is comparable to epic level 60 gear. While this is one of the beauties of MMORPGs it's also partly what made me quit WoW. You always know that the stuff you're spending a truckload of time geting will become handouts later on.

Blizzard has said that normal level 65 gear will be better than level 60 Epics. That was months ago, so it could have changed.

Back to the core issue: it's a problem with progressive content. You've got to keep up or be left behind, and therefore accept less access to content. This was a problem in EQ1 as well. People ended up having to join newbie guilds, then advance to intermediate raiding ones, and then jump onto the endgame uber ones.

Group cohesiveness is a better goal though, particularly if you like the people. Best thing here I've found is to ensure the guild doesn't become fixated on any one thing too exclusively. The more they do, the more at risk they are of splintering.

There's no real easy way to design around this problem without removing zone progression altogether. Would that be worth it? Maybe, but the result is a need for even more content anyway to ensure people still have stuff to do and shoot for in a level-capped game.

I generally enter or form groups (outside of Guild ones) based on specific objectives. This helps right away set barriers, and introduce opportunities. If I need to kill 11 guards and someone else needs the boss beyond them, we've got good reason to group.

Forming a group for a zone though, yea, that gets tricky. Chances are that zone has 15 quests, and everyone has a different one.

The mid-day beer says:

What if the "loot" was an odometer?  Hell, several odometers... dozens even.  Many existing games (not necessarily MMO) can be used as an example here.  Instead of your reward being a sword, it could be "Defeated Creature 'We Todd Did' 3 times".  Tracking stats should give adequate e-penis to the flagwavers while simultaneously having zero impact on character ability; these stats will have to be publicly viewable, both in-game and perhaps on the official web site (which would naturally be available during game downtime).  If you really want to get crazy and put in character advancement, you might look at CoH or EVE depending on how crazy you want to be.  For something truly wacky, you can hand out "badges" for accomplishments (see Ratchet & Clank Skill Point system, and others)... I'm thinking basic badges for "killed 500 orcs", notable badges for "consecutively killing 25 skeletons while wearing cloth armor or lower", achiever badges for "solo-killing fifteen Elite Gnoll Archers in Splitpaw Dungeon", and You Are A Fucking Catass badges for "Surviving More Than Eight (8) Hours in Zone: 'Worse Than Hate'".  These badges would not confer any special abilities to the playable character, rather they would be only for e-penis, both in-game and on any offical forums that are unfortunate enough to exist.  This would allow me to play the game without caring if I had the "Tigole Bitties Junior" badge if I choose, since it has no real impact on my character.

Fuck, you could make Postcount appear in-game.  I predict "hoody-hoo" over that one.

Players need a way to customize their characters. Much of what you say is built into the titles one can have in EQ2, and the badges of SWG. They're ok, adding flavor to the character. But players want ability upgrades, things they can look back on months down the road and say shit like "I used to be scared of those, now I AOE them for fun!".

Kinda like visiting Crushbone in EQ1 every ten levels starting with 25 just to crush the inevitable trains and occasional Emperor for shits and giggles. It's cathartic and fun, but shows a sense of progress over time.

And more importantly, you can share this with people you know or just met.

This is one reason I think CoH got it only mostly right. There's not enough to brag about in CoH :) Seriously, on the surface, there isn't a huge difference between characters. Oh yes, the looks are different (which is why costume balls are so big). But actual abilities? Standard-faire stuff there, with the only way to upgrade based on enhancements and the occasional goodie. Not enough ways to players to personalize their ability set.

Arguably, there isn't many more ways to do it in other games either, but because those abilities are often tied to items which are often tied to quests or group-required encounters, they take longer to get, and are liked a bit more for the effort.

Maybe.

That's exactly what most current raiders would think too. It's not about the epeen. It's about the power and the epeen. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Well, I typed out something pretty long and then realized that opinions are just that.

Let's just say that there is more than one problem with raid content. For starters, isn't it bass-ackwards that you spend 20 days /played in a game to get to the point where you have to find 39 other people to 'advance'? Hey you spent your time making your hero just to get to a point where, by design and necessity, you need 39 other heroes just to accomplish any goal. How heroic.

Infinite content is a nice idea, but it would work better in a Diablo2-ish package. 64 players, as much as current FPS games. Editor that the players can use. A small staff of actual professionals that will keep new content coming down the pipe. Basically Guildwars done correct, without the retarded skill/combat systems. Make a nice interface on the game's website so you have a 'adventure search'. We've got 7 people, 0 people can heal, and we want to spend between 1 and 2 hours playing. SEARCH.

>retarded skill/combat systems.
By retarded, you mean best ever, hands down?

Hmm...

Been doing a lot of thinking about this lately.  Mainly because I am nearing my Raid Time with WOW.  I really enjoy Alterac Valley.  Would something along this line not work as a Raid zone?  Make gear dependant on faction, not some random drop.  One thing I was and to this day am disappointed with Blizzard over is the fact WOW went the EQ route of itemization instead of Diabloesque.  Itemization currently has a power curve that is equated to the power curve of the DIKU player, though in many ways the balance dance gets way out of whack with the item side.  Now if X dev builds an item to help with Class Y's balance, but is usable by Class Z in a way that further pushes the envelope on Class Z's power... blah blah blah.

I like WOW more than perhaps any MMORG, though I really like COH/V due to the solo ability.  I play games because I enjoy the mental release they provide, and the fact that I find myself working with barely brain active monkeys durring the day doesn't mean I want to spend the time away from work being forced to interact with the same brain dead monkeys.  When I group, I generally only group with people I know.  Now, going back to the Alterac Valley point above, the fact fifty monkeys are on each side with at least some similar focus does not mean those fifty have to be the cream of the crop.  Hell, that raid content is against another set of fifty monkeys.  I still don't know why Blizzard is limiting that respective pool to just one server set.  Alterac Valley could be open to any of the hosted server set without impact on the rest of those servers... at least no impact that I can see.

