Ah heck, let's talk about EQ1

[Ubvman]

I think at some point I'm going to try EQ1 as a fresh never-played-before newb.  Just to see.  Fuck it.

Frankly, I'd advise against it. Not unless you already have contacts or friends in the game to set you up with some tradable high end (at least to level 50) twink items. And even then you had better select the correct class (a somewhat "soloable" class) like a Necromancer or Druid.

1) EQ1 is a hardcore forced grouping game. At times, it really does feel that you can't even wipe your own arse without a full group.
2) The game was not meant to be solo-ed. In fact there are active roadblocks to discourage soloers in the game.
3) That said, some classes can cope being alone better than others. Necromancers and Druids. Others, are like the fabled snowball in heck - soon to be reduced to mush and vapor.
4) Levels 1-60 players are scarce (mostly 2 boxed alts), all the zones catering for newbies are likewise deserted. At least it was the last time I check on the Quellious server (Feb 2008 - I doubt anything has changed and in fact could be worse).
5) Your best bet if you want to start totally fresh is to play the new starting race - The Drakkin that comes with the 12th expansion - The Serpents Spine.

Basically, its a forced grouping game with no one to group with 1-60 these days IMHO. The devs painted themselves into a corner when they put in unlimited aaxps with ever increasing levels (as someone said above). Basically your going to be looking at the very least A MONTHS PLAYED (720 hours at the keyboard) of steady grinding of levels/aaxp before you can even look at the much praised EQ1 end game. Exaggerated? No, in fact I'm being conservative - my char had 1 YEAR played (8760+ hours) before I retired the Enchanter at L71 with 1,500+ aaxp = and thats an average hard core raider (all the epics and raid gear). EQ1 learning curve is a grinding curve - and a true newby is looking at a sheer 90 degree cliff face with no easy hand holds.

===============

Having played both EQ1 and WoW, I have come to the conclusion that WoW did not revolutionize anything. They just took out all the suck and pain points in EQ1 (of which there are far too many to start listing), turned on easy mode solo - and started raking in the money. And then theres the organized PvP aspect of WoW, unlike the tacked on, unbalanced crap that is EQ1's PvP.

You know, EQ1's suck and pain problems can be fixed right now,  if some Dev had the will, balls and the pull but frankly I doubt it ever happen given that EQ2 is in place. Its a dying game - last I heard, the sub numbers are well below 100K and trending down fast (no sauce - just guildy forum gossip I still keep up with).

[WayAbvPar]

My favorite part of EQ was that playing some of the classes well took a bit of skill. I loved playing my chanter and routinely saving the entire party's ass with some well timed and well targeted mezzes. I DIDN'T like having to teach 90% of the PUGs I joined how to not wipe the party by not fucking with the mezzed mobs.

I will admit that I sort of miss trains. They were really amusing to see, and even more amusing to lead (providing that you survived).


Edited to add- I miss mob camps that were there because that is where the mobs lived, not because the guy in the closest town had a quest to kill them. I am really sick of the 'every mob has a purpose' design of the newer games. It destroys the sense of world; everything feels like stops on a tour or an amusement park. I also liked that many zones had one or two drastically higher critters running around that would wtfpwn people who weren't paying attention. Going back and killing them once I was leveled really felt like an accomplishment, and it was fun to save the current n00bs.

[sam, an eggplant]

I also liked that many zones had one or two drastically higher critters running around that would wtfpwn people who weren't paying attention.

It's funny that you say that when I've always thought it was one of EQ's great design flaws. The insta-death mobs and incredibly harsh death penalty penalized exploration to such a degree that everybody played it safe all the time. Maybe you're looking back through rose-colored glasses.

[Slayerik]

I dont know, I liked the Son of Arugal in Silverpine.....Same shit....

Basically, don't we have enough hand holding these days? Maybe you should get your shit pushed in once in a while, just to put you in your place  :)

[palmer_eldritch]

I also liked that many zones had one or two drastically higher critters running around that would wtfpwn people who weren't paying attention.

It's funny that you say that when I've always thought it was one of EQ's great design flaws. The insta-death mobs and incredibly harsh death penalty penalized exploration to such a degree that everybody played it safe all the time. Maybe you're looking back through rose-colored glasses.

Yeah it did, but there was something about fighting giants in Oasis and having to worry about whether a spectre was going to come down off that hill and smack you silly that was exciting and fun.

