Expansion NDA lifted.

[Murgos]

This thread has some screenies in it.  It's a lot of brown but it looks clean unlike Freeport, we'll see how tedious it gets to play in.

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=desert&message.id=5027

edit:  Also, as part of the guild faction meta-game every NPC in the new city is killable.

edit 2:  http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=desert&message.id=5026 looks like the Arena combat is going to be along the lines of you need to collect these items so you can use these MOBs in the arena.

[Cheddar]

Motherfucking pokemon.  I cannot wait.

[Murgos]

We've been experimenting on the test and beta servers with the Death and Encounter Locking mechanics. Now that we're able to talk about them, I'd like to describe what it is that we've done and lay out an explanation of the thematic (or game vision, if you prefer) reasons driving them.

One of the best things about working on a live MMO is that you can constantly evaluate elements of the game compared to its overall vision and determine whether or not the element fits into the overall picture of what a game is supposed to be.

These experiments do not come out of any kind of desire to homogenize EQ2 with other MMOs. This is purely a commentary on existing elements of EQ2 when viewed in comparison to the overall goals of the game.

Restrictive elements, or those that subtract moment-to-moment gameplay options, are the ones that must always be evaluated the closest. They present the greatest risk to the overall gameplay "feel" of any MMO. If something restrictive is to exist to address a specific concern, it needs to be justified with the strongest reasoning, and there must (ideally) be no other reasonable alternative solution.

For these specific mechanics, we believe that we have less restrictive alternatives that address the core concerns that group death and single-group encounter locking were intended to solve.

 

The Experiments

*** Death and Experience Debt ***

    * There is now a 50% cap for both adventure and tradeskill experience debt. You can no longer accrue more than 50% of your level in experience debt.
    * If you have more than 50% experience debt when you log on after this change, any experience debt greater than 50% will be removed.
    * You will no longer share experience debt for the deaths of other members of your group. Only the person who dies will gain experience debt.

*** Encounter Locking ***

Encounter locking restrictions have been relaxed for non-raid encounters. Non-raid encounters have been changed as follows:

    * There are no longer lock icons on you or your enemies.
    * The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.
    * Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or healing you.
    * You will receive a reduced XP reward if your group contributes less than 50% of the damage needed to kill something.
    * You can change group options and add/remove people from groups while fighting (note that fighting raid encounters still prevents this).
    * Damage credit is correctly tracked if you add people helping you to the group before something dies.
    * Any faction increase or decrease the creature grants will be applied to everyone the creature hates when it dies.
    * In an upcoming update: If a group prefers to play by the old rules, they may make their targetted encounter exclusively locked (thus preventing help unless asked for).

 

The Reasoning

Since the reasoning behind both is tied to the same theme, explaining them in concert makes the most sense.

A mechanic in a game is a means to an end - No more, no less. If the goal of a game is "fun in the long term," as it is with EQ2, the mechanics need to support that goal.

Once a mechanic exists, it's a matter of observing its effect on people's behavior in conjunction with evaluating how appropriate it is in meeting its intended goal.

"Fun in the long term" is a very broad statement. Before anything can be realistically compared, it really needs to be honed slightly. Ideally, to a handful of ways by which this elusive "fun" is expected to be achieved.

* In the long term, the most fun thing is the fact that your experiences are shared with others. People making friends (or enemies) with other people is what makes everyone stay around.

It's not an inviolate "prime directive" for MMOs, but things that point people toward that direction can likely be called "generally good" and things that drive people in the opposite direction can likely be called "generally not good."

* Items and levels are great incentives for people to keep enjoying their play, but items and levels without friends to share in (or strangers to simply bear witness to) the accomplishment does not make for a compelling experience.

If the experience was nearly as compelling, since we're all rational human beings, we would instead all be playing single-player games and saving the monthly subscription just to level up, see numbers get bigger, get better spells, and obtain newer toys with bigger sparklies, by ourselves.

* People wanting to form groups is a critical part of making friends.

Forming a group and wrangling others toward a unified goal is hard enough work as it is, both in terms of time invested and the effort spent. Barriers to grouping, including elements that prevent people from wanting to form (or join) a group need to be examined, as do things that make groups break up faster.

* However, we do not force people to group to have fun.

