Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Where EQ2 stumbles

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:49:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Where? The reward structure for soloing.

First a quick comparison.

EQ1 number of kills solo to get through level 43: ~60
EQ2 number of kills solo to get through level 25: ~400

EQ1 was mostly against blue con mobs (near but lower than my
character's level). EQ2 was against mostly yellow con mobs (near but
above).

The disparity is staggering, and this is at barely more than half the
level. Some quest experience in there will help out in EQ2 but not by
much - at that level only the best quests give more than 5% of a
level, and usually its more like 2-3%. As a soloer, and playing more
than casually but not to extremes, I could get a level a day
comfortably in EQ1. If I actually had the patience to do it solo all
the time in EQ2 it would take three times as long and that's at barely
above newbie levels.

Basically, soloing is nonviable in EQ2. Now don't get me wrong,
soloing should not be *better* than grouping like it is in WoW until
its endgame (and in some ways even then). That causes so many problems
of its own its an even worse situation. It caused enough problems in
old days of EQ1 when only two classes could actually solo faster than
group, let alone *all* of them. But it has to be at least worth doing
as an option. In EQ1, soloing rarely got you any loot worthwhile (a
few exceptions but basically it was very rare in comparison to what a
group could get). Your reward tended to be experience. And a group
could get experience faster than anyone outside of a charmsoloing (not
DC) enchanter or swarmkiting bard. But you could still *get*
experience as a soloer and progress well that way.

I fully understand and support the "grouping > soloing" concept. But
when "soloing = 0", it's gone too far. I just don't want to bother
with a group all that often. Too many of the other players are
retards, and that goes for pretty much every online game. I had the
patience to grind my way mostly solo through L59 in EQ1 back when
there was no one in my class at L60 on my server and levels were still
a major part of progression. It took two weeks (for that one level).
So I have the patience if I want to get through it. But that was one
level with the lure of no more leveling after it was done (this was
Velious era, no aa yet). It was not every single level from the end of
the early game on!

I like to twobox too, which would solve this problem. Except EQ2's
requirements are so high I can't run two instances of it on this
computer, and the computer, while not cutting edge, is still not that
shabby, certainly not in the upgrade range.

So I think I will not go past EQ2's free month. That is sad, because
it looked like a pretty cool world. I wanted to see more of it.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin

More about : eq2 stumbles

Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:49:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:49:06 GMT, Ben Sisson
<ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrotC:D RIVE_E

>So I think I will not go past EQ2's free month. That is sad, because
>it looked like a pretty cool world. I wanted to see more of it.

You might wish to wait for the "more solo quests" promised Real Soon
Now. Real XP in EQ2 isn't from grinding, it's from quests.

Frig, I went from 63%at 16th level to Ding 17 by finishing the three
butterfly collection quests.

Lizard says: Never waste time killing anything you're not being
quested to kill, unless it's in between you and a quest target. (Or
you're helping a guildie do THEIR quests, in which case, try to pick
it up yourself.)
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:01:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <8q8ar0dotttn9vkddt686apv45atcrs3f0@4ax.com>, Ben Sisson wrote:
> First a quick comparison.
>
> EQ1 number of kills solo to get through level 43: ~60
> EQ2 number of kills solo to get through level 25: ~400

Hmm....I seem to remember EQ1 taking more mobs than that at those levels,
but I was soloing a Wizard, and probably couldn't take as high a blue as
you.

Anyway...what about the downtime? From what I've seen so far in EQ2,
downtime between fights is much lower than in EQ1. Given in both games a
place with an ample supply of mobs, in which would it actually take longer
to level? (Again, this will probably be class dependent...my Wizard had a
lot more downtime between mobs than, say, Druids).

--
--Tim Smith
Related resources
December 7, 2004 7:10:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <8q8ar0dotttn9vkddt686apv45atcrs3f0@4ax.com>,
ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
> Where? The reward structure for soloing.
>
> First a quick comparison.
>
> EQ1 number of kills solo to get through level 43: ~60
> EQ2 number of kills solo to get through level 25: ~400
>
> EQ1 was mostly against blue con mobs (near but lower than my
> character's level). EQ2 was against mostly yellow con mobs (near but
> above).
>
> The disparity is staggering, and this is at barely more than half the
> level. Some quest experience in there will help out in EQ2 but not by
> much - at that level only the best quests give more than 5% of a
> level, and usually its more like 2-3%. As a soloer, and playing more
> than casually but not to extremes, I could get a level a day
> comfortably in EQ1. If I actually had the patience to do it solo all
> the time in EQ2 it would take three times as long and that's at barely
> above newbie levels.
>
> Basically, soloing is nonviable in EQ2. Now don't get me wrong,
> soloing should not be *better* than grouping like it is in WoW until
> its endgame (and in some ways even then). That causes so many problems
> of its own its an even worse situation. It caused enough problems in
> old days of EQ1 when only two classes could actually solo faster than
> group, let alone *all* of them. But it has to be at least worth doing
> as an option. In EQ1, soloing rarely got you any loot worthwhile (a
> few exceptions but basically it was very rare in comparison to what a
> group could get). Your reward tended to be experience. And a group
> could get experience faster than anyone outside of a charmsoloing (not
> DC) enchanter or swarmkiting bard. But you could still *get*
> experience as a soloer and progress well that way.
>
> I fully understand and support the "grouping > soloing" concept. But
> when "soloing = 0", it's gone too far. I just don't want to bother
> with a group all that often. Too many of the other players are
> retards, and that goes for pretty much every online game. I had the
> patience to grind my way mostly solo through L59 in EQ1 back when
> there was no one in my class at L60 on my server and levels were still
> a major part of progression. It took two weeks (for that one level).
> So I have the patience if I want to get through it. But that was one
> level with the lure of no more leveling after it was done (this was
> Velious era, no aa yet). It was not every single level from the end of
> the early game on!
>
> I like to twobox too, which would solve this problem. Except EQ2's
> requirements are so high I can't run two instances of it on this
> computer, and the computer, while not cutting edge, is still not that
> shabby, certainly not in the upgrade range.
>
> So I think I will not go past EQ2's free month. That is sad, because
> it looked like a pretty cool world. I wanted to see more of it.

