EQ2 NDA Lifted

[Jon Carver]

A message from John Smedley:

As of now, the NDA for the EverQuest II Beta is officially lifted. We encourage our beta testers to share the experiences they’ve had in beta with the rest of the EverQuest II community. Many more people who enrolled in the EverQuest II beta program can expect beta keys in their inboxes in the very near future. In addition, in the past few weeks we’ve let the Legends and Lords of EverQuest players in, and we would like to thank them for their support. We now have four Beta servers up and running including one French and one German server and we’ve let in over 30,000 players since July. In the near future that number will grow far past that. Keep an eye on your inbox!

Thought you'd like to know.

[Merusk]

Hmm.. ok.  Solves the dillemma I had in the other thread.

Only have about 4 hours into it, so I still won't comment for a few more days, but you F13ers can find me as Ayarae, a Dark Elf priest-type in Freeport on the Beta 2 server.

[Kageru]

This move was possibly intended as a spoiler for WoW's open beta, but it seems to have worked more as an advertisement.

[Ardent]

EQ2 = WOW +graphics -PvP +hundreds of loading screens

[Kageru]

EQ2 = EQOA++

At this point in time the only game advantage I can see to EQ2 is the ability to give a graphic card a good workout. In terms of gameplay it seems extremely one sided (although I still look forward to the in guild arguments).

[schild]

EQ2 = WOW +graphics -PvP +hundreds of loading screens

Ironically - that's kinda uhm, wrong. EQ2 I would wager has been in development much longer given the need for a complete rewrite of almost everything while WoW already had a graphics engine... I've actually canceled my EQ2 preorder only because I know I won't have time to play it, and I'm not picking up WoW either. So I'll actually have no game to play.
 
But please, don't delude yourself into thinking WoW isn't EQ1 + generation old graphics + the Blizzard Brand name + everything good and bad that comes with it.

[Kageru]

I'm perfectly happy with iterative advance, EQ1 done better is just fine with me.

[Mi_Tes]

I would like to know from people who really liked AC1, what they think of EQ2 and WoW, since I never really got into playing EQ1.  I like great loot, very few loading screens, character individuality, soloability, fun combat/quests, and other things to do in game.  I tried Wow, liked it for the most part, and plan on playing, but it still wasn't AC1.  Any comments on if EQ2 will satisfy?

[El Gallo]

I have been in both betas a while, and they both have strengths and weaknesses.  Here's the main problem with EQ2.  The team is obsessed with answering every single whiney jackhole that ever whined on whineplay, mobhunter or the vault.  As a consequence, there are intrusive, heavy-handed game mechanics regulating every single aspect of your play.  It's like you have to stand in line at the DMV and fill out numerous forms in triplicate before you can do anything.

This obsession also rears its ugly head in the class design.  There are 4 classes in EQ2.  For each, you can pick one of 6 class titles to stick over your head.  But there are 4 classes.

No twinking.  No powerlevelling.  No kiting.  No kill stealing.  No overpowered classes.  No underpowered classes.  No surprise undercons.  No surprise overcons.  No farming.  No overpulls.  No splitting.  No mass crowd control.  No complete heal.  No defensive.  No big slows.  No reverse fear kiting.  

Sounds like heaven right?  Well, in practice it feels a lot like filling out your income tax returns.

The Cliff notes version of this post is: "parity of mediocrity"

[Fargull]

No twinking.  No powerlevelling.  No kiting.  No kill stealing.  No overpowered classes.  No underpowered classes.  No surprise undercons.  No surprise overcons.  No farming.  No overpulls.  No splitting.  No mass crowd control.  No complete heal.  No defensive.  No big slows.  No reverse fear kiting.  

The dumbing down of the game is a failing, at least in my perspective and your right in pointing to the dev's being pulled by a leash by the whine play.

[Ardent]

But please, don't delude yourself into thinking WoW isn't EQ1 + generation old graphics + the Blizzard Brand name + everything good and bad that comes with it.

I have no such delusions. I actually agree with you.

The reason I wrote that equation is that, essentially, EQ2 and WoW feels like the same game to me. Their quest-based systems are very similar, their combat is not that dramatically different (heroic opportunities being the exception), and both games feature similar grinds. Yes, the window dressing is different, but neither game strayed from the same basic formula.

