EQ2 to boost solo play - Test Update #27a

[Kenrick]

Heh... that's as valid a reason as any.  WoW's art production department deserves all the accolades they can get.

Personally, I just got to the point where I wasn't having much fun anymore, and my billing cycle was just about up.

I'll probably go back and give WoW another spin once the expansion comes out.  And then I'll probably play that for a month or two and quit again.

[Soln]

geldonyetich, I never ever knew that about the tooltips.  Man, I don't know this game at all.  Thx for the help.

[shiznitz]

Why do they have that crazy ^^^, ^^, ^ designation?  I haven't been able to find out if these are 10%, 20%, or 30% harder?  And how are these different from "Heroic" mobs?  EQ2 is very confusing.

^^^ = 2 ^^s = 3^s = 4 no ^s. Basically, each ^ means more HP and higher DPS per mob. ^^^ and ^^ are always heroics, ie group mobs.

You will never see 2 ^^^ in one encounter unless you are in a raid instance. Hard group encounters can be ^^^ + 2 ^^s but those also tend to be in raid scenarios.  Down arrow mobs are always solo (meaning soloable, not necessarily alone) mobs.

All they really need to do is let the player know if a mob is meant to be a solo mob or not. We can already tell what mobs are grouped together because highlighting one mob in an encounter will highlight all the mobs in that encounter so the ^^^ versus 2 ^^s becomes superfluous.

[Sky]

If you're getting XP and leveling...what's the difference? The vast majority of quests, in any game, are one-offs.

My problem is being excluded from cool stuff. If I hadn't been able to solo in Guk, I wouldn't have lasted nearly as long. And it's not like it was simple or newbie friendly. The only friendly thing about Guk was the spawn timer so you could control spawns a little. But little things we take for granted like switching from Gather Shadows to Invis to Undead on the way down, I learned the hard way before people had ever been in Guk :)

I don't play mmo for levels or xp, that's simply a character customization schema, like picking hair color but more useful in gaming terms. I play for the cool experiences, exploration, and interesting opportunities. EQ2 says you need to group for that.

If EQ2 had a Guk, I wouldn't make it past the entry spawns. That's why I don't like EQ2.

[Glazius]

Hi, drooling Co* fanboy. Some questions about solo-vs-group and conning in EQ2.

1) At any given time, how many players are solo, versus grouped? Or isn't there any way to tell?

2) Is there something that would prevent ^^^s from making mobs con visually higher than their levels would indicate? Co* cons lieutenants as +1, bosses as +2, archvillains as +5, and underlings as -1.

--GF

[geldonyetich]

Hi, drooling Co* fanboy.

If the grind doesn't bother you yet, no harm in sticking with CoH.  I say this just because I've bad experience with overdiluting my MMORPG commitment.  I wouldn't jump ship for EQ2 until CoH is proving genuinely painful.

Some questions about solo-vs-group and conning in EQ2.
1) At any given time, how many players are solo, versus grouped? Or isn't there any way to tell?

EQ2's somewhat outdated /who interface doesn't have a method to determine who is grouped and who isn't (unlike CoX's nifty dimmed-out-if-grouped names).  However, to judge it from circumstantial evidence, I'm going to stay that most players play solo except when there's a particularly nasty place they need to hunt.  I think there's actually more grouping going on in City of Heroes/Villains than there is in EQ2, at least until you get up to higher levels when raiding becomes the order of the day.  This is probably because CoX makes it easier to find group members.

2) Is there something that would prevent ^^^s from making mobs con visually higher than their levels would indicate? Co* cons lieutenants as +1, bosses as +2, archvillains as +5, and underlings as -1.

The arrows are specifically there because mobs will con visually higher than their levels would indicate.  There's ^^^ green-colored mobs with a Heroic graphic on their name that would trash you where most green-colored mobs (without the ^^^) are a cake walk.  EQ2's con system is actually a very, very good con system.  You'll have a very good idea how tough a mob is... after you figure the overly complex thing out.

