*sigh* More shallow design thinking

[shiznitz]

So two weeks ago our guild finally achieved level 5, allowing for 2 things: other people to see our guild tag and the first guild raid. We were excited about both but the guild raid carried high expectations. At the time, our highest level players (excluding the one powergamer at 40) were in the 23-27 range with at least a dozen mains in the 19-23 block. So, we get 2 groups together (need 6-12 people) and get the guild raid.

gray, gray, gray, gray mobs as far as the eye can see. Everything was level 17. The boss was level 20 iirc, so he was gray as well. Oh boy. That was cool.

Our guild had weekly writ nights for almost 2 months, plus lots of ad hoc writ completions during the week. We were by no means slacking off on the writs - at least we didn't think so. We also had too many inactive patrons by about 6 (which affects the divisor for guild exp earned through writs.)

So, more content wasted because our characters levelled faster than our guild. Nice. Would scaling the guild raid be so hard?

[jpark]

This would be easy enough to change and I expect it to, since if you remember that writs used to involve kilings greys, but they changed that to blue / equal con mobs.

The idea of guild level is not a bad one.  Guild faction too can be based upon the type of writs you complete.

But as a now former eq2 players I recall that the max level difference for grouping was 6 levels (more restrictive than the original EQ).  This meant that unless your guild was quite large, it did not require much level spread among members before they could no longer group with each other.

CoH has "sidekicking" and EQ2 has "fuck you".

We reached guild level 4.  But never passed that.  We kept losing players due to grouping problems, who sought lower level or higher level guilds.

[AlteredOne]

I think DAOC also deserves a little credit for their very belated "sidekick" fix.  In a group, all party members are resisted at the level of the highest person.  So if a level 50 wants to hunt stuff with some level 20 players, the level 20 types can actually hit the big stuff.  The do L20 damage, but they contribute.  And the low-level mezzes/stuns were actually useful, after this change was made.  Sure, a L20 mez was maybe 30 secs instead of 70 secs, but in PvE that was fine.

Now if only the DAOC PvE game were not so godawful boring!

[Toast]

The EQ2 developers seem very focused on restricting and limiting players in what they can do.

The buff limitations, instance timers, unbreakably grouped mobs, issues with raids, blocked access to zones, etc.

They seem like control freaks, and the fun suffers.

[jpark]

The EQ2 developers seem very focused on restricting and limiting players in what they can do.

The buff limitations, instance timers, unbreakably grouped mobs, issues with raids, blocked access to zones, etc.

They seem like control freaks, and the fun suffers.

Yes.  I would make the argument that the game is focused almost exculsively against 2 issues:  farming and powerleveling.  I can see controlling the former, but in controlling the latter the game has suffered.  It affects the community too much.  In EQ a passing Shaman could SoW you or a passing cleric could rez you.  Not here.

[HaemishM]

Wait, am I to understand that the guildtag doesn't even show up to other players on the server until you grind out some kind of guild quest thing?

WHAT... THE... FUCK? I am continually amazed at the way EQ2 seems to have multi-stacked the suck in every aspect of the game.

[Alkiera]

Haemish, non-guild-members cannot see your guild tag until your guild reaches level 5.  Guild gains 'exp' by patrons of the guild completing tasks for the major city groups, like the Freeport Militia, or the Academy of Arcane Science, or the Dismal Rage.

Basically, the idea is that as a newly formed guild, no one knows who you are.  Once you start to accomplish things, people begin to notice you, and not until then.

Not that I believe it's a perfect system... 'cause it isn't.  But it's more interesting/complex than most guild systems, where you register it, and get a channel and a tag, and that is it.

Alkiera

[shiznitz]

The guild system would be nice if the levels meant shit. After getting level 5 so people can see your tag (28,000 or so points, each writ = 1,750pts/# of patrons) there isn't much else worth shooting for: furniture, clothing that matches the various city factions, a big instanced room, a 5% discount on horses, etc. FoH is guild level 18, as a point of reference.