ZG?

No - he means it was a bad system. I'd be inclinded to agree it wasn't very good.

I think Hrose is assuming people will keep doing the dungeon until they get every single little piece of armor or whatever. I know I won't.

Idea: If you have more content like you said, without the timesinks, you need a way to have mroe people in contact to do those instances. How about just combining more servers?

What "advancement" is left in WoW once 60 is hit? Equipment? For what? The entire endgame of WoW is simply about getting better equipment. You fight for it, and then you use it to become better at fighting for it. And it needs the 39 other people or there wouldn't even be that. It's a stopgap between content updates, fun for a bunch of people, which is good, but in no way for the casual/faint-of-time.

We're living the hell of this right now in EQ2. Server combines work if you have good population management (EQ2's "instancing" is mostly about server load balancing... most stuff you'd think should be instanced is still public-space).

Again, people in general don't rabidly hate other people. Nobody picks up a game box that reads "Massively Multiplayer Online" and says "oh goody, a vast world in which I can be totally alone". There's a certain amount of acceptance the moment the patching is started.

People just don't want to be forced to grouping all the time or whenever the game dictates it. People need the freedom to do this themselves.

And no, these people are not crying at night about not being able to get their T3/7 crap. They're playing to have fun, advance, and eventually leave for another game or out of the genre. I find the biggest complaints to be those on the cusp of hardcore but who are fighting against the realities the real world is handing them.

Thanks for clearing that up. :roll:

Good point.

Now in games many people can't play together much because they are at different levels. When they hit "end game" they can again because they are all at max level and all have the same basic options for activities.

Producing content forever is nto a realisitc scenario anyway. People will consume faster than produce, always.

The problems with raid content are this:

1: Some people don't like raid content.
2: For people who don't like raid content, their are either no other choices or those other choices require raiding. (IE WoW PVP)

2 is especially annoying because you can have the illusion of choice without actual choice. In WoW you can't really choose to PvP and not raid - you must do both.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - FFXI has about 7 or 8 different end-game activities that appeal to different people.

A level capped PvP with a second PvP system on the way, level capped monster fights, super hard missions/quests, aliiances (large groups), etc. If you don't like raiding (alliances) there are a bunch of other things you can do. You still have to choose, but you can choose from a bunch of distinct real options.

That's why I preferred what SWG tried to do. It had RPG trappings, but you didn't have to raid if you didn't want to. You could even just do combat to support resource sales (organic, tapes, etc.)

Of course, I emphasize "tried". UO did it better for a time.

CoH/CoV does have loot. CoH has Hamidon Enhancements (used to be uber-powerful Enhancements until they got smacked big time by the Nerf bat) and both games have salvage, used to build base items, though those are just random drops so it's not like you camp mobs to get them.

Well, this isn't very true. If I started up a character now and hit 60 in WoW in 20 days I wouldn't be at the max level. I mean, I'd be 60, but there are other "level 60" people who are 5x more powerful than my new character.

I'd have to camp some fuckiing shithole for 6 months with 39 other faggots before I'd be "max level".

When I hit 60 early on in WoW, my best friend from high school started up. By the time he hit 60, a month or so later, and wanted to do UBRS and Scholo, that was the last thing that I wanted to do. Even for a person I've known for decades. Random people don't have a chance.

It takes a special person, special DURRRRRR or SPECIAL special that's got 5-6 purple items to run with a group of strangers through UBRS. Or get attuned for MC.

One guy I know through IRC (I have screenshots of me killing him in UO beta, old 'enemy' I guess) started just 3 weeks behind his clan and he tried for a week to get people to help him get attuned. These are people that he's been gaming with since UO.

He quit in frustration because everyone was busy chasing the shiny and nobody wanted to help kill dragons.

ANYWAYS, tangents. Further tangent, it'll be sad to see all the level 60 raid content go 100% wasted as soon as the expansion comes out and the shiny is pushed 10 or 15 levels further. You'll see people botting in Azshara instead of doing Stratholme.

What you say is true to some degree.

In most games grouping more than 3 or 4 levels spread doesn't work so well. Let's be generous and divide WoW into 5 level spreads. There are 12. By that I mean, people level 1-5 can group together, 6-10, etc.

At any given time while levelling you can group with 1/12th of the populating. If you say the spread is only 4 levels then that becomes 1/15, etc etc.

At end game I don't think there are 12 different raids people do. At end game you can't raid with 100% of level 60 people but 25% maybe? I don't know enough about WoW raiding to know for sure.

But your basic point that progressing through raid difficulty isn't really different from progressing through levels is a valid one.

However I do see this as a problem specific to WoW to some degree, in part because the end game is really only raiding and even PvP requires raid gear.

I already mentioned that in FFXI there are a bunch of things you can do end-game, but here is another important point: In FFXI you can buy really really good gear, it isn't bind on pickup This means that instead of raiding for great items you can farm and then buy them.

There also isn't a standard progression of easy->medium->hard difficulty or a system where you have to beat one raid to have access to the next. In FFXI the best analogy is the COP missions, where you have to do them in order and it's hard to find people doing the same mission as you. In general COP (expansion) was not popular and most people estimate that only about 10% of North American players have beaten it!

It's really a WoW problem though, not a systemic problem. It can be done right, or at least much better.