[Soln]

ya like a lot of things in EQ2 some good design is obscurred by some bad UI implementation.  The tooltips are pretty comprehensive and to the point (once Geldonyetich actually pointed me to them).  Do they mention then in the Trial of the Isle?

[Glazius]

2) Is there something that would prevent ^^^s from making mobs con visually higher than their levels would indicate? Co* cons lieutenants as +1, bosses as +2, archvillains as +5, and underlings as -1.

The arrows are specifically there because mobs will con visually higher than their levels would indicate.  There's ^^^ green-colored mobs with a Heroic graphic on their name that would trash you where most green-colored mobs (without the ^^^) are a cake walk.  EQ2's con system is actually a very, very good con system.  You'll have a very good idea how tough a mob is... after you figure the overly complex thing out.

I mean, why skip the middleman? If green is "easy-peasy" and red is "WILL KILL YOU", why not make green+^^^+Heroic look "WILL KILL YOU" red?

--GF

[geldonyetich]

Do they mention then in the Trial of the Isle?

Not sure.  If so, it'd be in the main isle quest on the first trainer you're sent to speak to before first engaging a target.  The different frames on the "easy", "normal" and "formidable" opponent choice you're presented with are probably there to try to clue players in, but I'm not sure how well the trainer's dialogue points those out.

I mean, why skip the middleman? If green is "easy-peasy" and red is "WILL KILL YOU", why not make green+^^^+Heroic look "WILL KILL YOU" red?

Green is always supposed to mean "easy", even if it's a ^^^ Heroic.  The difference is that ^^^ heroic is easy for a group to handle, even if it would thoroughly thrash a solo player. 

So, why didn't they just make it so green ^^^ Heroics would con red if you were solo but green if you were in a group? 

My guess is that the color blind players wanted a system they could use as well.  Thus, a more visual system such as the frame + arrows system became mandatory.

SOE, despite their bad rep for ignoring their players, actually seems to have the problem being the other way around: many design choices that players find negative are due to their listening to the playerbase.  SWG's NGE, for example, was due to exit surveys exceeding their existing playerbase and much of the existing playerbase saying the current combat was boring.

[Sky]

I preferred NGE to the old HAM garbage. They could never understand that telling a rifleman his big deal was causing mind damage was a bit screwy because we had to damage our own mind to do it...HAM was just so fucked up it wasn't fun. NGE was fucked up, but still fun. Most fun I had in SWG was after the NGE.

[Glazius]

I mean, why skip the middleman? If green is "easy-peasy" and red is "WILL KILL YOU", why not make green+^^^+Heroic look "WILL KILL YOU" red?

Green is always supposed to mean "easy", even if it's a ^^^ Heroic.  The difference is that ^^^ heroic is easy for a group to handle, even if it would thoroughly thrash a solo player. 

So, why didn't they just make it so green ^^^ Heroics would con red if you were solo but green if you were in a group?

My guess is that the color blind players wanted a system they could use as well.  Thus, a more visual system such as the frame + arrows system became mandatory.

Can groups handle "WILL KILL YOU" red enemies with no special bells and whistles with about the same level of proficiency they could handle green heroic ^^^s?

I can see how frame + arrows can provide redundant information to the con color, and information redundancy is A Good Thing, but given how huge a discriminator color is, deciding _not_ to use it to convey challenge information seems a little weird.

--GF

[geldonyetich]

Can groups handle "WILL KILL YOU" red enemies with no special bells and whistles with about the same level of proficiency they could handle green heroic ^^^s?

Hard to say, rarely do I ever get to wrestle with red enemies considering I keep hitting green things that I've outleveled in order to get quests done :P.  But I will say this much - higher level (red con) targets will prove harder to hit and resist spells more often and higher defensive scores so what does hit would hit it less.  So it's possible that a red con with no special bells and whistles could threaten a group where a green heroic ^^^ wouldn't.  The ^^^ basically just means "hits harder and has more hitpoints", where red cons hit harder, have more hitpoiints, and everything else related to level advantage.