The worst part is that if a patron decides to stop being a patron, ALL points earned by the patron vanish forever. So, patrons are kind of like slaves since if they are not active then they are dragging down the value of all the other patrons. There is a lovely story of a disgruntled officer un-patroning all the patrons in a guild thereby dropping the guild from 8 to zero. Then the officer de-guilded himself.

[HaemishM]

Ok, so it really IS as bad a mechanic as I thought it was. I don't know why I'm still surprised by just how many bad ideas made it into execution stage in EQ2.

[Aenovae]

The only issue is that there's currently little point in raising your guild level past 5.  There are later rewards, but they're not worth it.

My guild had a blast working towards Level 5 to earn our tag display.  It's a reward that players actually care about, and you can get it done in two weeks of casual play.  What is the big deal here?  Haemish, your agitation is inappropriate and ignorant.

[HaemishM]

It's a mechanic I find absolutely, mind-bogglingly stupid. The entire guild must level, and doesn't it have a guildtag displayed until they grind the guild up to a certain level. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that? I find it sad that a company with the money that SOE had on the game pissed valuable programming hours away adding a grind to guild activities, instead of something that actually contributes to gameplay in a good way.

And lest you think I'm a WoW fanbois, Blizzard had plenty of money they pissed away on ridiculous shit too.

If it took one guy half an hour to program the switches in that added a grind to an entire guild, it was 29 minutes more than should have been. I have no problem with making content that specific to a guild, at all. I do have a problem with dropping another exp./quest grind on top of it to even display the guildtag.

[shiznitz]

It is just part of the levelling mindset. Each level is supposed to bring something new so the second someone came up with guild levels, some poor asshat had to come up with rewards.

Levelling needs to be erased from the minds of MMOG devs. It will actually make content EASIER to design.

[jpark]

How long before the "good vs. evil" angle of Freeport and Quenose becomes a pure anachronism in the game?

They should have got rid of it - or gone all the way by not allowing grouping between the two groups.  The way it stands now - it is just a pain for friends who want to group together at the lower levels from either city.  Once you level enough ... it is irrelevant.

[Aenovae]

Yeah, it is pretty lame.

I keep expecting them to implement some sort of GvE competition in the game.  Like whoever catasses the fastest gets a big guild hall or something.  Certainly not PvP, the game was not designed for that all.

But for some reason, it's more like Good guilds are competing against other Good guilds.  There are only so many guild halls (assuming this feature isn't a lie), so it's a race to see who can unlock them first.  But you're racing against fellow Qeynosians; the Freeport guilds do not affect you at all.

There hasn't been much bitching about this issue yet (presumably since everyone is still trying to get to 50), so SOE hasn't announced their plans.

[StGabe]

The EQ2 developers seem very focused on restricting and limiting players in what they can do.

Heaven forbid a game have restrictions. 

Restrictions create the structure of a game.  Pawns in chess move the way they do because it makes for a better game, not because some oppressive game designer in the middle ages was intent on putting down the man by limiting the way he could move his chess pieces.

Earning a guild title was a cool little subgoal for our guild early on.  I'm not sure that it is necessary but I'm also not clear on why it would be so horribly awful that you would have to earn something instead of having it handed to you.

StGabe.

[Toast]

Obviously every game will have structure that defines the competition. Pawns can move a certain way to take pieces just like your avatar can use certain abilities to wack foozles. On this we agree. Structured systems are just fine.

Now, how about addressing the statement that the EQ2 developers are overly controlling and restrictive?

Why can't you do drive-by buffs?
Congratufricklations on preventing the horrible evil of power-levelling at the expense of courtesy and fun.

Why can't (this may have been patched out) you help random people in a fight?
Oh no! Not kill stealing! Time to put in the restrictive code! Since we're not Blizzard, we can't use their much more effective encounter system.

Why are linked encounters so prevalent, taking away the randomness and skill involved in "pulling"?
Pulling can be used to trivialize some encounters! We don't want players getting clever to kill our beautiful mobs, so, link em up.