Correct. I should have said: CoH/CoV doesn't have loot you want to acquire.
HamiO were nerfed because they were against the vision of "no desirable loot" or basically they were overpowering and a break in the controlled combat paradigm.
Salvage could have potential to be a great dynamic enticing people to go hunt in certain zones for the special salvage obtained there -and thus potentially reviving dead zones- and start a trade economy. The sad thing is that there is not really any need today to gather salvage. Bases are a semi-failure in my view.

The whole concept of loot and raids and hard-coded quests is so contrived...surely a more organic system can be effectively implemented?

I'll get back to you in 10 years.

I like your ideas and would be interested in subscribing to your newsletter.

If I can just say in all seriousness :  You either need to look up, or get, a new definition of the word 'friend'.

I understand the frustration of the early player constantly getting beat on to help lower levels. In my guild, I think I hit 60 roughly a week or so after the bulk of players. We're not huge, we're very help-oriented, and we did a good job of moving people along that were behind us. For the first year. Now I'm over a year into the game as a level 60, and we still have new people asking for the same shit I've run 50 times with zero gain other than building them up. We also have a few youngens who are a special brand of selfish that ask for the 60s to powerlevel them through everything. Not just instances, non-elite quests too. Because it's "faster". I told the last kid that asked me that to take a real hard look at what he was asking for. I said basically you are saying, hey, my time is way more valuable than your time, please get your ass out here and get me to 60 because I've got things to do, chop chop.

He didn't get it. So, I just told him to go ask his dad to hit him for me.

Bullshit that happens to almost everyone.

There is a reason RL friends often end up in different guilds from eachother.

In the Diku clones, different play-styles can barely interact with each other.  If one friend is playing his first MMO and catass'ing to the extreme he will leave the other guys in his dust and they will not be able to do content he can.  Meanwhile your saying he's a shitty friend if he doesn't want to go repeat content he already repeated 100 times to get where he is now?

Bullshit.

The system sucks, it stops people from playing with the people they want to play with.

Sure, f13'ers are starting to reach a level of MMO-maturity that they know how to avoid this, look at the EQ2 guys.  The people who play tons spread their playtime over 2-5 characters while those who are ultra casual just level one.  Meanwhile there is the whole sidekick/exemplar/whatever system so that they can make more efforts to play together.

In EvE, we dont have as many of these stupid problems.

a) offline training means there is no required /played to access content.
b) EvE lends itself well to solo + chat play.
c) The different playstyles fit together nicely, in WoW a crafter is off in stupid zones hitting up resource nodes and a pvper will never see him.  In EvE the crafter wants the combat characters around to cover them while they mine.  The industrial players are the ones that make the corp strong, combat characters provide BPO's (when we can afford them) for items we repeatedly need for war.

But for people who are just getting into MMO's they almost invariably will have a hard time playing with the people they originally set out to play with, just too many things that are setup to divide the population into sub-groups.  Raiding is not the only culprit but it is by far and away the worst.

Well, man, you can only do so much. I ran probably 20 people through Wailing Caverns to get the Crescent staff, because that's the best weapon for about 15 levels. (might be wrong now)

I helped about a dozen or so warriors do the level 39 or 40 warrior quest for the weapon as soon as they could get the quest, which is level 30. That involves killing a few dozen elementals all over the zone and some other crap, basically a few hours at minimum. Each time.

UBRS and LBRS I did so many times that I could run back to the group with my eyes closed. Dropping down at the right places, etc. I'm sure MC and Onyxia are getting just as robotic for hundreds of thousands of people these days.

I guess it takes a certain type of person to put up with it, and I'm just not that type. I might have been years ago, but no more.

And yeah, I'm playing Eve again.

True story.

In WoW, you mean.

In FFXI players routinely help each other. Not just friends but people they don't know at all. If I haven't found a party I'll find a group of lowbies and help heal them. I had trouble getting my subjob quest done until a random high level white mage helped me. I had trouble getting my airship items until a random friend of a friend came by with a high level thief (higher drop rate on items). That person stayed not only until his friend got their items but until our entire group got our items.

If you need a raise, people will come from another zone to help you out. If I pass someone low level I will buff them. That's just the way it is in FFXI - people are helpful. A lot of the time in the game consists of groups of very different levels doing coffer key quests, airship pass quests, and things like that, where usually a couple of the people already have the items and are just helping out.

I don't know why that is exactly. It may be because the game was Japanese and they are like that, and it carried over. The player base is fairly mature in general. (Literally 10x more mature than WoW)

 :roll:

This thread is turning into a Chuck Norris fact.

Still calling bullshit, in FFXI there are plenty of things that would prevent me from playing with a more established friend, sure the nature of subjobs means that he might be able to switch to another job that is in my level range and come party with me but if my friend is in a HNM linkshell and I'm just starting out or just getting my first job to cap I'm not going to get to participate in the same parts of the game as him/her that is just the nature of the beast.

No effort will ever be made in level-based systems to make all levels usefull in all most of the content.  Because then you "trivialize" levels or somesuch garbage.  Back to EvE again (sorry sorry)...

A frigate/AF/inty setup for tackling, which costs a tiny fraction of a BS/HAC is still usefull in PvP.  Same goes for EW cruisers like the Blackbird. 

The entire tracking & turret resolution versus speed & signature size is an elegant system to make most ships viable in most situations.  Level based games dont have that, they have ridiculous systems typically that mean that all your attacks will miss a higher level PC or NPC and all your spells will be resisted.  This is how they add "value" to leveling up, the entire DING-GRATZ mentality and gameplay experience is the antithesis of allowing everyone to feel usefull.

Levels persist because they work, no matter how much veterans who've played too many level-based games hate them by now.

And I can appreciate Margalis' enthusiasm for FFXI, but I wonder if their accounts are similar to ones folks had in old-world EQ1. Tough games will lose players, to be sure, but those that remain can form bonds because of that toughness.