That just makes people resent the game and the experience. Those whom we expect to make friends (and therefore enjoy the game the longest) should have a world in which they want to do this on their own. It is up to us to set the stage by providing positive reinforcement instead of depriving people of gameplay value, if they prefer to play in a manner that doesn't involve grouping.

* In Fantasy, being a hero (or villain) is the base drive that attracts many to the genre.

Most who join games like this have some experience with one or more kinds of fantasy fiction, whether in the form of classic fairy tales or the latest George R.R. Martin book. Those tales have heroes and villains, and at one point, most of us have identified with one or more of their more notable characters and thought, "Wouldn't it be amazing if…"

The advancement and loot present in an MMO needs to sit on top of that feeling, but that base of heroic potential must be present for the experience to not feel hollow.

* The possibility of someone naturally being the hero to another, unasked but welcomed, therefore needs to exist in our world.

When combined with the importance of making friends, this becomes a doubly compelling point. A person who has the rare opportunity to be the hero while making a friend in the process essentially wins twice.

The case of someone using a "free action" system to be the hero (a lifesaving heal from a stranger) is the exception, not the rule. That is a given. It is therefore the developer's responsibility to ensure that the case that will be more common (paired powerlevelling) is not so powerful that it does harm to the long-term enjoyment value of the game, or detracts from the experience of other players.

In most cases some amount of powerlevelling, provided the advancement rates aren't ridiculously fast, is not harmful to the game. In the successful games to date, while it has been officially frowned upon when taken to extremes, it has in reality provided healthy replay value.

* People are more likely to be in a mindset to make friends (and enemies) when they feel they are spending time in a consistent world.

An internally consistent world means that actions and reactions of its inhabititants make sense in the setting. The best system is the one that is completely invisible.

If I am in a fantasy world and I swing my sword at a vicious orc, I should swing my sword at a vicious orc. The expected reaction is that the orc would uphold its end of the bargain and, in turn, be hit by the sword.

That is a highly reasonable expectation for this setting.

It is much less immersive to be told by a system that I did not, in fact, swing my sword because I acted out of turn when judged by a set of rules that were not born of the fantasy world in question. It's the real world that that drove that rule; the actions of past players and the attempts to solve issues that resulted from those actions.

That is not the world people should need to be immersed in at the time they are swinging a sword.

When this occurs, many people are jarred out of the game experience, instead feeling that they're spending time in front of a monitor being prevented from acting in an otherwise fictionally reasonable manner due to artificial restrictions.

Even if you're on a Ventrilo or Teamspeak server talking to other real world humans also playing the game, there's still an undeniable attraction to a consistent world, no matter how much people assume that is no longer the case. The mindset does matter.

People still call each other by their character names. People still associate those names with professions in the context of the world, with visuals of characters, with mental pictures of the things they've done together in the past. People still refer to that collection of bits on the server as "Lord Nagafen."

There's still an implicit understanding that you're all doing something adventurous together, and that thing you are doing is cool.

Either it's cool because it's cool in the context of the world, or it's cool because of the reaction of other people. Either way, we're back to the consistency of the world and the effect that "other people" have on any given player.

* People are more likely to attempt to help others if they do not feel helpless to act.

By preventing the possibility of helpful action, we train people to not care about others because caring takes too much effort.

Mechanical reminders that people are actually helpless to affect others is not a way to make them think of other people as potential friends. If there's never an ability to surprise anyone with assistance, why bother seeing if anyone ever needs help?

The first time you passed someone who you thought might need help, you probably waited around a minute and asked if they were all right. Then when you saw they weren't, you suggested they yell for it. Then you suggested it again. And maybe again.

Then they didn't. Maybe because they didn't think they needed it. Maybe because they'd rather die than give up the potential for reward. Either way, it doesn't matter. It doesn't take many times before people stop asking and just wait for the yells, when a well-timed hand may have been appreciated and led to a friendship.

 

In Closing

For those who see these experiments and cite a lack of differentiation between EQ2 and other games, there are many more positive ways that EQ2 is different from any other experience out there. Witness Arena Champions and the scaling of walls about to arrive in Desert of Flames. The object and puzzle interactions in The Splitpaw Saga and The Bloodline Chronicles. The way game content integrates with character advancement. Collections. Customizable housing. Guild advancement. Tomes. Tradeskill societies. NPC voices. And so on.