Why are there so many gated zones?
Content must be doled out in tightly regulated doses to force the correct rate of content consumption.

What's the deal with all the "grey" rewardless encounters?
We want to crush bottom-feeding or farming. Big deal if we "grey out" a bunch of content that people are trying to do the right way.

The developers had a list of behaviors they wanted to stamp out by placing arbitrary restrictions on what players can do. This is part of the business of designing games. However, they were too heavyhanded, and that created a world of bizarre restrictions and arbitrary hangups that just was not fun.

[StGabe]

Why can't you do drive-by buffs?

Game balance.  Unlike some other games on the market, EQ2 is trying really hard to create a challenging game.  Is it fun to have everything and never face anything challenging?  I guess.  For maybe a few hours, and perhaps a few days.  But for months or years?  Naw.  I'll take actual challenge, thanks.

And if you want powerleveling and such, well that's what mentoring is all about-- a way for higher level folks to group with and aid their lower level friends while still maintaining and interesting, challenging game.

Oh no! Not kill stealing! Time to put in the restrictive code! Since we're not Blizzard, we can't use their much more effective encounter system.

Actually it has nothing to do with kill-stealing.  It has to do with balancing encounters.  That it helps kill stealing is just an added benefit.  And you can yell anytime you want to get help.  If Blizzard was concerned with setting up challenging encounters primarily instead of just pushing accesibility and ease at every point, like they are, then their system wouldn't be so great.

Pulling can be used to trivialize some encounters! We don't want players getting clever to kill our beautiful mobs, so, link em up.

There are still issues with pulling.  Creatures do "bring a friend".  While I liked feign-pulling and all that, there are other ways to put skill into the game (which EQ2 has).  The reason they put linked encounters in is so that they can guarantee a certain challenge level from these encounters.

Content must be doled out in tightly regulated doses to force the correct rate of content consumption.

Nope.  All of the "necessary" zones open up at a certain level if you don't do the access quests.  The optional ones are just that: optional.  If you want to go after them then you are presented with an interesting challenging.

What good is the foozle's grand prize if the foozle just rolls over and dies whenever an adventure needs it?  Why is it that players think that being given all the content/access without having to do anything actually makes for a good game?

What's the deal with all the "grey" rewardless encounters?

Greys have existed in every MMO I've ever played.  I'm not sure what you are saying here.  When I play EQ2 I fight in level-appropriate areas and rarely encounter greys.

he developers had a list of behaviors they wanted to stamp out by placing arbitrary restrictions on what players can do. This is part of the business of designing games. However, they were too heavyhanded, and that created a world of bizarre restrictions and arbitrary hangups that just was not fun.

Have they structured their game?  Certainly.  In an arbitrary fashion?  Uh, no.  There are good reasons for all the restrictions in place.  I just think that there is a crowd of people ready to pounce on any perceived flaw in EQ2 as though it is a huge game-breaker when in fact these things have very real and intended game effects.

[schild]

Why can't you do drive-by buffs?

Game balance.  Unlike some other games on the market, EQ2 is trying really hard to create a challenging game.  Is it fun to have everything and never face anything challenging?  I guess.  For maybe a few hours, and perhaps a few days.  But for months or years?  Naw.  I'll take actual challenge, thanks.

Maybe MMOGs aren't for you? I mean, there's a difference between challenge and forcing people to do certain things. EQ2 does the latter - just like EVERY other MMOG ever made. Except maybe Planetside.

[StGabe]

Maybe MMOGs aren't for you? I mean, there's a difference between challenge and forcing people to do certain things. EQ2 does the latter

Wow, anti-SOE prejudice certainly is alive and well.  "Dewd, EQ2 forces you to . . . blah, blah, blah" and "if you like EQ2 then you just don't know what fun is".  Yeah, yeah.

Of course that has nothing to do with it.  I just explained exactly why all of these game mechanics are in the game and all you can do is tell me, without explanation, that no "the game forces you, whah, whah, whah".  The point is that the buff restrictions and encounter restrictions allow SOE to very carefully tailor encounters so as to be a significant and interesting challenge to those players who will get loot and xps from them.