[WayAbvPar]

Or fighting crocs only to have a giant come! Oasis was a fun zone 

I like a world with danger. PvE is just so mindnumbingly boring when done 'safely'. I need something unpredictable to get my blood rushing (or at least to keep my eyes open).

[HaemishM]

The problem with the WTFPWN insta-death wandering monsters in a zone had nothing to do with the monsters themselves, or the fact that they killed you. The only problem with that type of mob is the death penalty. We all know just how bad EQ1's death penalty was, and that's what made those kinds of mobs irritating. You take away the harsh death penalties of EQ and those crazy wandering mobs are just as fun as the Spectres in Oasis without the irritation of losing a level.

[sam, an eggplant]

Perhaps, but the combination of the two really, really sucked.

[Venkman]

Yes, it did. But removing the death penalty actually made it a design feature later on and in other games (kill X mobs to spawn the Y mob, and other such triggered events).

I was always annoyed by it, but not because I got deaded often by them (the only dead Bard is an afk Bard). It was because they'd always show up during a close fight, which I could have won if I didn't hafta beat feat for the zoneline.

[Tale]

You take away the harsh death penalties of EQ and those crazy wandering mobs are just as fun as the Spectres in Oasis without the irritation of losing a level.

Mostly you lost that level because you failed to insure against it. You did not have an XP buffer to cope with a death. You ran too close to the spectres or stood where people brought trains. There were people who rarely died those kinds of deaths, because they thought ahead better than we did.

The EQ death penalty was fine. It stung like hell. You needed to learn from your mistake so it didn't happen again, or you would suffer more. Anyone who ended up with 10 corpses and two levels lost in trying to recover a corpse, was doing it wrong. Harsh, but fair. Success was so much sweeter because of the bitter taste of failure.

You can come back at me about dying to a bug or lag, which happened, but most deaths were as I described.

WoW and EQ2 are so bland in comparison. Respawning with all your gear and XP, minus a few gold for repairs, is a death penalty designed to accommodate the player who would otherwise lose 10 corpses and two levels. It's seen as a better commercial decision, but is it really? I went looking for the adventure in those games, and there isn't one.

[ShenMolo]

I also liked that many zones had one or two drastically higher critters running around that would wtfpwn people who weren't paying attention.

It's funny that you say that when I've always thought it was one of EQ's great design flaws. The insta-death mobs and incredibly harsh death penalty penalized exploration to such a degree that everybody played it safe all the time. Maybe you're looking back through rose-colored glasses.

This makes me remember how one traveled in EQ1...hugging the zone walls. We don't do that anymore.

[Venkman]

Mostly you lost that level because you failed to insure against it.

The EQ death penalty was fine. It stung like hell.

The first sentence is the reason the second sentence is wrong

You didn't plan against dying. You just played hyper conservatively until you built up that cushion. This was probably the single biggest early contributor to the grind mentality of the game. Efficiently gaining XP is the second reason of course.

I do agree on the relative safety-net nerf worlds that are EQ2 and WoW. But I'll never want an EQ1 like penalty again, even if it means we took a step back from the holodeck 

[Rasix]

It's seen as a better commercial decision, but is it really?

Yes.  XP loss and threat of total item loss is not fun to me.  I don't care what it adds in accomplishment and tension, it's not fun.  It's added frustration and a direct time penalty to the limited time I have to work with. 

XP buffer.  Fuck that shit. Never again. 

[HaemishM]

The EQ death penalty was fine. It stung like hell. You needed to learn from your mistake so it didn't happen again, or you would suffer more.

I disagree with what you said.

WoW and EQ2 are so bland in comparison. Respawning with all your gear and XP, minus a few gold for repairs, is a death penalty designed to accommodate the player who would otherwise lose 10 corpses and two levels. It's seen as a better commercial decision, but is it really?

Yes, it really, really, really fucking is. Not only has the market spoken on this issue, I have as well. My time is too goddamn precious to spend 2 hours REGAINING a level I already earned by REDOING the same content over and over if I happen to die.

Look, death in an MMOG is penalty enough. You failed. Failure is a penalty. For those who want more punitive measures for failure when playing a game, I suggest a hammer and a map to your genitals.

[Tale]

I said this would happen:

I don't like talking about EQ1 on F13.net because I disagree bitterly with many of the posters - the ones who think it was only successful because there was nothing else, that it wasn't really that good and that fans are looking through rose-tinted glasses.