In the places where EQ2 is notable for its differences, we prefer when those differentiations are things that enhance the gameplay experience. We continue to innovate, but we prefer to do so with elements that add to gameplay options, as opposed to elements that restrict them in ways that may, in practice, go counter to the idea of a vibrant, exciting fantasy world.

These are the standards we set for ourselves, and these are the goals by which the elements of our game must be measured. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

For those not in the Desert of Flames beta, the completed changes should be available for testing on our Test Server this week. As always, please check it out and let us know what you think.

Good hunting.

- Scott

 

____
Scott Hartsman
Senior Producer, EverQuest II

[Shockeye]

Tradeskill XP debt at all is a joke.

Otherwise, they seem to be reducing some of the not-fun, but they don't seem to be adding any hills fun.

[Trippy]

Tradeskill XP debt at all is a joke.

You can still die from doing tradeskills?

[Cheddar]

Tradeskill XP debt at all is a joke.

You can still die from doing tradeskills?

Yes. As a matter of fact it happened to me at the oven.  I was burnt to a crisp.  Not funny.

[Shockeye]

Tradeskill XP debt at all is a joke.

You can still die from doing tradeskills?

Yes. As a matter of fact it happened to me at the oven.  I was burnt to a crisp.  Not funny.

Yes it is in a very pathetic way.

[schild]

Collections that mean something? In an MMOG?

Heh. I'm fucked.

[Merusk]

If they keep this up EQ2 might be a game I'd consider playing in another 2 years.

Of course by then VS will be out and we'll all be playing that, right? (hahahaha)

[Murgos]

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=3941#M3941

As part of the combat and spell changes that are scheduled to be introduced with Live Update #13, we have improved the information provided when considering an NPC's level of challenge. We still use up and down arrows to gauge relative difficulty, though we have expanded upon the previous system to make it clearer and more precise. We thought it would be a good idea to take a look at what this target consider information means to your character.
 
There are three primary factors when considering an opponent: up and down arrows, encounter type, and con color.

Up and Down Arrows

Arrows in the target window indicate the challenge of an opponent:

    * 3 down arrows = very weak opponent
    * 2 down arrows = weak opponent
    * 1 down arrow = below average opponent
    * no arrow = average opponent
    * 1 up arrow = above average opponent
    * 2 up arrows = strong opponent
    * 3 up arrows = heroic opponent
    * 3 up arrows plus X2, X3, or X4 = epic opponent intended for 2, 3, or 4 groups in a raid

When using the Simple (Frames) option, there are brackets around the NPC's name that indicate the following:

    * Swords under target name = weak opponent
    * Simple brackets = average opponent
    * Fancy brackets = challenging opponent
    * Fancy brackets plus banner = epic opponent

Encounter Type

When you click on an opponent, the target window indicates the level and color con of the enemy and tells you if the encounter is intended for solo players, groups, or a multi-group raid force.

    * A typical encounter for solo players may be made up of a single enemy, usually with either a single down arrow or no arrow at all. Other solo encounters may be made up of multiple targets, each of which would likely have 2 or 3 down arrows. As long as the target isn't marked as heroic or epic, it is intended for soloers or small groups.
    * There are also some encounters designed for small groups or well-equipped solo players. These often consist of a lone NPC with a single up arrow, or multiple opponents with no arrows. Depending on equipment and spell upgrades, small groups may also find success against many heroic opponents.
    * Content designed for groups of 4 to 6 players is designated as heroic. Examples include a single NPC with 3 up arrows, two NPCs with 2 up arrows, three NPCs with 1 up arrow, or a larger group of targets with no arrows or some down arrows. Regardless of the number of creatures in a single encounter, being designated as heroic means it will likely take multiple players to defeat it.
    * Epic encounters are designated as X2, X3, or X4, being intended for a raid force of two, three, or four groups, respectively.

Con Color

The changes to combat have made the con color of an opponent much more meaningful.