Easier games can require less cammaraderie basically.

You are a Chuck Norris fact.

Levels persist in the same way that Holywood remakes of old movies and sequels to terrible movies that made money persist, it has nothing to do with "working" unless by working you mean sucking ass but turning some level of profit because alternatives to the ass-suckage are few and far between and often often only available to the person who is truly looking for them.

Re: Levels...

You really butchered the spelling of frat brother there.

 :rimshot:

No, levels persist because otherwise the world is a featureless grey blob.

Yeah, your level 1 guy can't dent the level 50 dragon. So let's go to a skill-based system!

Now your skill rank 1 swordsman can't dent the dodge rank 50 dragon. Okay, let's go to a raw equipment system!

_Now_ your attack power 40 broadsword can't dent the defense power 500 dragon. Okay, screw NPCs, let's let everyone select from carefully mathematically balanced choices of gear and let them prevail by skill alone!

_Now_ your ladder-rank 6000 self has no prayer against the ladder-rank 3 catass.

Levels measure relative power, and there will _always_ be power differences. Always.

Back to the whole raid thing: there are, broadly, three (four?) advancement tracks in WoW. XP level, buyable equipment power, bind-on-pickup equipment power, and, uh, optionally tradeskills. At level 60, the first track stops, then the second and optional fourth slow and stop, so that leaves the third, which is a random-strength variable-interval reward system, and as any behavioral psychologist can tell you that's the most addictive.

--GF

Um.

Seriously, you both have different ideas of 'friends' than I do.  I have 3 lvl 60's now and I still run through the lower 54-60 quests with my friends because, er, they are my friends.  Indeed, once you start to get epics and the like, it's even easier to help them out....

That's what friends do.  It's the very definition of friendship to help someone out even when there's nothing in it for you and it may even be something you don't particularly want to do.

As I say, either get a new definition of friends or just start saying 'acquaintances' or 'guildies' or 'fucking newbs'.


 :|

I wouldn't help my brother do 54-60 quests unless he needed keying. He doesn't need that uber blue item he's been eyeing any more than I need to never step foot in LBRS/UBRS/etc ever again. This is someone who IRL I lend/borrow money to/from, and who has access to basically any item I possess. In WoW we've leveled 2 sets of 60s together as well as numerous alts to various stages and we basically share inventories/banks. I'll take an hour's drive in the heat and no aircon to pick him up so he doesn't have to use public transport, I'll even farm a few hours so he can buy a sweet item if I'm not busy, but I WILL NOT run his ass through some lame dungeon to get an item/quest he doesn't really need. If he bugs me enough I'd do it eventually, but he knows as well as I do that making people do things they don't want to just for your benefit is not something you should be doing lightly.

That's my brother. A raw recruit I've never/hardly played with has jack-all chance of getting me to run an instance I don't need just for them. I'm not unique in that view.

EDIT: It's not selfishness either. I have exactly 1 item I can upgrade with a blue (and I'm wearing 50% blues... I just took care the get the best blues) and the one I have is pretty low level so I definately want to replace it. I just want to not ever find myself in that instance again more than I want that item. It's basically the same thing.

Baffling.

Carry on.

So many years reading and chatting with us, yet you still don't understand us "colonials" at all, do ya, Ironwood?

FWIW, I agree with you.

As disturbing as it is to agree with Calantus, I do on this one. Maybe not to the extent I wouldn't run my own brother through shit, but I do know that people in my guild get on my nerves about lower level runs. They always want to run Mauradon, Sunken Temple, or BRD. I'm like, I will run BRD if it's part of a quest chain you need to level or get to Onyxia. I flat-out refuse to run Mauradon or ST because they are all about getting loot that you will dump in 5 levels. I don't run instances to help people get loot, with a few exceptions: The Deadmines, Stockades, and sometimes Gnomer. There is a big reason for that, time. Those really low instances take less than an hour. The ones closer to 50 take 2-3, and you get nothing from doing it.

The point is that Calantus is right, they don't "need" those items at that point any more than they "need" my help. There wasn't anybody there when I was leveling up, so I just skipped them and moved on. Hell, Mauradon wasn't even in the game. At 50, suck it up and grind and stop pestering people with stupid quests. Quests mean jack and shit after 50.

The ST quest for almost every class has the very first piece of "Endgame" gear that you will ever get (the trinket).  You should probably be helping people get things like this:

http://www.thottbot.com/?i=51413

Everyone also needs to run through ZF at least once.. as everyone will need this:

http://www.thottbot.com/?i=2961

Believe me, if it was priests asking for help, I'd do it in a second. It's the people with useless classes that we already have an asston of that bother me. Yeah, I'm really itching to help another hunter get to 60 there, sparky. That'll save us.

So the argument has gone from "I'd take my friend through if it was something he needed, but it's nothing he needs so fuck him" to "well sure he may need the stuff, but he's a class I don't really need so fuck him"..

Okay..

Priests are always the exception to the rule, you know that.

You are constraining your thinking to the established power system.  If you adjust the numbers somewhat so that the attack 40 sword can do something, proportionately, to the 500 defense dragon, then you are getting there.  It's probably not the mechanic of levels that causes the frustration, it's the mechanic that prohibits the weakest from having any impact on the strongest.  I think I could get behind a level system where it was possible for fifteen level five players to take down one or two level seventy players/mobs.  You can have power differences that aren't so extreme but are still meaningful.

Suggesting a more linear power curve rather than a logarithmic one has been done. The problem is that the common mmog gamer wants to be significantly more powerful with level.  They want to grind to some level independant of their ability (time the constraint) and once achieving that level, have the ability to pwn n00bz wit impunity! This is in stark contrast to the lot of us here wanting a more linear power curve determined by a more skill-weighted system.