And of all things to complain about, "oh noes I can't powerbuff and powerlevel this game is so unfun"?  Riiiiiiight. 

StGabe.

[schild]

Wow, anti-SOE prejudice certainly is alive and well.  "Dewd, EQ2 forces you to . . . blah, blah, blah" and "if you like EQ2 then you just don't know what fun is".  Yeah, yeah.

Of course that has nothing to do with it.  I just explained exactly why all of these game mechanics are in the game and all you can do is tell me, without explanation, that no "the game forces you, whah, whah, whah".  The point is that the buff restrictions and encounter restrictions allow SOE to very carefully tailor encounters so as to be a significant and interesting challenge to those players who will get loot and xps from them.

And of all things to complain about, "oh noes I can't powerbuff and powerlevel this game is so unfun"?  Riiiiiiight.

What the hell did you just say to me? I was talking about you, not the pros or cons of EQ2. Put down the personal defense shield. I did not say whether I cared about the game forcing you to do anything was bad or good. Hell, I didn't even give an opinion. I gave nothing but an observation.

Also, I'm very rarely an SOE hater with no reason. I hate LucasArts more for SW:G than SOE. I blame McQuaid for Everquest more than I do SOE. And I applaud EQ2's live teams ability to fart out magical patches at a weekly basis.

You on the other hand are simply on the offensive, and need to calm it.

[StGabe]

Well I went and wrote a post explaining how game challenge is reinforced by the several game mechanics that were brought up.

You then asserted, without any argument or discussion, that no it was all "forced".  With respect to a comment I made regarding a complaint that you can't buff lowbies to powerlevel. Where you could get that from without drawing from pure bias or prejudice is beyond me.

StGabe.

[StGabe]

I mean we could be sitting here complaing that rooks are "forced" to move forward and side to side and not diagonally like queens and bishops.  But obviously there are reasons for the movement of a rook just as there are real, understandable reasons that SOE put in locked encounters, access quests, group-only buffing, etc.  Assertions that it is all just "forced" are really just a way to define the answer you want before you even have a conversation about it.  Why doesn't anyone say that you are "forced" to quest in WoW to get good equipment, for example?  Because it's clear that quests are actually just a structure created for the game that create a nice journey for characters through the game content and towards a nifty reward.  Is it really that different to say, "ok, you have to go do a boat ride (which can actually be a lot of fun) if you want to go to this zone" versus saying, "you have to kill 50 foozles to get a +10 widget?"  No, not really.  Is it the result of sadistic developers that players are "forced" to have their realm gain control of a certain number of keeps to get access to Darkness Falls?  No, not really.

StGabe.

[schild]

I've played the game. I know where it's strengths and weaknesses are. This isn't about bias or prejudice. This is about being a gamer and witnessing how mechanics are inflicted upon the player. Some are forced, some are passive, some can be completely ignored. Like combat in SW:G.

Just saying, calm yourself. You don't need to be a fanatic. No one cares about fanatics. Take it from me. Everyone *thinks* I fanatically hate Nintendo, even though I convinced a gamecube was worth buying solely for Resident Evil 4 and Eternal Darkness.

[StGabe]

I don't think this is an issue of "I played it I saw it".  The whole point is that perception colors this greatly.  You can call something a rule, a game mechanic or you can call it something that the developer "forced" upon you.  But if you don't explain the difference then you are only giving us your own prejudice and not a useful comment on things.

If you want to show me how not be a fanatic, I think a start would be discussing the points at hand instead of asserting what you consider to the be the truth.

StGabe.

[HaemishM]

There is no "challenge" in EQ2 other than the perseverence required to play the blandest MMOG on the planet. The locking of encounters isn't about creating challenging encounters, it's about cutting down on CS calls due to kill-stealing, which was a significant problem in EQ1. You can lock an encounter that is in no way challenging to you, so how is locking an encounter being done to create a challenge? Because you aren't supposed to engage an encounter that is below you... unless of course, you need to complete a quest that is gray to you.