[shiznitz]

Mobs that con red (solo or heroic) are going to own you hard. When a mob is orange to you (+3-4 levels) you miss a lot and the mob will miss rarely. Red (+5 and higher) is evern worse.

[Phred]

Does the zone design in EQ2 change much after you leave the newbie isle? I tried the trial of the isle and didn't like it because the zones felt so cramped with high walls everywhere. Way different than EQ or WoW.

[Venkman]

It does. But the game doesn't really get any prettier. They seem to love that muddy dull-lighting look, striving for the low points of ultra-realistic dingy Middle Ages. Which is a shame. You put any person in front of any screenshot from WoW and any from EQ2 and I'll guarantee more than3/4 of them prefer WoW. This is EQ2 and WoW both at ultra-max AAx200 AFx200 settings and whatnot. WoW is just more inviting by nature of its style.

"immersion" is more than just feeling like you're there. It's actually wanting to be there, and this is something EQ2 has always had a problem with. Which is a shame. It's not like they couldn't hire better artists. And it's not like those artists couldn't force the engine to render things better.

EQ2's con system is actually a very, very good con system

Good though it is at explaining things, it's based on a poor premise. To me, the /con system is complex because the system is complex because they were so scared to allow people to make mistakes and learn from them, and for other people to jump in and help at whim. They basically made the system so contrived they had no choice but to use this laborously overworked ^^^ approach.

I say forget that noise. Levels only, maybe "Elite/Lieutenant/Boss" if you need to as an exception. If someone dies because a mob is particularly hard based on skillset/template, fine, they learn. But they can't just do that without tweaking everything else, from Linked Encounters to the death penalty to "Call for Help".

I've always said EQ2 gives players just too much information. It prevents creativity and emergent behavior. Those can be bad things, time sinks for devs. But they also are good things, when properly managed. They can build the all-important community. Even the most contrived iterative and predictable CoX/WoW raids feel like they would accept more player creativity than any EQ2 encounter. It's just too predictable at its most basic, and therefore likely unchangeable at this point, foundation.

[Sky]

I always forget about those mudsucking linked encounters.

[Signe]

Me too.  They shouldn't bother me so much, but they do.  They're really not such a big deal, but they are.

[Venkman]

It's the first thing I disliked about the game. Shortly thereafter was the Call for Help thing. The entire system seems anathema to random social encounters, because apparently they hated how much that burned them in EQ1 or something.

When I played it again early this year (based on Pub 19), I liked the game alot. It still gave too much info though, because it had to, and it still is quick ugly (even on top-end computers I was able to play it on). Ultimately, I feel the game controls you more than you do it. WoW is not so very different, it's just far less obvious about it. Sorta like old EQ.

[tazelbain]

I don't think many people here played this part of the game, but EQ2 deserves kudos for making dungeons fun and worthwhile to crawl through.  Of course the problem was getting a stable group so you didn't have to restart(evac) everytime you had to replace someone.  They should emulate Puzzle pirates and allow people to teleport to team when they join.

I really dislike the starting outdoor zones  (Antonia, Thundersteppes, etcs).  They are really bland but wide open.  And as a solo player you are pretty much stuck there until you graduate to EL and Zek.

[Surlyboi]

It does. But the game doesn't really get any prettier. They seem to love that muddy dull-lighting look, striving for the low points of ultra-realistic dingy Middle Ages. Which is a shame. You put any person in front of any screenshot from WoW and any from EQ2 and I'll guarantee more than3/4 of them prefer WoW. This is EQ2 and WoW both at ultra-max AAx200 AFx200 settings and whatnot. WoW is just more inviting by nature of its style.