In the words of Haemish: Niche baby!

Fine with me, I tire of the common MMOG gamer and my impotence in retaliating against shitfuckers.  Player skill is my new topic du jour.

Why?  Because you need them (selfish bastard!)?  Or because that particular trinket is more "usefull" than other classes trinkets from that quest?  If it's the later then you are overlooking quite a few "endgame" trinkets that come from that quest.. for example, a lock isn't going to find ANYTHING like this in the rest of the game:

http://www.thottbot.com/?i=52072

If you're forcing your lock's to skip ST because "they don't need the stuff there" they are really missing out on something they can use forever..

Um, yes because we need priests. That's exactly the point. They are the rarest class in the game. If the question is, will I amend my rules to help a priest because priests are the most valuable, the answer is yes.

Otherwise, no I don't think the trinkets are all that valuable. Some would disagree, but it's not game-breaking to miss them. Get the DM trinkets and I think you're better off.

A friend in need is a friend indeed.

Words of wisdom.

You help your "friend" only because it helps you. Yeah...your idea of friend is my idea of random schlub. You're missing the whole friend part of friend there.

I'm talking about guildees, not friends. Some of them I do consider friends, and I do help them. Some are newbies another officer invited that I don't care for at all. In my case, the ones asking usually are random shlubs. Now, if my RL friends played the game, I would help them get going, PL them when I could, etc. However, there comes a point when asking for favors and the like where people are basically saying that their time and their needs are greater than your time and your needs. It's a case by case thing, but I think we all know when somebody is trying to take your help for granted.

That being said, NONE of my RL friends play these games at all, and think they are odd.

If a friend is in need (key) I'll help. If a friend is in want (10% drop blue item) he can keep on wanting if I've done the instance so many times I can't stand the sight of it. If it means so much to them anyway I'll help after a little persuasion, but if they make a habit of making me do things I don't want to do they are not a true friend. Being somebody's friend doesn't make you their slave or their bitch.

Most people in my guild didn't bother begging for help to run dungeons for "uber" gear because they know they'll outgrow it anyway. ST and ZF are not Maraudon or BRD or LBRS though. That, too, is established. WoW is a knowledge-based gamed.

Common MMOG gamers do not want to grind shit. They want adventure. They want a clearly defined goal with a clearly defined reward. Levels have done that better than skills because skills have always ended up either being unbalanced train wrecks requiring other players dictate templates anyway, or are so numerous, they're confusing.

More importantly, these games aren't just levels anyway. They are also skill in many cases (EQ1, WoW, EQ2). You can't just gain a level and be all uber. You can't ignore a Dagger skill for 60 levels then expect to be a backstabbing fiend at the endgame. Levels cap and unlock skills, but they are not the only factor. You know this of course, but I think it's important to not ignore the Skill-based component of these Level-based games.

Further, yes, MMOG gamers want to lord over stuff they once died to. So? How is it a bad thing to be able to prove the investment you've made is worth it. We've been doing that since D&D, which was in no way shape or form a "commonly" played game anyway. Levels provide clear rewards and goals and a clear indication of relative power.

Finally, tell me what game Skills weren't referred to as Levels anyway. SWG? "I'm a 4-3-4-4 BH". UO? "I'm a 6xGM whatever working on my seventh". Wish? Heh. Eve may work here, but it's still a fairly niche game, as was UO, as was SWG, as is pretty much any skills-based games which is the reason why Levels are still the default anyway.

I don't condemn people for liking their levels. I actually like both, having enjoyed both the passive predictability (and therefore casual) nature of understanding levels as well as the freedom of customization with skills that was never truly free anyway (certain skill combines in UO just weren't done, and not just because templates were the right thing to do).

Anyway about levels and such. If you look at how a typical advancement scheme works a level 20 character might have twice the HP of a level 10 character, which already makes them twice as powerful. Add to that they hit twice as often, dodge twice as often, hit harder, hit faster, etc etc and you see the problem.

However imagine a level 15 guy is really only 50% better than a level 10 guy. This means the level 15 guy really can't take on mobs that much tougher.

Usually because of the non-linear power/level relationship you can fight an entirely new type of mob every few levels. At level 15 the ultra-lizard you fight might be 3 times as powerful as the level 10 lizard. With a flatter levelling curve you still be fighting the same lizard maybe only slightly tougher.

So the steep curve allows for more differentation of enemies, which is a good thing.

Edit: Not worth it.

It would take me a day to argue the fine details... but here's an example: Skills only play a role when players are of roughly the same level.  Levels override skills in most cases rendering the skills as just fluff associated with the levels.  Compare a level 10 with maxxed skills to a level 30 with poorly developed skills.  The level 10 still has no chance.  This is the case in every mmog.  Skills are there to fine tune a player of a given level or possibly to even spread out players within a level.  Often this difference in skills within a level means less than having an extra level or two under one's belt.  This is the thrust of my issue.  I would argue that you can ignore skill levels if the disparity between character levels is high enough.  Skill levels play only a marginal role in distributing or differentiating players at a given character level.

I'll try to address the rest when I'm more awake.

John Newguy: L10 warrior LFG for Commonlands!
Ubermax Altboy: HAHAH n00bler commonlands is teh ghey.
Ubermax Altboy: L10 raid on Dragonroost LF5M!

I couldn't.

--GF

Uhh they aren't even remotely comprable..  Not even in the slightest remotest sense:

DM Trinket:  http://www.thottbot.com/?i=38514

ST Trinket:  http://www.thottbot.com/?i=52072

They don't even come close to serving the same purpose.  I'm confused as to how you can say one is "better" than the other..

You do realize that you can switch the item at your trinket slot at will, right?

A free VW every half hour?  Dang, that's pretty sweet.