AS someone who doesn't play EQ2 those numbers are pretty
staggering...but there is a but:

I was under the impression that downtime in EQ2 is virtually
nonexistent. Such that in EQ1, my soloing character spends 75%+ of his
time regenning health/mana. Even at the low levels if I'm not being pok-
buff powerlevelled. Anyway, I'm suggesting that the number of kills you
get per hour soloing in EQ2 is 4x higher... so now its 240:400 instead
of 60:400. 240:400 isn't that bad, better than half, even. Plus you
"know" EQ1... maybe the best spots for soloing in EQ2 aren't known...
perhaps you could drag that 400 down a bit by heading 'elsewhere'. Or
perhaps your equipment isn't as good as it could be. Or you could be
doing more and or better quests.

And most importantly the real question is -why- does it matter if its
400 kills to break 25? Is there enough content that you can do 20 kills
in each of 20 places? Or are have you seen all there is to see of the
25th level game in 40 kills.

In EQ1, levelling has gotten too easy. People gain levels so fast they
miss huge chunks of content that would have been fun if they'd come out
of PC/OT to try them. Perhaps EQ2s approach of slowing it down is a
'good thing'??
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:14:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:

>In article <8q8ar0dotttn9vkddt686apv45atcrs3f0@4ax.com>, Ben Sisson wrote:
>> First a quick comparison.
>>
>> EQ1 number of kills solo to get through level 43: ~60
>> EQ2 number of kills solo to get through level 25: ~400
>
>Hmm....I seem to remember EQ1 taking more mobs than that at those levels,
>but I was soloing a Wizard, and probably couldn't take as high a blue as
>you.

I took that number from one of my logs from a character that never
ever grouped. I do remember it crossing into the 100 range at that
level when I was quadding (so fighting a low dark blue rather than a
high dark blue, just like your wizard). But the 60 number is more
valid - it was the upper limit of what that character could reliably
solo, just like the yellows in EQ2.


>Anyway...what about the downtime? From what I've seen so far in EQ2,
>downtime between fights is much lower than in EQ1. Given in both games a
>place with an ample supply of mobs, in which would it actually take longer
>to level? (Again, this will probably be class dependent...my Wizard had a
>lot more downtime between mobs than, say, Druids).

Its still there in EQ2, just lessoned. Compared to a like level EQ1
character, I don't think I could do much better than two yellows vs
one blue, and now we're talking about TEN TIMES more kills (it was,
iirc, about 30-40 kills per level in the 20s in EQ1).

Soloing in EQ2 just doesn't feel worth doing to me. That means I will
log out rather than solo, which is a mmorpg death sentence (again, for
me).

If I could still take group mobs at that level (green ^^ for example)
it would be a different story, since those gave enough exp to be worth
doing. It would still be over 100 kills I think, but you'd see the
progress. But I can't do it reliably, not without running out of
power. Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but that is not my
impression at all from what other people are saying.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:18:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Ben Sisson wrote:
> Where? The reward structure for soloing.
>

[snip]

>
> Basically, soloing is nonviable in EQ2.

Your analysis is basically correct, perhaps exaggerated just a
little -- I've been doing a little better soloing for exp than it
sounds like you have -- but only a little. However that's true
only if we solely considere adventuring (killing mobs).

The other side of the game -- tradeskilling -- is by definition a
solo activity, and it's already clear how much richer and better
developed that is than it was in EQ1. One clever way that it is
well thought-out is that it successfully involves even players
like me who have zero interest in actual tradeskilling [the idea
of spending recreation time virtually fashioning clothing and
potions via onscreen mouseclicks is to me preposterous]. It does
this through the harvesting of components for the actual
tradeskillers.