Here, I've got to disagree. I like EQ2's look because it's dingy. I look at WoW's landscape and backdrop and I'm left feeling bored. It's overly fantastical and I feel like yet another cog in the machine that's churning out useless adventures. I look at the landscape in EQ2 and the backstory and see a world that's been torn apart and haphazardly put back together. I feel like someone that has a stake in making that world make sense again. Maybe it's just me.

That said, I agree with the rest of your points about the Con system feeling overly-engineered.

[Soln]

I don't think many people here played this part of the game, but EQ2 deserves kudos for making dungeons fun and worthwhile to crawl through.  Of course the problem was getting a stable group so you didn't have to restart(evac) everytime you had to replace someone.  They should emulate Puzzle pirates and allow people to teleport to team when they join.

I really dislike the starting outdoor zones  (Antonia, Thundersteppes, etcs).  They are really bland but wide open.  And as a solo player you are pretty much stuck there until you graduate to EL and Zek.

you're not talking about Stormhold right, because man that place needs to be blown up.  It's bad design when your 5 man party falls to crap when only one person leaves. 

[Sky]

And as a solo player you are pretty much stuck there until you graduate to EL and Zek.

And then you are pretty much stuck there. EQ2 just makes me want to play EQ (until I remember how much that game bugs me, like downtime). I was considering playing some EQ2 here shortly, but just remembering ^^^ and linked mobs sours it for me. Add in the inability to enjoy dungeons without having a group and I think I'll just play some more Gothic 2.

As I've said, not being able to solo in a dungeon like Guk - one of my favorite parts of EQ, even though it was slow gameplay mostly - is where I think EQ2 failed utterly.

[Nebu]

EQ2 is long on structure and short on heart.  There's almost no room to be creative in the game.  Knowing exactly what will come on a given pull really ruined much of the fun and gave the game an almost sterile feel. 

As for mobs, the con system is somewhat uninspired. I don't know why they couldn't have used a color con system that was active and changed depending on your group situation.  For example, rather than the ^^^ they could have the mobs in a heroic encounter con purple to a solo player but say red to a group of 2, orange to a group of 3, and yellow to a group of 4+.  The con could also be adjusted for the average level of the group member.  That seems much more intuitive.   

[tazelbain]

you're not talking about Stormhold right, because man that place needs to be blown up.

You are right Stormhold is a bad place to crawl.  Its a throw back to the old crappy dungeons of EQ.  A low level dungeon with a few high level spawns plus aggro through walls doesn't make for much fun. The only thing good about it was power leveling on slimes at the chessboard.

t's bad design when your 5 man party falls to crap when only one person leaves.

On some level thats a player choice on the difficulty of the area you choose to fight in. But if your group loses your trinty(tank/healer/DPS) you really have no choice but to evac.  That's why think you should allow every class to fill any trinty role.  How fun would be if your cleric was tanking(using his goldly powers to keep mobs cowering), your rogue was your healer(using potions keep everyone healthy) and your warrior was your dps(using his rage to rain devistating blows upon you enemies).  Than you can make groups with anyone you meet. And if your healer leaves your second warrior can step up and be the healer( intecepting blows meant for others, shouts to help everyone recover).  Plus give every class a balanced soloing mode.  No one is left out.

And then you are pretty much stuck there.

Well there are more trash areas for you to move to later. :-D

[shiznitz]

I liked Stormhodl because of the reminder of "crappy EQ1" dungeons. It was pretty easy to get multiple encounters on a pull in SH. Knowing the zone well and being cautious was an important part. The benefit was a high density of mobs and some really nice quests. One of the best parts of SH was also one of the most ignored: dropping down the well to the goblin area. The first time you went down there, it was a disaster because of the wandering mobs. It really reminded me of Guk, but without the maze.

I like the encounter system in EQ2 because without it, groups would need an enchanter again. EQ2 did a fantastic job of un-EQing the holy trinity. But when one designs around an encounter system, the encounter placement becomes really important so that the risk of wiping is still there. It is rare in EQ2 to find a wandering mob that is actually tied into a larger encounter group. This is something EQ2 should do more of:

"wanderer incoming. pull it!"
"ACK! it is linked to others around the corner"
"ADD!"