    * Grey - This opponent is well below your level. Your attacks can hit this target easily, and it is much less likely to damage you. You will not receive experience or treasure for defeating it.
    * Green - This opponent is quite a bit below your level. It should not present much of a challenge.
    * Blue - This opponent is slightly below your level. You should be able to defeat it with a modicum of effort.
    * White - This opponent is of your level. It will offer a fair degree of challenge.
    * Yellow - This opponent is slightly above your level. It will give you a challenging fight.
    * Orange - This opponent is well above your level. Be prepared for a very tough fight that you may not win. You won't hit this opponent as often as other targets closer to your level.
    * Red - This opponent is far above your level. You will likely be facing defeat if you attempt to fight it. You won't be able to hit it very often, but it won't have any trouble hitting you.

Combining the Factors

All three factors discussed above work together to determine an opponent's level of difficulty. All aspects of the fight must be considered to provide an accurate picture of the challenge you are about to face.

For instance, a red-con solo creature would likely defeat a lone player character, but that same enemy would often be trivial to a full group. Likewise, a grey-con epic target would represent an easy victory for a full raid force but would likely overwhelm a solo player. The grey color alone does not mean an easy fight, just as red alone does not mean an impossible one; you must also take into account the encounter type and up/down arrows, as well as the number of players facing your enemy.

Specific Examples

We thought it would be helpful to provide some specific examples of how players can expect to perform when the combat changes go into effect.

Please remember that these are generalizations, not guarantees. Player skill and style of play are just as important to your chances of success as any other factor.

The examples below are based on a white-con (equal level) opponent. Generally speaking, yellow and orange opponents get progressively harder while blue, green, and grey opponents get progressively easier.

    * Solo target with one down arrow - Should be a reasonably easy fight for a solo player in handcrafted gear and Apprentice III spells. You should be able to defeat a number of these before needing to rest.
    * Solo creature with no arrows - Should provide a worthy challenge to a solo player in handcrafted gear and Apprentice III spells. You can likely defeat a few of these before needing to recover.
    * Solo creature with one up arrow - Should provide a challenging fight for a solo player in handcrafted gear and Apprentice III spells, requiring a recovery period afterward. Small groups should be able to defeat these with ease. A solo player in treasured gear with Adept I spells would find this moderately challenging, while one in legendary gear with Adept III spells would defeat it with relative ease.
    * Solo creature with two up arrows - A solo character in handcrafted gear and Apprentice III spells would likely lose to this foe, although forming a small group would make the fight much easier. It would be a close fight for a character in treasured gear with Adept I spells, and a moderate challenge for a solo character in legendary gear with Adept III spells.
    * Heroic creature with three up arrows, two creatures with two up arrows, three creatures with one up arrow, or four creatures with no arrows - A solo player in legendary gear with Adept III or higher spells may be able to defeat one of these encounters, but would likely be soundly defeated with lesser equipment and abilities. A small group of players with treasured gear and Adept I spells will be in for a tough fight, but a group of 4 to 6 would likely be able to succeed even in handcrafted gear and Apprentice III spells.
    * Epic X2 opponents should require 8 to 12 players in treasured gear with Adept I spells or better.
    * Epic X3 opponents should require 15 to 18 players in treasured gear with Adept I spells or better.
    * Epic X4 opponents should require 20 to 24 players in legendary gear with Adept III spells or better. Keep in mind that different epic encounters vary quite a bit in terms of difficulty. Some will be much more challenging than others, thus requiring greater skill and a higher quality of gear and abilities.

Again, please keep in mind that the examples above are not intended to be absolutes or a guarantee of either success or failure. Some players will find greater success against tougher opponents than others. Certain classes may have advantages in certain kinds of fights, so it is advisable for players and groups to make note of locations and situations that allow their unique abilities to shine.

By taking into account all the factors that indicate an opponent's level of difficulty, you will be well prepared to explore the frontiers of Norrath, including the Desert of Flames expansion.

===========================
Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard
Game Designer, EverQuest II

Transparancy, it's not just for accounting anymore.

I REALLY like how open they are being with the players.

[Merusk]

Holy shit that's complicated. Do they give you a calculator to figure out if your encounter is going to assfuck you?

What ever happened to letting the UI interpret shit like that to be clear and reasonably accessable?  All of that could happen in the background based on toggles for all that nonsense and simply say "You can waste his ass." or "He will make you cry, pillowbiter."

[Der Helm]

Holy shit that's complicated. Do they give you a calculator to figure out if your encounter is going to assfuck you?

Just farm the green conning trash mobs for xp, like you used too.

[Fargull]

Merusk,

Because all game developers target the Walmart Demographic.