Alkiera

It (according to the devs, by design) doesn't break Demonic Sacrifice.  You can pull out a succy or a vw and sac them, then use the shard to summon your vw again and have either good damage (from the sac'd succy) or good health regen (from the sac'd vw), +10% damage reduction and a hp beast for your Soul Link and a insta cast shield.  It's an awesome setup in Alterac Valley, especially for rogue protection while travelling.  Add in Fel Domination and the ability to summon another VW instant, + improved Voidwalker and you have ~5000 hps in just shielding available, 10% damage reduction when not shielded, an extra 43% hps from Soul Link, AND either 4% health regen per 5 secs or +15% shadow damage.  But you know.. the DM trinket is better..

You can also leave the abyss shard in the bank and not ever have to worry about running out of shards and not being able to farm a few shards again (because farming shards when you have no shards at all really sucks)..

It's simply a matter of opinion. I think some things are better trinkets because they go with my playstyle, which is raiding. No, I don't really care about helping people get trinkets so they can pvp or solo because I have no interest in these things. They can find pvp guildees/friends who want to help them do these things. Let's just post all of the ST trinkets, and I'll point it out.

Priest trinket: +190 to spells and healing for 20s, 2 min cool - This is solid in a raid, and good in pvp. Good all around.
Warlock: Summons a free VW, 30 min cool - This has nothing to do with raiding, it's purely solo/pvp. Nice to have, but won't break the game.
Hunter: 150 attack power, 2% chance to hit for 20s, 2 min cool - Again, this could be used in both, but crit would be much better than hit.
Shaman: I'm alliance, who cares.
Warrior: Restores 9 health every 5 sec, str +75 for 1 min, 6 min cool - It's shit. Really, the health is stupid, and the strength buff you get off a Crusader proc makes more sense than taking up a lame trinket slot.
Mage: Restores 1 to 500 mana, increases next fire spell by 100, 3 min cool - I don't play a mage, I can't speak to how much mana this is at endgame, but the fact it's 1 to 500 means you're probably averaging 250, which doesn't seem like much at all.
Pally: 3% crit to spells and melee for 25 sec, 3 min cool - if this means heals, ok. Otherwise meh.
Rogues: I couldn't find this one.
Druid: This one either.

Anyway they are all use trinkets, and there are better things out there:

This for example (http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=11819) drops off the Golem Lord in BRD.
The useful warrior trinket (http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=18537) drops in DM.
Another nice warrior thing (http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=11810) from BRD.
Here's a better hunter trinket, IMO (http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=11815) from BRD.

And then all the book trinkets, etc. It really doesn't even matter that much, trinkets are cool, but it's not like missing your weapon or that helm you'll wear until getting an epic.

See the difference is that you are highly pvp oriented, and I am not at all. Therefore you would find value in things I simply don't. It's not that uncommon.

Well, that's mostly true. Except for AC1 and AC2.

Here (http://nija.dyndns.org/ac2gallery/images/cap295.jpg) is a shot of my first alt in AC2 at level 28 ( I don't have a good shot of his current level in cap295, or any of the next few, but there are a few more shots of the fight, so just add or subtract numbers to it if you really care. Which nobody does.) killing a level 40 guy and a level 28 guy at the same time. The level 40 guy, at the time, was the toughest class to beat, feral intendant. I was a mage/defender and I had a level 45+ guy already, and I just knew more about it than the level 40 did. I had my buffs up, I knew how long my snare would last, and I knew which kind of attacks I could expect from him.

In AC1 you could do the same type of stuff.

I think there are plenty of exceptions to the level > skill system, but the truth remains that the mass market doesn't want them.  AC1 was a very decent game and look at what happened to it.  Aspects were removed or simplified, the population base was never stellar, and we can all admit that the sequel (AC2) was a disaster.

What has WoW shown us:

1) Players want "DING! Grats."

2) Players want itemization. A decent number of players will do obscene things to have a 1% advantage over another player.

3) Players want to play solo until forced to group.

4) Players want lots of tools to make the gaming/quest experience easier (icons over NPC's heads, maps, etc.).

5) Players like linear progression with strict rules for encounters. (i.e. go to coordinates x, y and kill this foozle.  Return to me for a reward.)

This all seems to point toward: Easy access and power that scales with time.  I'd also dare to say that the mainstream desire to "feel heroic" translates more appropriately into easiy-to-win encounters.  This is my biggest problem with the direction that current mmogs have taken.  PvE just isn't challenging unless the player artificially creates a challenge for themself.  I want there to be more encounters with high failure rates that aren't based solely on the number of players present or having just the right class mix.  Publish a game where the player base loses as often as they win and I'll show you a niche product. 

I want more games like golf. 
 - It's always a challenge, even for the best players in the world.   
 - Even people that suck at it can love it.

I kinda disagree with that Nebu. I get what you're saying, and I see where you're coming from, but I think what WoW shows us is that if you actually polish a game and release it in a semi-complete state, you'll get subscribers.

I've watched or participated in launches since Meridian 59, and I think WoW's launch was the best. I say that even when my server was Archimonde, and it was down 4 days the first week as they moved it to a different colocation.

Saying that people want the ding grats and all that fluff is like saying that PVP games will never work because Shadowbane failed. PVP didn't kill SB, it was the unbalanced, buggy gameplay and the awful, awful, AWFUL client that would crash if you sneezed.

WoW was just a license that people knew with a client that worked, and on top of those two already rare things they actually created about 3 months worth of casual content to launch with. Nobody else has done that before.

Auto Assault, D&DO, and EQ2 haven't even considered those things, and 2 out of those 3 have to follow WoW. Yeah good luck with that AA and DDO, we'll see how well it works out for you.