[Venkman]

I entirely agree. I've gutted my first write-up of EQ2 because it, quite honestly, doesn't need 6,200 words to describe :) The game is an evolution of the EQlive concept. It's nice, and fun, but the differences between WoW and EQ2 are really just about flavor. The only points of difference to me are that WoW has more diverse classes and EQ2 has much more grandeur. WoW integrates PvP in the high game, but it's a neat-o toy that wouldn't matter to me until I got to the ever-increasing soft-cap. I have as much chance of getting bored with the game as I do of getting to those levels.

I'm still indecided. Leaning towards EQ2 at the moment, but they need to fix Antonica and other similarly large-population instanced zones as well as some of the glaring faults with Trade (it uses the EQlive Bazaar approach, which most hate and I don't mind, but it has some holes left to be filled).

However, I'm with Jon on the dev team. These guys are not the asshats of the previous administration. Not only do they know their stuff, they know the genre pretty well. Raph came on late, but his presence is felt in later iterations of the beta. Uncharacteristically, I have faith they'll achieve a smooth launch.

They sure as heck better. SOE is already no longer on top, and their games again must start speaking for themselves. Whether there's enough to be said is up to the players.

[Kageru]

It honestly boggles my mind that people, unless they are of the "eyecandy or death" ninja-PC crowd, can consider there to be much competition here. One of these games has clearly been designed by a committee on the assumption that addressing the whines of EQ1, and letting the artists do the design, will automatically make a fun game. The other shows some evidence of thought, care and originality. And I fully expect the market reception of the two games to reflect that.

The basic principles might be the same, but that's exactly the same as summarising FPS games as "shoot shit". Yes, it's true at a sufficient level of abstraction, but it's not actually useful.

[geldonyetich]

EQ2 would last you longer than WoW, by my estimate.   WoW lacks as much compelling purpose behind the mechanics.   WoW's gameplay may be a little more varied, but EQ2's world is one you can move into.

[Venkman]

People are free to ignore EQ2, but I wouldn't rush to elevate WoW to some reknowned level of creativity either. Blizzard has, again, simply turned convention on its head and offered a new twist on the same shit. Let's get some high-gamers in there knocking off quest NPCs hourly because they're bored. Let's see how built in griefing within a levels-based PvP game from a company notoriously slow to address griefing appeals before success is proclaimed. These things may work, but there's years of examples that say it's risky.

The genre has changed. SOE is no longer as dominant as they once were. In my opinion, EQ2 makes it or breaks it for them. They've got nothing in the pipeline as far as I can tell so it's two years before we see anything else from them. Two years to exist on Old Bessie, the Titanic, and the new vacuous pretty-boy.

Thems not betting odds, but I'm not a betting man. Oh, no chance they'll close up. Persistence is a wonderful thing.

EQ2 is a fine game. But at this point, I'm not sure "fine" is enough. Relevance as a developer is measured by a combination of what you have and what you're doing.

[Kageru]

I agree with that. Watching EQ2 is sort of like watching the heavyweight champion enter the ring, trip over his own shoelaces and knock himself out. 6 years of development from the leader in the field and EQ2 is what they come out with? I'm not going to defend WoW as innovative, it isn't, but if both games are modern revisions of established principles how did SOE manage to screw it up?

By the high end griefing in WoW I assume you mean being able to kill city NPC's. Even at it's height that was only an issue with transport NPC's because quest givers are too distributed. Since then they've instituted the city guard system and I haven't heard it mentioned again. Not sure if that means it's been solved. However the city raids on prominent NPC's have certainly caught a lot of players imagination, really harks back to velious.

[Liquidator]

People are free to ignore EQ2, but I wouldn't rush to elevate WoW to some reknowned level of creativity either. Blizzard has, again, simply turned convention on its head and offered a new twist on the same shit. Let's get some high-gamers in there knocking off quest NPCs hourly because they're bored. Let's see how built in griefing within a levels-based PvP game from a company notoriously slow to address griefing appeals before success is proclaimed. These things may work, but there's years of examples that say it's risky.

The genre has changed. SOE is no longer as dominant as they once were. In my opinion, EQ2 makes it or breaks it for them. They've got nothing in the pipeline as far as I can tell so it's two years before we see anything else from them. Two years to exist on Old Bessie, the Titanic, and the new vacuous pretty-boy.

Thems not betting odds, but I'm not a betting man. Oh, no chance they'll close up. Persistence is a wonderful thing.

EQ2 is a fine game. But at this point, I'm not sure "fine" is enough. Relevance as a developer is measured by a combination of what you have and what you're doing.