The same people continue to make the same arguments about EQ1.

My time is too goddamn precious to spend 2 hours REGAINING a level I already earned by REDOING the same content over and over if I happen to die.

You did exactly that for the lengthy time you played EQ1, because it was a well-designed game. In the end, you advanced, despite all the trouble along the way.

MY TIME is too precious to waste searching for excitement in loot dispensers designed for pissants.

For those who want more punitive measures for failure when playing a game, I suggest a hammer and a map to your genitals.

Same old line, same old response: if EQ1 felt like hammering your genitals, you were really bad at EQ1.

[Ingmar]

You did exactly that for the lengthy time you played EQ1, because it was a well-designed game. In the end, you advanced, despite all the trouble along the way.

MY TIME is too precious to waste searching for excitement in loot dispensers designed for pissants.

Speaking as an (apparent) pissant, I didn't play EQ. I do play WoW. A big part of what makes me decide to play a game or not these days is "does it have a shitty death penalty?"

So, if they want my money - and I assume they do - then getting rid of shitty death penalties a la EQ is a good choice. I don't think you could solidly make the argument that shitty death penalties attract more players than they drive away, so even if they lose your $15, they're gaining $150 from me and my 9 pissant friends.

[Tale]

Speaking as an (apparent) pissant, I didn't play EQ. I do play WoW. A big part of what makes me decide to play a game or not these days is "does it have a shitty death penalty?"

Bullshit. In the long term, you decide to play the game based on whether it's a good game or not. It can have a tough or weak death penalty and still be a good game.

EQ1 was at its best during the era when they completely ignored the bitching on the forums. I left when they started changing the game in response to the message boards. If you're a professional game designer, it's because you're good at designing games - you should trust your instincts, not those of the players. I want to play what you think up, not what my peers want.

A vast community of whiners is probably a sign of a healthy game. It means people are playing and being challenged.

I first played WoW in beta in June 2004. It had a different death penalty at that stage of beta (I'm sorry I can't remember what). It was revised and made weaker before retail, with the minor decay penalty added at the end of beta. SWG also had a strong death penalty in beta and in the first few days of retail, removed because the game was unfinished and there were corpse bugs.

It seems designers think tough death penalties are a good starting point, but they're being talked out of it. However, as the market for these games grows and people become better at them, players will need bigger challenges. MMORPGs thrive on envy and awe of those more powerful - a harsh death penalty is one thing that can divide players into those who advance skilfully together, and those who aspire to it.

[sam, an eggplant]

Wow, I totally and unequivocally disagree with everything you said. You're like my polar opposite. Moreover, the market disagrees too. I'm not saying you're wrong, you find your fun wherever you like, just that your needs are unlikely to be served by any MMO in the future, ever again.

[Ingmar]

It seems designers think tough death penalties are a good starting point, but they're being talked out of it. However, as the market for these games grows and people become better at them, players will need bigger challenges. MMORPGs thrive on envy and awe of those more powerful - a harsh death penalty is one thing that can divide players into those who advance skilfully together, and those who aspire to it.

Why the heck do you think players want to be divided like that? I think you are gravely overestimating the number of people who want to chase that shiny carrot all the way to the golden poopsock.

[Venkman]

If player skill was the prime determinant of success, even then I could point to non-existant death penalties in other genres, ones where actual tactical skill plays more a part than the aggregate time investment made to swing deterministic events more in your favor.

In these sorts of debates, I find often that people who claim to like punitive death penalties view death as some rare occurence entirely based on a certain group of players wanting to play stupid and crying about it when they can't.

I disagree with this, and in fact find it sort of rose-colored elitist. EQ1 did not force players to play smarter. It forced them to play more conservatively. Had this resulted in better tactical decision making, that would be good. What it actually seemed to result in though is most players being afraid of their own shadows enough that they wouldn't even try an encounter until they could read the entire win condition on Allakhazam.

Is that a better game? A meta puzzle creating a world based more on fate than player decisions?

I do not think so. Newer "easy" games don't punish players not because a few core EQ1 players whined. They do so because they want more players to pay for the chance to figure stuff out as they go. Yes, there's still players who won't do anything they didn't read about on WoWhead. But for the very many millions of folks playing nowadays, that never were going to play 10 years ago even with the rigs and finances to do it, they have an opportunity to experiment more freely.