Heh, so your definition of "friend" is "someone who can help me achieve my desired objective".. fine with me, but I'll refer you back to the very begining of this branch of the thread, and how it all got started:


Followed by further clarification:


Followed by Calantus saying he wouldn't help his REAL LIFE BROTHER get these items because Calantus doesn't like the dungeon.  If you won't help your real life brother or a "friend" get a needed end game item for their class to thrive in a "different" playstyle than you, then I agree with Ironwood, you don't understand the meaning of the word friend..


Okay, I will repeat my question.. you do realize that trinkets can be swapped, right?  You do realize you can use the trinket, then swap it for another while it's on cooldown right?  In fact there are addons that will swap trinkets automatically for you based on "events" that you define..

I disagree with what you said.

Even at release, and I hated the game at release, EQ2 had as much content as WoW did. We can dick around about the quality of said content all we want, but EQ2 had it. And as for server stability, EQ2 had a few weeks of absolute shitty service, but so did WoW. WoW just disguised it with fucking queues.

Really, WoW did a lot of things "right" but it wasn't demonstrably better at release than EQ2, and I say this having hated EQ2 at release and having played WoW at release. EQ2 had a lot of things that killed it head to head vs WoW (steep system requirements, lack of artistic style) but WoW's biggest selling point at first was that it was a Blizzard title, and had Blizzard frothtards evangelizing the game.

It works the other way too. I asked him the other day to do a BRD coffer run. He said no, and so I asked another tank in the guild. If I put some pressure on him he would have helped me, but then I'm forcing him to come to a run he doesn't want to do when I'm perfectly capable of finding someone else or going without. I guess I just see things from the opposite direction. You see helping a friend with whatever they ask is the good thing to do, I see respecting a friend's desire not to do that activity as more important. If you would drag a "friend" into an instance they hate for that marginally useful trinket, you don't understand the meaning of friend..

I disagree with what you said.  EQ2 was a steaming pile of ass that reeked of failure from every pore of its being on release day.  Classes barely implemented, broken systems everywhere, etc (look at how many times they've overhauled it since then).  It was nowhere close to being ready in any way.  I think you've been so blinded by the fact that the EQ2 team has converted that turd into a decent game over the past year of paid beta that you've forgotten the turd Smed pooped out two Novembers ago. 

That, or Schild has taken over your account.

No, I remember that. I also look at how each class in WoW has gotten almost an entire patch devoted to them since release and think "WoW is not demonstrably better than EQ2." Its server stability was just as shitty, but hidden much better with queues which are inexcusable, but for some reason I found more bearable than server downtime even though they amount to the same goddamn thing.

What WoW did have was better client performance, a better quest system, and it didn't have that assy Mcassy "20 levels before you actually pick your class" bullshit.

So ok, maybe WoW was more fun at release. It was. But it wasn't more stable, it's gone through just as much revision, it's just been hidden better by being revision one class at a time (the DAoC method) than all classes at once.

Nah, I see the happy medium.  If there is something that is going to help someone end game I will help them in a heartbeat.. even if they are using it for some other endgame reason than what I need them for (that's just absurdly silly if they are your friend).  But if it's something that in 2 levels they will be throwing away I will tell them "look.. you really don't want that item, call me in 2 levels and I'll get you *this* item instead".. If they push me I'll go get it, but I'll expect them to understand they owe me one.. :)

I agree with you for the most part, I just think Paeleos's "I won't help anyone unless it's getting them an item that will directly help me" is stupid and selfish.. If my friend wants fire resist gear, even though I think raiding is stupid, I will help them get the gear.. He is after all, my friend.. :)

Yea... I think Paelos was talking about new guys to the guild he doesn't know when he said that particular thing though.

Exactly, my point was on guildees who ask for too much, not friends. "Friend" brings in a whole mishmash of weirdness and exceptions and tolerance depending on the type of friend you are talking about. Which is stupid really because this thread has hit semantics and those are the least fun arguments ever.

Never once did I say anything about them being my friends.

EDIT: Actually, I've stated that fact numerous times so far, and you seem to ignore it each time.

It was not that bad. It worked enough to keep the money flowing so they could make it the casual game they really thought they were making originally. WoW and GW proved what "casual" needs to be in order to truly attract a broader playbase. EQ2 turned out to be casual only for the genre veterans.

And WoW hasn't been peachy either. 14 months of playing it I think I accrued something like 3 1/2 weeks of free time, since they kept handing them out for downtimes. Then they redesigned all the classes with the talent specs, completely redesigned PvP and Honor Points before launching them both incomplete, and have circa 1999 SOE level of CSR, with circa 1997 forums.

But these comparisons are pointless anyway, since unless someone's lived both fulltime from day one, they're knowledge of the other is out of date. I'm sorry if the not-hating-on-SOE bothers you though.

What EQ showed us long ago. WoW sped it up.

And to your point about Levels, yes, Levels just raise the required skill level of the player with a new cap. But it still requires players fulfill those skill requirements, sometimes (though rarely), making a choice. Of course, in WoW, you could cap every skill your class can get, so it's not much of a choice. Meanwhile, in EQ1, you're choosing AAXPs and, for casting, spell specialization. Someone already cited AC1. There's also AO and SB. Exceptions and whatnot. Levels are required, but it's not all of it.

In an argument about friends.  If you don't want to be part of the bandwagon, don't jump on.  Or make a seperate post about 'raiding with guildies'.

EDIT:  Actually I keep pointing out that we are talking about friends, and you seem to ignore it each time.

Obviously, I was engaging in some over-the-top hyperbole.  I think people know I do that a lot, and I was talking to Haemish, who can certainly relate.  Normally, I'd save such language for the likes of AC2 or SWG, but I was feeling a little frisky.