I'm a little confused on where you're getting the built in griefing from in regards to WoW?  Is it just because it is a level-based game that happens to have PVP?  As far as I know, Blizzard is working hard to discourage any sort of griefing - they have the "dishonorable kills" being implemented that highly discourages griefing.

[Venkman]

By the high end griefing in WoW I assume you mean being able to kill city NPC's. Even at it's height that was only an issue with transport NPC's because quest givers are too distributed. Since then they've instituted the city guard system and I haven't heard it mentioned again. Not sure if that means it's been solved.

Good info. I haven't been much concerned by city raids. I don't feel that's built in griefing because I figured they'd work the level 75 guards in there eventually. I was more referring to the outlying NPCs, the little hamlets of places with 10 or 12 NPCs, maybe four with quests, but nowhere a guard in site.

I'm out of date, way admittedly, but unless they changed something, an invading army could take out these NPCs, and camp them until someone from the homaland comes along to kick them out, triggering the levels-based PvP.

If that's still the case, then your Velious reference is spot on imho, made worse because WoW has as much chance of bringing new players to the genre as SWG did last year. They are either going to be totally unprepared to deal, or going to be the first to exploit :)

That's not to say it's bad. Personally, this has been a selling point for WoW to me. It sorta addresses something Haemish said a year or two ago about not ignoring the powergamer but working them into the overall equation. WoW's PvP system in this form sorta does that. The first players to hit the highest levels can keep the game "safe" for those much slower than them.

As long as they enjoy it.

And as long as it still works that way.

[Kageru]

They have some sort of mechanic where city guards will be summoned in response to NPC's being killed, although I believe the transport NPC has a static. If the guards are killed, which would be trivial for a high level group, then the number of guards despatched begins to ramp up. It's rather clever, if I understand it correctly, because it means that while you can go in and gank an NPC without the system stopping you sustained interference is hard. Oh yeah, they also implemented a faction system in the neutral towns where it was rampant. Repeatedly kill the NPC's there and you become KoS losing those towns as a resource.

I'm not sure whether this system leaves substantial gaps, the case of small towns is a good one. Sadly I'm not in beta and much of the WoW community are not very introspective, making it hard to get a good picture of the game.

[Merusk]

I've begun to notice something very distinct about the "WOW vs EQ2" camps.   Those who have always enjoyed and argued for online "worlds" seem to have a preference for EQ2.  Those who have seen problems with or wished to ignore online worlds in favor of online games seem to have a preference for WOW.

 Not that one can't have elements of the other, but I do feel both of these games leans very much towards one or the other.  WOW has a world, and it's every bit as deep and well-written as EQ's. (And no, that's not saying a lot on either count.) However, you don't have to know it in order to play and it doesn't spoon feed you the story at the early levels.  EQ2 has a world, and a history and seems very much concerned with letting you know that story at the early levels. Part of this is because it doesn't have a whole series of games to explain the backstory.  You have to find out in EQ2 what happened since EQ1 "ended."

 Gameplay of both is about the same, really.  Neither are fantasticly different from the "Diku" mechanic that EQ1 followed.  You hit autoattack, punch some specials, shit happens.  The difference is you can't JUST hit autoattack in either game now.

  EQ2 combat is pretty frantic  in groups (at low levels), WOW's was as well.  I didn't HAVE to group in either game to the point I played through to  though, and that's a bonus to both from EQ1, IMO.

[Big Gulp]

I didn't HAVE to group in either game to the point I played through to  though, and that's a bonus to both from EQ1, IMO.

What shit are you smoking?  I've gotten a character to 60 in EQ and never grouped.  Granted, it was a necro, but hell, I got a bard up to 45 and really never grouped either.  EQ2?  Hell, to get off newbie island you have to group.

[Ardent]

EQ2?  Hell, to get off newbie island you have to group.

Nah. Just skip the orc quest. The quest reward isn't all that great, so just jump right to your starting city.

Come to think of it, none of the quest rewards at early levels are all that great.

Hopefully someone will release a game soon where the quest rewards, even at the earliest levels, are immediately useful. Oh ... wait a minute ... Blizzard made one. ;)

[Merusk]

I didn't HAVE to group in either game to the point I played through to  though, and that's a bonus to both from EQ1, IMO.

What shit are you smoking?  I've gotten a character to 60 in EQ and never grouped.  Granted, it was a necro, but hell, I got a bard up to 45 and really never grouped either.