[shiznitz]

Holy shit that's complicated. Do they give you a calculator to figure out if your encounter is going to assfuck you?

What ever happened to letting the UI interpret shit like that to be clear and reasonably accessable?  All of that could happen in the background based on toggles for all that nonsense and simply say "You can waste his ass." or "He will make you cry, pillowbiter."

I like it being complicated. It sucks when the outcome is obvious. I liked that some blue cons in EQ1 would kick the everliving shit out of you without warning.

[Murgos]

I thought that this is actually intended to fix that problem.

It's two layers of con. Decoration is for group size and color is difficulty corresponding to that group size.

So blue^^^ (and probably green^^^) is still going to kick your ass solo but now you know it.  Before it was very hard to tell if this mob could kick your ass or not.  For example last night I easily soloed one Green^^ with a few green no decoration attendants, and then got my ass pwned by another similar group.  If they have done what they say then there shouldn't be this disparity between similarly conned groups.

Actually, from what I've read on the boards is that if you are fairly competent and moderately well equipped (little or no blue or white gear) you will actually be able to perform above these values.  Which is a good thing, it makes you feel effective, it's what CoH does.  Some examples where a group of 4 people taking out white and yellow con^^^X2's or solo players killing yellow^'s with very little downtime.

[Miasma]

So, from the third post.

*** Encounter Locking ***

Encounter locking restrictions have been relaxed for non-raid encounters. Non-raid encounters have been changed as follows:

    * There are no longer lock icons on you or your enemies.
    * The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.
    * Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or healing you.
    * You will receive a reduced XP reward if your group contributes less than 50% of the damage needed to kill something.
    * You can change group options and add/remove people from groups while fighting (note that fighting raid encounters still prevents this).
    * Damage credit is correctly tracked if you add people helping you to the group before something dies.
    * Any faction increase or decrease the creature grants will be applied to everyone the creature hates when it dies.
    * In an upcoming update: If a group prefers to play by the old rules, they may make their targetted encounter exclusively locked (thus preventing help unless asked for).

Does this mean that powerlevelling is now a viable option via either healing or "Lvl 2 taps a lvl 40 mob, then lvl 50 freind gets aggro and destoys it for him"?  I rather liked that there was no powerlevelling in EQ2.

As far as the con system it seems like the same thing as there is now (which is fairly good) but adding an extra symbol to let you know that a mob is a raid target.

Does anyone on steamfont plan on buying this expansion or for that matter the splitpaw saga adventure pack?  The splitpaw saga seems like a good way to xp, and a lot of people say it is fun.

[Tige]

Looks like the ol' "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" approach.

Having said that, I resubbed last week (Najena Server) and I'm having a better time than I did at release.  I can move around in the cities and alot of the agro stuff in Antonica has been scaled back so you can reasonably navigate through it.  The graphics and interface seemed to have been tightened up a little, now if they would just do something with the ass-looking armor I'd be happy.

[Cheddar]

Looks like the ol' "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" approach.

Having said that, I resubbed last week (Najena Server) and I'm having a better time than I did at release.  I can move around in the cities and alot of the agro stuff in Antonica has been scaled back so you can reasonably navigate through it.  The graphics and interface seemed to have been tightened up a little, now if they would just do something with the ass-looking armor I'd be happy.

If you decide to come join us on Steamfont let us know.  Currently thats where we have BC located; though our fearless leader is MIA currently.

[Murgos]

Does this mean that powerlevelling is now a viable option via either healing or "Lvl 2 taps a lvl 40 mob, then lvl 50 freind gets aggro and destoys it for him"?  I rather liked that there was no powerlevelling in EQ2.

Yeah, they've decided to allow a limited amount of pleveling, the way I interpreted the dev responses was that it leads to player retention when they can create alts easily.  However, the second example should be mostly out, you need to do 50% damage to recieve 100% exp credit.  I don't know how they are going to handle having a level 50 healer follow you around and wipe your bottom though.  I guess it's not too much of a concern because it still limits you to fighting stuff within 5 - 7 or so levels of you otherwise you take damage too fast.

[Miasma]

I don't know how they are going to handle having a level 50 healer follow you around and wipe your bottom though.  I guess it's not too much of a concern because it still limits you to fighting stuff within 5 - 7 or so levels of you otherwise you take damage too fast.