The con system makes this hard for the devs to disguise though, because a ^^^ is almost always alone and a ^ is rarely alone.

[Sky]

Maybe some wandering damage tables, too, shiz? 

[Venkman]

I'm not a huge fan of games requiring X or Y class, but most do in some way for some zones. As to hybrids being able to fill roles, it seems that players eventually prefer well-defined specialists for the most part over jack-of-all-trades second-bests. If there's specialists, they'll be preferred. Which is a shame as it liimits creativity by players and therefore limits the need for creatiivty on part of the devs.

I look at the landscape in EQ2 and the backstory and see a world that's been torn apart and haphazardly put back together. I feel like someone that has a stake in making that world make sense again. Maybe it's just me.

I actually agree EQ2s world seems a bit, err, "deeper" maybe, due to how things like Guild Levels, faction relationships with guards and so on are pulled off. I don't get that sense from the graphics, but as you say, different preferences. To me, the thing I love abiout WoW's graphics is that it's much more diverse. There's decrepid and dingy offset by way bright and stylized. Actually reminds me of EQ1 in that regard, a game I consider to have the best all around zone design diversity going.

On dungeons though, while I liked some of what EQ2 did, I really think DDO has some of the better ideas going. Traps, puzzles, sure there's lots of sameness, and DDO is even more dingy than EQ2, in an MxO sorta way. But there's some solid thinking in there I wish others would pick up. Would be nice to see iterated elsewhere. Dungeons can be more than just mobs, bosses and drops.

[Surlyboi]

Agreed on DDOs dungeons. The traps are a welcome addition to them.

As for my perspective on EQ2s dinginess, I take it as an extension of the formerly bright things that were the analogous zones in the original EQ. The shitholes of EQ2 were once the bright towers of EQ1 and have fallen into despair and disrepair. It's almost romantic in its own way. Of course, that romance ends with the two protagonists dead in some bizarre manner, but romantic nonetheless.

[Soln]

agreed about the variety of challenges in DDO dungeons, but c'mon -- that's all the game has

[Miasma]

Since the traps are static they are fun and exciting about once, usually less than that since there is almost always someone in the group has done the dungeon before you and will tell you to stop before reaching it.

Whatever happened to DDO, have they shut down the servers yet?

[Sky]

On dungeons though, while I liked some of what EQ2 did

Yeah...wish I could've seen more of the dungeons. They seemed ok, just completely hostile to solo play.

[Zetor]

[...]I don't see this in WoW or DAoC[...]

You might be forgetting WoW's "Elite" and "Epic" mobs, which work somewhat identically to EQ2's, preventing solo quest completion until long after you've outleveled them.

Granted, we're in agreement that EQ2's method of designations are unneccessarily wierd.  Players have to learn that the size of the frame around the mob's name indicate it's general toughness, with additional modifiers in the up arrows.  One can get used to it in time, but it's somewhat trial and error.

Nitpick: You can solo a lot (almost all) of the elite quests in WOW, often when they are red or orange (if it's a "get item and run" quest) and almost always when it's yellow or just turned green (if it's a kill quest). There are maybe one or two quests per zone (sometimes not even that many) that require more than 1 person to complete. Of course it's more efficient to do elite kill quests in a group, but the option to solo 'em is there.. which might be a good thing if you were only able to group for 14 of the 15 foozles and need to kill the 15th by yourself.
Compared to that, soloing 'elite' quests in EQ2 (I only got to the mid20s) was a pain in the ass... as an enchanter (illusionist?) I'd frequently go out of mana just killing one mob while frantically trying to keep the other 3 in the encounter mezzed, and then trying to regain enough mana to kill a second, run away, then repeat. It wasn't even particularly challenging, just frustrating. IMO. :p


-- Z.