Necros were designed to solo and Bards are the most broken class in EQ1. But, since so many people didn't play them due to the twitchiness of twisting, nobody really knew it. Giving a class the ability to manaless damage (and later AOE) plus being able to run faster than anything in the game is, well, stupid.   At some point in their lives, most EQ chars were forced to group, (Warriors most notably) this may or may not be the case with EQ2 after the newbie island. Dunno yet. Hell, I don't even know how high some folks have managed to get in the closed beta yet.  It's longer than WOW though, that's almost a certainty.

 EQ2?  Hell, to get off newbie island you have to group.

Y'know, that was over so quick I forgot about it.  Zoned in with a group who was already half inside, something died and the quest was completed.   You're right tho, still required grouping... ok so WOW didn't require me to group, ever, EQ2 did.

[El Gallo]

I have been in EQ2 beta a few weeks, WoW a few months.  I will probably go WoW, at least initially, but I would not say that the decision is a no-brainer.  Here's why I'd consider going EQ2:

1.  Style.  This is obviously a matter of personal preference, but I would be profoundly embarrassed to have anyone see me play WoW.  Hell, I am embarrassed myself sometime.  Graphically, you are playing Thundercats Online, except with furries and anime-inspired gnomes.  It was designed visually to appeal to the Barney crowd now that they are in junior high.  I have a very hard time taking WoW seriously while I am playing it because it looks so juvenile.


2.  Length.  I consider myself a time-starved powergamer, but I am a powergamer nonetheless.  I fully expect to have maxed out my WoW character in 2, maybe 3 months.  I expect there to be at least 6 months after that before an expansion gets released, probably more like 9-12.

3. PvP.  Related to 2, WoW won't have legs for a powergamer unless you dig lots of alts or lots of PvP.  I do not enjoy significant amounts of PvP in MMOGs, never have, and probably never will.   WoW will be very much a PvP game, because the leveling curves are very short, and Blizzard is very slow to produce content.   EQ2's development team won't be wasting  (from my vantagepoint as a consumer) enormous amounts of resources fiddling with PvP crap.  The game is also a bit slower paced.

4.  Players.  WoW will attract assclowns like 12 year olds attract R Kelly.  Now, there will be jerks and morons in EQ2, but I think it is a very safe bet that the ratio in WoW will be orders of magnitude worse.


--
PS: you aren't required to group to get off the newbie island in EQ.  However, in EQ2, soloing is MUCH MUCH MUCH slower than grouping, xp-wise.  In WoW, soloing is almost always faster than grouping.

spelling iz hurd

[Kageru]

You make the implicit assumptions that level cap is equivalent to the game ending. I think part of what WoW is trying to do is challenge that, and thank god someone is. Whether they'll succeed, considering how powerful the lure of the carrot is, I don't know. Certainly I will happily argue that levelling and content should not be confused in that way.

I will agree on style. Those who love to hear their graphic card screaming for mercy, and those who can't take the cartoon realism of blizzard, are definitely going to prefer EQ2.

[El Gallo]

Well, I meant level cap + gearing up + beating whatever raids they have = the game ending.  If the hero system actually happens before the first expansion and doesn't suck, you can add that too.  Pretty much the same as EQ.  I don't see WoW offering anything different, or even trying to offer anything different.  The "sandbox" features of WoW are, if anything, sparser than EQ's.   Again, this is coming from someone who isn't interested in PvPing for ladder points or whatever thinly-veiled ladder point system their super secret PvP system turns out being.

Maybe I am overlooking something.  What do you think there is for a maxed out PvE player in WoW?  Or are you just more optimistic about Blizzard putting out quality PvE content quickly?

[Venkman]

They have some sort of mechanic where city guards will be summoned in response to NPC's being killed

If this summons NPCs across the land to all towns within a realm, then one more notch goes onto the side of me picking up WoW. Shit this decision shouldn't be so friggin' hard. And I've been wondering if they were going to bother with the Faction system.

EQ2? Hell, to get off newbie island you have to group.

Having to group sometimes is not needing to group all of the times. That's an important distinction, because you'll need to group in WoW as well, depending on your playstyle. If you forego all questing, you can grind away as you did in EQlive. If you want to get the best equipment though, both games provide them through quests, and the best quests require some grouping.

As to Bards in EQlive? Shit yea they could solo. Broken or not, I chant- and swarm- kited half of my levels. Best soloer in the game in my opinion, mostly due to XP per hour, and the almost zero downtime (though the XP per hour was really fluid because you needed to switch to Chant kiting while your mana refreshed from your Swarming). Back when I gave a rip about grinding that much of course. .