It's forcing behavior of the players into really small, restrictively defined roles. And yes, WoW did the whole encounter system much better. Other people can help you with an encounter, they just won't be rewarded for it. It's a much more organic system. The EQ2 locked encounter thing just feels very "gamey," very much outside of the game world.

[Toast]

StGabe-
You are using the word "force" as a straw man.

The problem is that the developers used structure, rails, and force in an excessive manner that harms the gameplay experience. It's a question of degree.

The market certainly spoke resoundingly about design choices like this.

[Alkiera]

Haemish, Toast... I disagree with what you've said.  The likelyhood of anything I say changing your opinions is small enough it would require the Heart of Gold's Improbability Engine to calculate it, so I won't.  I just do not agree with you.

Alkiera

[HaemishM]

Ain't that what we're here for?  :-D

Obviously, for your tastes, the EQ2 devs didn't go too far. Our opinions are allowed to differ; if they didn't, we wouldn't have much post count, now would we?

[Toast]

Haemish, Toast... I disagree with what you've said.  The likelyhood of anything I say changing your opinions is small enough it would require the Heart of Gold's Improbability Engine to calculate it, so I won't.  I just do not agree with you.

Indeed. It's hard to argue taste. That being said, are you sure you don't agree with us on the buffing restrictions or the encounter system? Wouldn't be better to have an open system like other games?

This is a solution that is lacking a problem based on my experience in "other" competing games.

[El Gallo]

I wanted to like EQ2 a lot, and I still think the game has potential.  To see where I'm coming from, I play WoW, but don't think it will be the game to end all games for me.  I'm not the typical, "I only wanna PvP/solo/bake bread/experience some wild new innovative blahblahblah and think EQ2 sucks because it isn't enough like SB/WoW/UO/my perfect fantasy game" EQ2 hater.  I have no objection to a good, old-fashioned Diku-style socializer/achiever/explorer game.  Hell, I am one of those people waiting for Vanguard, hoping that it can recapture the old magic.    

However, I agree with the people who think that the EQ2 player experience is too "managed" for want of a better word.  What is that corny anti-communist sci-fi story about the world where graceful people had to wear weights, pretty people had to wear masks, etc?  EQ2 felt "levelled down" or "overbalanced" to me in a similar way.  I'm sure there is some room for creative play, but it feels more naked a character builder than EQ1, because the freedom and frills are stripped away.  The classes are very, very similar, the encounters pre-ordained.  It really does feel like a game that was designed by a guy whose priorities were: 1: no powerlevelling 2: no twinking 3: no pulling 4: no imbalances . . . 499: "wow factor" 500: soul.  Love it or hate it, EQ1 had soul.  I understand the position that the micromanagement of the player's experience is a decision that was made to present a steady challenge to the player, but there isn't really much challenge when everything is cut up into bits perfectly designed for the size of your mouth.  In EQ1, a really good necromancer, monk, shaman, druid, enchanter or whatever could make a really big difference in what your party can handle.  Because things players did mattered a lot, though not as much as character stats vs mob stats (which is fine by me).  In EQ2, I have trouble imagining a really good player making much of a difference, because it seems like everything aside from character stats vs mob stats has been deemed an exploit and banished from the game.

Now, in WoW, vast portions of content can be trivialized by powerlevelling, twinking and zerging.  None of which has ever, even once, impacted my gameplay or bothered me for a second.  I did most instances at the low end of the appropriate level range, faced some decent challenges, and had a good time doing so.  And I still get to help out other people who have bitten off more than they can chew, and get helped in return.  I've made some friends in the process.    

I haven't played EQ2 since beta, so things may have changed, or there could be higher end mechanics that make things feel livelier.  Though from what I have heard the high end guilds just obliterated the endgame content off the bat, so it doesn't sound like that was very challenging.  I have been thinking about taking another look at EQ2 since I have my EQ1 account still active (and probably will forever even though I haven't logged in for 6 months) so it's only another 5 bucks or so to upgrade to all access.  But patching in soul seems to be much harder than patching in content, so my expectations aren't very high.