Sounds like shaman could charge for their services then, like in EQ1 but even more so.  They "heal" with wards that absorb damage so you could just get a lvl 50 ward put on you (that will absorb hundreds/thousands of points of damage) and run around in God mode.  Thrown on a high level damage shield so that mobs kill themselves attacking you and you're golden.

Then SOE will have to put level limits on all the spells like in EQ1 to prevent abuse.  It sounds messy.

[shiznitz]

Maybe, but mobs 5+ levels above you would take a damn long time to kill even if you never got hit yourself. Even if you had a level 50 buddy knocking off the first 40% of hps, I bet it would be more efficient and fun to hunt mobs around your level with no downtime.

[Cheddar]

I cannot believe I am going to say this (*cough* fuck SOE) but I trust the dev's to ensure this situation does not happen.  So far they have my dollar; I am utterly amazed at how good EQ2 has turned out thus far. 

[Soukyan]

And the game is so fucking beautiful. I know graphics aren't everything, but just looking at those screenshots makes me want to explore the world and see what I find. That's what initially made EQ so addicting. The world made you want to explore and see what was around that next bend.

[Shockeye]

And the game is so fucking beautiful. I know graphics aren't everything, but just looking at those screenshots makes me want to explore the world and see what I find.

Sorry, that didn't work for me. EQ2 was not fun.

[Furiously]

And the game is so fucking beautiful. I know graphics aren't everything, but just looking at those screenshots makes me want to explore the world and see what I find. That's what initially made EQ so addicting. The world made you want to explore and see what was around that next bend.

Another pretty treadmill.

[Soukyan]

Note that I did not use the word "fun" in my post. I said that the beauty of the locales made me want to explore further and see what I can find. This same type of mindset applies to my real life as well. When I travel to a new place in the world and the beauty of my surroundings strike me, I tend to want to explore and see what's just around the bend, or down the river, etc. etc. etc. Exploration can be fun for some... others not so much. And yes, there's only so much exploring you can do when there's nothing else to do before things get boring... at least in game worlds. I could explore earth my entire life and never get bored or tired. You can quote me on that when I'm famous and say something to the contrary. ;)

[Toast]

I re-subbed recently out of boredom. I hated the game at launch, but I like it better this time around.

The graphics are solid, but I really like the music. I heard some "classical" pieces in Qeynos that were very well done.

[Sobelius]

Note that I did not use the word "fun" in my post. I said that the beauty of the locales made me want to explore further and see what I can find. This same type of mindset applies to my real life as well. When I travel to a new place in the world and the beauty of my surroundings strike me, I tend to want to explore and see what's just around the bend, or down the river, etc. etc. etc. Exploration can be fun for some... others not so much. And yes, there's only so much exploring you can do when there's nothing else to do before things get boring... at least in game worlds. I could explore earth my entire life and never get bored or tired. You can quote me on that when I'm famous and say something to the contrary. ;)

Count me in the "explorer" camp.

Ditched all online games for a few weeks, then recently jumped back into WoW and EQ2. With the access locks gone to other areas of EQ2, a friend led me through a brief tour of Enchanted Lands, and on my own I took a peek at the orc lands, the frost lands and the jungle lands (can't recall names). As much as my GF 6800GT lets me appreciate the graphics in EQ2, they just don't add up to the *flavor* of the graphic design in WoW. WoW has 43 zones the size of Nek Forest and if I get sick of one I can go to another. That never happened for me in EQ2. Not half as much to explore as WoW, where I loved going from Dustwallow Marsh through the Barrens, taking the lift down into Thousands Needles, across the Shimmering Flats then into Gadgetzan and Tanaris. I wanted to explore every inch -- ahem -- of the land.

And underwater! Good god -- diving for Blue Pearls off the Vile Reef or exploring the undersea temple off the coast of Desolace. These really felt to me like I was diving in some fantastic tropical fish tank -- compared to the dim and dingy waters of EQ2 where the fish STILL swim above water. Sigh.

I *want* to like EQ2 so badly. I don't know why but I really do. (Forgive me sounding like Sally Field).  I think I wanted it to be an MMORPG for adults (kind of like the way the new Battlestar Galactica is more for adults than kids). But part of being "adult" is more than just making things hard. EQ2 should have had 100 times the content it did at release -- and I mean dungeons, lands, loot, etc. for all levels.