That this experiment is happening in systems that are more contrived and linear in other ways is what I find unfortunate. But it's not the death penalties that are the prime contributor to the lack of immersion. It's choice altogether that's been subjugated. But nothing short of UO2 with Blizzard's budget and a huge IP will help prove the veracity of that, imho.

[sam, an eggplant]

Is that a better game?

Well "better" is difficult to define. I certainly didn't like it, although I was addicted like a starving fiending crackwhore. Quality is subjective, but if you judge success financially it certainly hasn't proven to be a successful model and there won't be any more games like EQ.

Just to be clear, I don't judge quality by revenue. That's Brad's fallacy. "We're making so much money, I must be a game god!" No. WoW isn't a great game because it's successful, it's successful because it's a great game.

EQ was successful because it was first.

[Nyght]

That this experiment is happening in systems that are more contrived and linear in other ways is what I find unfortunate. But it's not the death penalties that are the prime contributor to the lack of immersion. It's choice altogether that's been subjugated. But nothing short of UO2 with Blizzard's budget and a huge IP will help prove the veracity of that, imho.

Thats right. But given that it doesn't seem like it will ever happen, this is just an article of faith.

[Simond]

This makes me remember how one traveled in EQ1...hugging the zone walls. We don't do that anymore.

Wall-hugging was for classes that actually died from time to time. The only time I needed to do it on my EQ main was in zones way about my level with see invis mobs.
...
Mind you, my main was a shadowknight and their survivability made WoW paladins look like squishy casters in comparison. Third-best tank (out of three), crappy DPS, soloed like a crippled necro...but harder to kill than a zombie cockroach. 

[Lightstalker]

EQ1 was at its best during the era when they completely ignored the bitching on the forums. I left when they started changing the game in response to the message boards. If you're a professional game designer, it's because you're good at designing games - you should trust your instincts, not those of the players. I want to play what you think up, not what my peers want.

Alchemy, Working as Intended!

Yeah, I played a Shaman in '99.  I left when I determined the only impact stats like Agility had for a Warrior was the rate of skill acquisition (bounded to 5 points per level) meaning it was literally irrelevant in the steady state that comprised 99% of your game experience - and that developer explanations for the impact of character statistics were completely incorrect (if you don't know what your game is doing, I'm not going to pay to figure it out for you).  It also didn't help that I taped two keys down on my keyboard to level swimming while I went out...  I returned to ask myself: "I'm paying for this why?"

But the designers never have as much contact with the actual operation of the software product they've released as do the customers (in aggregate), unless the product is wildly unsuccessful of course.  Being a professional game designer only means you are paid to design games and imparts no qualification on the quality of those games.  We merely assume bad game designers eventually stop being paid for what they do, and I suspect that's the exception rather than the rule since the feedback loop for quality in software is particularly bad.  CMs who know how to filter the gnashing of teeth among the masses are useful in part because the enemy has more time than you do.

[sam, an eggplant]

I played a shaman too. I was the guy that proved that stats were worthless in EQ, one of the first fledgling theorycrafters. I was really into it at the time.

[Tale]

It seems designers think tough death penalties are a good starting point, but they're being talked out of it. However, as the market for these games grows and people become better at them, players will need bigger challenges. MMORPGs thrive on envy and awe of those more powerful - a harsh death penalty is one thing that can divide players into those who advance skilfully together, and those who aspire to it.

Why the heck do you think players want to be divided like that? I think you are gravely overestimating the number of people who want to chase that shiny carrot all the way to the golden poopsock.

They definitely don't want to be divided like that, but I think they need to be divided like that through design. WoW and EQ2 do it, just not to the extent I think they should.

I'd also rather players be separated more through skill than time/grinds. I agree with what WayAbvPar said about enjoying the skill it took to play an EQ enchanter well - that skill was more meaningful because of the fate the enchanter was preventing. If you had that enchanter in your regular XP group, you advanced faster than pickup groups, maybe even rescued a pickup group's corpses on your way in. That sort of skill benefit seems absent from current games.

[Montague]

[It seems designers think tough death penalties are a good starting point, but they're being talked out of it. However, as the market for these games grows and people become better at them, players will need bigger challenges. MMORPGs thrive on envy and awe of those more powerful - a harsh death penalty is one thing that can divide players into those who advance skilfully together, and those who aspire to it.