[StGabe]

Well my experience with EQ2 is definitely one where player abilities matter a lot.

Actually it was mostly for reasons like this that I stopped playing WoW.  Whereas it had a more "open" system it seemed to me to be a fairly trivial one.  Without thinking too much about anything it became pretty obvious to me how best to do things.  My warrior(also played a shaman and rogue) would plug along killing blues with the optimal build for that, the optimal routine of abilities, both of which were fairly trivial to determine (and probably posted on the forums if I couldn't figure them out) and get a level every few hours.  I would group to do quests whenever possible, but those were shortlived and while I was a good grouper I never really had a feeling that what I did was that much better than any other warrior.  The player skill basically amounted to: are you a stupid player or a basically competent one.

With EQ2 I had, obviously, a very different experience.  I find I spend a lot of time exploring new strategies, that my abilities are quite varied and powerful, and that my skill can make a big difference for the groups I am in.  Try playing an enchanter or a bard, for example, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.  This happens grouped and non-grouped.  My first character excelled as a grouping enchanter (but recently has been doing well solo) and my second as a solo bard.  The former could make or break encounters for the entire group with stuns, power drains, stifles, mez's, power regen, and very strong AE damage.  Using all that efficiently took a significant amount of concentration and thought (so much that I decided it was a bit intense and decided to play a bard for a couple days break, and got hooked).  My dirge (bard) on the other hand pulls of some really impressive solo feats.  Those who think kiting is dead are dead wrong -- it's just more balanced.  He solos all kinds of content that a lot players wouldn't think was possible, all because I use his very interesting set of skills in clever ways.

I can see where you come from with the overbalanced perspective.  But a lot of that has been toned down.  And a lot of it makes good sense when it comes to building a solid, longterm game.  Most of it is concerned with maintaining a certain minimum challenge -- not to preventing KS'ing, powerleveling, etc.  The latter is just a side-effect (as the devs have pointed out on numberous occasions).  I can understand if it's not your cup of tea (we all have different tastes), but it is there for some real reasons.

StGabe.

[StGabe]

The problem is that the developers used structure, rails, and force in an excessive manner that harms the gameplay experience. It's a question of degree.

First of all, that is your read but obviously not all people's read.  There is no mandate from the masses.  Lots of people are playing EQ2 and will keep doing so for a long time to come.

Secondly, you have to define excessive force and actually discuss what is going on.  Instead you are simply asserting that it is too much, with no consideration for other possibilities.

How, for example, does allowing high level buffs to hit lower level players help the game at all?  Really all SOE is trying to do is make sure that every encounter has a certain minimum challenge for its reward to players.  That is a restriction of sorts, but the effect of this restriction, the practical result, is the creation of something that a lot of players do value in their game: challenge.

StGabe.

[jpark]

The EQ2 developers seem very focused on restricting and limiting players in what they can do.

Heaven forbid a game have restrictions. 

Restrictions create the structure of a game.  Pawns in chess move the way they do because it makes for a better game, not because some oppressive game designer in the middle ages was intent on putting down the man by limiting the way he could move his chess pieces.

StGabe.

Thanks for explaining the importance of having rules in a game.  Can I cut and paste your post to defend any game I want endorsed?

[StGabe]

Thanks for explaining the importance of having rules in a game.  Can I cut and paste your post to defend any game I want endorsed?

No but you can cut and paste it into any argument that thinks that saying "OMG, that games has rules, it sucks" is any more meaningful and insightful than saying "OMG, that car has wheels, it sucks".

What is it about WoW's rules, for example, that make the game more fun some people?  What is it about EQ2's game that make that game more fun for some people?  Which people are you interested in talking about?  Etc.

StGabe.

[jpark]

When you get a chance - read the WoW forums here.