And that long-winded quoted post at the beginning of this thread only had one real thing to say: "We are bankrupt for new ideas, so we use restrictions as a way to make you think you're being challenged."

I had to learn *not* to do this as a pen-and-paper D&D DM. Restricting players does not make them happy and only serves to make sure the DM doesn't have to prepare as much content ahead of time and/or does not have to "wing it" when the players do something the DM didn't expect.

With online games, I've come back to feeling that the only time these games really work for me is when I'm online with RL friends, or if I have a lot of cool places to explore when I'm running around solo. As games, as stories, as adventures, MMOs really are unsatisfying. As easy escapist drug and life/work avoidance distractions, they are great.

[Soukyan]

I have to agree with you, Sobelius. I love the flavor of the WoW world as well. Do I like it more than EQ2? I suppose I do right now as I'm subscribed to WoW and not EQ2, but damned if those screenshots of EQ2 aren't tempting. I enjoyed the EQ2 experience when I was doing it. Being a casual inhabitant of that world was relaxing and enjoyable for me. Perhaps in another couple months, I'll resub and poke around some more.

[Murgos]

[And that long-winded quoted post at the beginning of this thread only had one real thing to say: "We are bankrupt for new ideas, so we use restrictions as a way to make you think you're being challenged."

If you are talking about the encounter locking post actually what they said was they are removing the restrictions.

[Sobelius]

[And that long-winded quoted post at the beginning of this thread only had one real thing to say: "We are bankrupt for new ideas, so we use restrictions as a way to make you think you're being challenged."

If you are talking about the encounter locking post actually what they said was they are removing the restrictions.

Yes, they are removing the restrictions because it's obvious many players didn't buy the idea that these restrictions somehow made for a better game. It's an admission they were bankrupt for content and gameplay ideas. Many of us realized we were being restricted and it felt arbitrary and punishing rather empowering. Restrictions can be used to empower by creating structure -- structure in the sense of a consistent core set of rules, and structure in the sense that the game has a context within which you can work toward gameplay goals and derive what these games claim to offer -- pleasure.

EQ2 took away restrictions on most class/race combinations (like it or not), and separate racial starting zones, and lost some of the world's "flavor". EQ2 imposed restrictions on access to special dungeons (like Nek Castle and Fallen Gate) and (I think) it added a measure of interesting challenge -- however, restricting access to *every* interesting dungeon was a "bankrupt for ideas" type of mistake and they have since learned that and removed these restrictions.

I sincerely -- and I mean very sincerely -- applaud the EQ2 team for being willing to change core aspects of their game. I also applaud that they have added a ton of content since release. They *are* working on their game. I paid a subscription for 5 months, despite barely playing 5 hours during those months, because some (crazy?) part of me thinks there is a good gameplay experience somewhere in EQ2 if I'll only stick with it.

[Shockeye]

While EQ2 is by far prettier than WoW, I like WoW's style of art better.

[Murgos]

I had assumed encounter locking was to prevent kill stealing and griefing.  I'm not sure how much complexity it actually added.

[Merusk]

I had assumed encounter locking was to prevent kill stealing and griefing.  I'm not sure how much complexity it actually added.

That's easily accomplished by encounter locking the same way WoW does it, however.  First hit gets kill credit & loot rights. (Which is why I'm always amazed when people bitch at you for 1-hitting a mob as they're about to die and you're wandering through)

EQ2 set out to 'solve' the 'problems' of EQ1.  Both the problems the developers saw and the ones the players saw. Devs never liked the Powerleveling that developed in EQ1, and always sought to reduce it, knowing they couldn't completely remove it without too much outcry for the effort.  EQ2 was the 'blank slate' in which they thought they could fix this.

[Tige]

Thx for the invite Cheddar.  If Najena players evaporate I'd switch, right now it seems pretty healthy.  There was actually two instances of Ant last night.


With all the comparisions between eq2 and wow I think a third, ffxi, needs to be thrown into the mix.  I see alot more ffxi in eq2 than I see wow with the exception of the overkill of fed-ex and whack-a-mole "quests".  It's just not the game mechanics either, even the zones are similiar, Soukyan, check out the eq2 expac screens, looks remarkably like the desert ffxi zones, especially coastal shots.