"Warning: MMORPG's are not intended to be a source of self-esteem."

Should be stamped on every game box for every hardcore who wants to put their cock in a meatgrinder and then be given a fucking medal for it.

[sam, an eggplant]

I spent almost a week sitting in a room killing 3 bards with a 6 minute respawn time. I was anonymous and wouldn't tell anyone where I was, because I was scared they'd steal my awesome XP spot. EQ was just plain unhealthy.

[Tale]

"Warning: MMORPG's are not intended to be a source of self-esteem."

Should be stamped on every game box for every hardcore who wants to put their cock in a meatgrinder and then be given a fucking medal for it.

That esteem delusion is not isolated to hardcores. It drives the majority who think they are getting closer and closer to esteem, just not as fast.

[Montague]

"Warning: MMORPG's are not intended to be a source of self-esteem."

Should be stamped on every game box for every hardcore who wants to put their cock in a meatgrinder and then be given a fucking medal for it.

That esteem delusion is not isolated to hardcores. It drives the majority who think they are getting closer and closer to esteem, just not as fast.

Do you really think that self-esteem/validation issues drive most MMORPG gamers? Sense of accomplishment is a big part of MMO's sure, but other than the (relative compared to EQ1) hardcore raiders banging themselves against brick walls in WoW I don't remember many that cared what position they were in compared to others.

[Tale]

EQ was just plain unhealthy.

Yes, it was. For me it was a full-blown addiction I couldn't quit for a while, but so were SWG and WoW. That's the warning for the box: this game may be addictive, please remember your priorities.

When I talk about advancing faster than others, I don't necessarily mean being first - I mean being rewarded for doing it well.

[Nyght]

Nearly every game is based upon some kind of ding-gratz, but that is distinctly different from rankings, competition, and envy.

I have to believe those characteristics are a subset of the larger population of players.

[Tale]

"Warning: MMORPG's are not intended to be a source of self-esteem."

Should be stamped on every game box for every hardcore who wants to put their cock in a meatgrinder and then be given a fucking medal for it.

That esteem delusion is not isolated to hardcores. It drives the majority who think they are getting closer and closer to esteem, just not as fast.

Do you really think that self-esteem/validation issues drive most MMORPG gamers? Sense of accomplishment is a big part of MMO's sure, but other than the (relative compared to EQ1) hardcore raiders banging themselves against brick walls in WoW I don't remember many that cared what position they were in compared to others.

I should have said the majority of those who are playing the game that way, not just a simple majority. A huge number players do focus on accomplishment though.

For me it was about guild accomplishments, not individual goals. My character was a troll warrior called Grozzer, whose equipment was the guild joke. There was a crappy axe that dropped in Chardok and everyone passed on it, but it was an upgrade for me so the raid leader said "Axe of Grozzer". From then on, shitty loot was called "[Item Name] of Grozzer", a term that is still used in our guild, several characters and games later.

But my presence as the crappy fourth-best tank was still important for the guild to progress, and as an explorer-type I wanted to experience more, so it was about helping the guild get there. That's ultimately a delusion like individual progress, but it was fun.

[Evil Elvis]

There was a spot in AC1, a few clicks out from one of the towns that will always be one of my fondest memories, the golem shrine.  Just a shrine, out in the middle of nowhere, with some golems that spawned on it, and you had to jump up/down/run around to get them stuck in places they couldn't hurt you so that you could kill them while 1/5th of their level.

AMG, the big thing in AC1 beta / early launch was to get to Arwic Mines at level 3-ish, run up on the mine carts, and the Lugians wouldn't know how to path up to you.  You'd have to run from spot to spot trying not to get crushed by Lugian boulders, making sure you didn't move in a way that let the Lugians path up to you.

Once you hit around level 16, run down into the second level of Lair of Death, run between the vats in the corner of the large room.   Then you had to go pull soldiers/nobles to the safe spot without getting 1-hit in the back.

[Krakrok]

I never had a problem with most of the issues EQ had which are listed in this thread. But then I didn't catass levels. I had a level 12 with 14 days played on the PvP server and probably 7 other similar characters with less play time.

Blind was probably my favorite spell in the whole game and it was a level 1 or 4 spell? The best bug was probably when a character could be feared by someone of similar level and then any level character could attack and kill them like they were a mob. The worst nerf was when they made Charm not work on other players.