Also, both games have a current cap, but it's more a cap that exists now. Both expect to expand. WoW is currently going for a PvP and Raiding endgame. EQ2 is going for a Raiding and an NPC Politics endgame. As far as I can tell for the latter, the full system isn't in yet. But the ultimate intent is to because a guild of high social standing in Qeynos or Freeport and actually affect the nature of the world on your server because of this. I will guarantee all future earnings this system will not be in by launch though.

[Kageru]

It's hard because it goes against my principles to believe that a developers design document represents any sort of reality. That said;

1) Blizzard have mentioned that hero quests and life quests are meant to be the hard part of WoW. Both of them being PvE oriented and only starting at level cap.

2) Blizzard's fast levelling curve means that whatever content development they can manage will be clustered at the end game, which means it won't be obsoleted due to level. EQ2 has to either leave the grind boring (and lose players) or place substantial content that will become obsolete.

3) Eye candy costs. The hidden advantage of WoW's lower visual standards are that consistent content will be cheaper for them to produce. This would be multiplied if they get a population advantage over EQ2, which I expect to be the case.

4) Mob loot pools are extremely deep, levelling chars is not so painful and the classes + talents mean the gameplay varies. People are still playing D2 which hasn't had a content update in many years. Blizzard are using some of that in WoW. Although anyone who wanted a non item-centric game is just flat out of luck.

5) Tigole

But the real argument comes out if you read the designers comments. They seem willing to launch with a level curve that, by MMORPG standards, is blisteringly fast. It's so unusual that virtually all the beta testers expect a release day XP nerf. This doesnt seem to bother the devs, which means they've chosen not to hide the lack of content behind a repetitive level curve. They've even acknowledged that it puts pressure on them to have more content than their competitors. Frankly, even if they fail and lose some players in 6-12 months, it's still something to be supported.

[Rasix]

I wouldn't exactly list Tigole as an asset for your game.  You can smell the catass coming off him at 100 paces.

[Kageru]

Absolutely, but the question was how enduring I thought the end-game PvE could be, and in that context he's an asset. They've also allowed him to attach his pride and ego to it because his name is known outside of the company.

[Margalis]

Thundercats Online sounds cool. When can I buy it? I call Cheetara!

Thundercats actually had a pretty cool setting, interesting storylines, and some recurring characters - don't knock it. (Except Snarf - knock him all you want)

And um...on topic...EQ2 and WoW are iterative EQ1s...surprise.

I think WoW will havea problem with the low curve. Casual players like me might like it, but casual players like me have been trained not to play MMORPGs.

[AOFanboi]

EQ2 has to either leave the grind boring (and lose players) or place substantial content that will become obsolete

And the players too high to enjoy it will whine. I cannot count the number of level 61+ characters who screamed bloody murder when Temple of the Three Winds was added: Lots of NODROP exclusive loot they couldn't get at - including the level 60-90 "co-dungeon" you needed a ToTW item to get a pass for.

It's as if there is a right to all content, independent of suitability. I am guessing AO is not the only game to have that kind of problem with their players.

(AI has the opposite problem of course: I just love it when my level 40 engie exits a mission building in Harry's just to be jumped by roaming level 100+ alien invaders.)

[Kageru]

Good point, especially since it sounds like EQ2 has level limits on dungeons and the good old trivial loot code that was sooo popular in EQ.

Something else occurred to me. I'd wondered why Blizzard were messing around with Bittorrent when it's such an obviously retarded way of distribute patches. But that makes an assumption about what a patch is, and it's size. If they wanted the capacity to release content between expansions then BT useage would make a lot more sense, because a content patch could get large easily. (and obviously they can use more sane methods for the normal bugfix patches).

[Soukyan]

2) Blizzard's fast levelling curve...

Thus Spoke ZaraCatass


But seriously, from just playing the stress test beta, I can tell right now that it will take me the same amount of time to reach the current level cap as it did for me to go from 1 - 50 in DAoC. That was not a "fast" leveling curve. It was quick compared to EQ and FFXI and some others, but not fast as a general statement. None of the leveling curves are "fast". They aren't meant to be because of the need for additional content creation time and extending subscription time.

[Kageru]

I have never played DaoC, but I read that the 40-50 curve in that game was rather brutal. As far as I know there is no equivalent ramp up in the WoW XP curve. That said I should have restricted myself to a WoW / EQ2 comparison.