"It limped around long enough for us to run a year of paid beta to actually make the core game not suck" is close to the opposite of WoW, which was the point I was making. which was only about the two games on release day.


Fidgeting with some talents is not the same thing as redesigning the world fundamentally (e.g. radically changing overland populations from elites to non elites) or core combat mechanics (the "play match the flashing icon so thief groin kick + cleric regenerate + shaman slow + warrior shield bash = fireballs fly out of the druid's ass and obliterate your enemies and also aggro 3 other linked groups" combo system was the core of EQ2's combat and has, as I understand it, is no longer central; the "play match the flashing icon and hope the forge doesn't kill you as you do 87 trillion subcombines to construct a dagger hilt" tradeskill system has been mostly scrapped by flushing extraneous steps; ditto group xp debt; solo xp rates; etc).  Those are all good changes, but they are changes from stuff that really sucked to stuff that doesn't suck.

Changing talents so druids heal 85% as efficiently as a priest instead of 75% as well is a significant change, but it's not in the same ballpark.  It's not something a first timer is even going to notice, whereas they surely will notice "wow, playing match-the-icon is fucking stupid" or "jesus, getting slaughtered by the groups of group mobs surrounding every solo mob is fucking stupid."  The basic nature of the world, class roles, advancement rates, and combat mechanics in WoW today are basically the same as on day 1.

Neither game had a PvP system on release day, so that's not relevant to the comparison of the games on release day.  WoW added PvE content and a PvP reward system and PvP content.  EQ2 added (lots more) PvE content (and PvP just with the most recent expansion?).  But that's all after release day.
 
Anyway, that stuff is comparatively minor compared to your next statement.  It's a tangent, because I'm just talking about release day, but the CSR is nowhere close.  First, in-game CSR (i.e. "can you reset this bugged NPC, replace my accidentally deleted character")  has been fine from my experience in both.  If you mean message board/PR type CSR, I can't believe you are seriously comparing WoWs CSR people to Abashi?  Abashi?  To Smed sucking Pat Robertson's cock and banning a player for (stupid) fanfic?  To Brad McQuaid logging into the game in ranger epic armor and directly lying to a player's face when asked if it's in game?  To "alchemy is working as intended" for months?  To watching players blow month after month on the Rathe Council or the Vex Thal key quest, never telling them that they were intentional cockblocks to hide the fact that the zones behind them weren't finished?  You've been coddled far, far too long, and I suggest you go re-read some Lum rants from the era.  WoW's PR-monkeys are worthless, but the sure as hell aren't Abashi-caliber.  Keep sending in your ten bucks, little man... (actually, I always thought that one [by Milo?] was funny and blown out of proportion).



Eh?  You don't have to have lived in both (or even either) from day one to know which game was better on day one, which was the only point that I was making.  I was in both betas for some time, and I remember thinking WoW was ready for prime time long before it was released, and people everywhere chomping at the bit for release.  I also remember the schock/laughter on the EQ2 beta boards when they announced their release date, and I distinctly remember Smedley posting a "I know most of you don't think this game is ready, but we're good at this and it'll be way different on release day I promise" message on the beta boards a couple weeks before release.  It was AO's "seekret test client" v2.0.  I remember how many people had access to both betas, and we've all seen where most of those people went.

Now, if you want to compare the games as they stand here in February of 2006, you can make a colorable argument that EQ2 is as good or better than WoW.  I disagree with that conclusion (and it's beyond the scope of even this tangent of this thread) but it's a non-insane position to take.  In November of 2004, that position was insane.  Even the biggest WoW-hating EQ2 fanbois I know (Schild, a couple people on FoH, a few guys from my old EQ1 guild) think EQ2 was garbage on release day, but that their live team has re-made the game into something special, which is why I'm surprised to see anyone here steadfastly insist that the games were equal on release day.  They weren't, and I'd be shocked if the threads on this site from late-04 didn't back that view up overwhelmingly.


You've been one of my favorite posters for a long time, but you aren't so important to me that I'm upset by your newfound adoration of Smedco (internet being serious business and all), so there's no need for you to apologize or lose any sleep over it.   :hello_kitty:   I do think it's fun to hate on Smedco, at least for old time's sake, and will probably continue to do so.

Anyway, this was a longish rant, so feel free to pick a random sentence and call me out on it.  After all, that's what I did to Haemish to get this little clusterfuck of a tangent off the ground.  To the Den!

Read what I said about EQ2. I said nothing about the FUN of EQ2. EQ2 was monkey shit boring on release day, and in beta. It wasn't worth playing.

BUT...

As I said, it had just as much content as WoW on release day. It had about equal server stability. I say equal because EQ2 had about 48 hours of downtime soon after release, and WoW didn't, but WoW had an asston of 1000 people queues for a few weeks, and that amounts to the same thing, people couldn't play.

Ask a hunter how good and complete their class was on release day. It wasn't good or complete. How many class rewrite patches have they done? Warriors redone, hunters finished then redone, druids redone, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, WoW was much more FUN at release, but that isn't what I was talking about. EQ2 had just as much content to consume, and just as poor server performance. The fact that it was more fun at release (oh and was made by Blizzard and was Warcraft-based) led to it having more subscriptions.

EQ2's design was no worse than WoW's, but its implementation of that design was, which is why it wasn't fun.

?


I don't understand.

EQ2 at release = not fun
WOW at release = fun

EQ2's amount of content at release = WoW's amount of content at release (Not == in programmer terms)

EQ2's server stability at release = WoW's server stability at release (Not == in programmer terms)

Violent agreement gets me pretty hot.

You're hot blooded...

Yeah...

Check it and you'll see

I don't need no instructions to know how to ROCK!