Tradeskillers need components which must be harvested out in the
wilds of the gameworld, something which is most easily done
by...adventurers like me. There is a dizzying variety of such
components, and knowing that tradeskillers will buy some of them
for quite high prices makes harvesting into sort of a solo
treasure hunt for us adventuring-oriented players. When I get into
a good group, I happily spend an evening adventuring and earning
experience levels. In between finding nice groups, I'll spend a
little time exploring the same zones harvesting, finding stuff
which I then sell and use to buy armor, spells, weapons, etc. So
I'm getting fun group playtime and fun solo playtime, without
actually becoming a tradeskiller. And I'm getting popular with my
tradeskiller clients too, which can't be a bad thing...


P.S. At release, this system had a bottleneck, which was needing
to level up your harvesting skills in the newbie zones too high in
order to start harvesting in the real hunting zones. So a couple
of weeks ago a few key newbie zones were getting crowded with
20something adventurers doing tedious harvesting in zones where
all the mobs were grayed out to them. However SOE has quickly
grasped the problem and cut the Tier 2 harvesting-skills threshold
in half, so that harvesting-leveling and experience-leveling now
advance together more or less -- I am harvesting in and around the
same mobs that when grouped I hunt for good experience.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:21:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name 42 <nospam@nospam.com>:

>I was under the impression that downtime in EQ2 is virtually
>nonexistent. Such that in EQ1, my soloing character spends 75%+ of his
>time regenning health/mana. Even at the low levels if I'm not being pok-
>buff powerlevelled. Anyway, I'm suggesting that the number of kills you
>get per hour soloing in EQ2 is 4x higher... so now its 240:400 instead
>of 60:400. 240:400 isn't that bad, better than half, even. Plus you
>"know" EQ1... maybe the best spots for soloing in EQ2 aren't known...
>perhaps you could drag that 400 down a bit by heading 'elsewhere'. Or
>perhaps your equipment isn't as good as it could be. Or you could be
>doing more and or better quests.

I don't agree with the amount of downtime you're suggesting for low
level EQ1 characters, but that aside, yes, EQ2 has less downtime, but
even if it had no downtime at all (which is not true) it would still
be taking way more than twice as long per level and I'm still talking
about a L25 EQ2 character vs a L43 EQ1.


>And most importantly the real question is -why- does it matter if its
>400 kills to break 25? Is there enough content that you can do 20 kills
>in each of 20 places? Or are have you seen all there is to see of the
>25th level game in 40 kills.

Remember its not a completely new game after I ding. I may not see all
of it in just L25, but believe me I have seen all of it from L20-30.

>
>In EQ1, levelling has gotten too easy. People gain levels so fast they
>miss huge chunks of content that would have been fun if they'd come out
>of PC/OT to try them. Perhaps EQ2s approach of slowing it down is a
>'good thing'??

I agree, make it slow enough so that they will 1. see the content, and
2. learn to play well enough to build on later, but EQ2 takes it too
far. Much too far.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:27:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name Paul Botts <pauldotbotts@gmailspamthis.dotcom>:

>The other side of the game -- tradeskilling -- is by definition a
>solo activity, and it's already clear how much richer and better
>developed that is than it was in EQ1.

That may be true. I never have been a tradeskiller, in any game. In
game or in real life, if I want something, I tend to buy it, not make
it. Buying it takes a few seconds, making it... well, rather longer.
:-)


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:27:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:qacar094752tbhvknlatbl5jic4iqhlff8@4ax.com...

>>The other side of the game -- tradeskilling -- is by definition a
>>solo activity, and it's already clear how much richer and better
>>developed that is than it was in EQ1.
>
> That may be true. I never have been a tradeskiller, in any game. In
> game or in real life, if I want something, I tend to buy it, not make
> it. Buying it takes a few seconds, making it... well, rather longer.

Take another look at Paul's message. It's not so much about the
tradeskilling itself, it's about the meta game of resource collecting. That
still may not be your thing but it is a whole other world of activity that
has its own significant rewards and rules of engagement, and definitely and
easily soloable. There's something very satisfying about working up each of
your respective gathering skills to enable finding the resources that are in
demand. And when you happen upon one of the really valuable rares, you have
the choice of profitting enormously (you can sell most of them for multiple
gold) or having a very powerful item made up for yourself by a crafter.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:45:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>:

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:49:06 GMT, Ben Sisson
><ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrotC:D RIVE_E
>
>>So I think I will not go past EQ2's free month. That is sad, because
>>it looked like a pretty cool world. I wanted to see more of it.
>
>You might wish to wait for the "more solo quests" promised Real Soon
>Now. Real XP in EQ2 isn't from grinding, it's from quests.
>
>Frig, I went from 63%at 16th level to Ding 17 by finishing the three
>butterfly collection quests.
>
>Lizard says: Never waste time killing anything you're not being
>quested to kill, unless it's in between you and a quest target. (Or
>you're helping a guildie do THEIR quests, in which case, try to pick
>it up yourself.)

All well and good but you'll run out of soloable quests in TS or Nek
*real* fast that way right now, other than the repeatable ones that
give almost nothing for reward.

We'll see how that patch coming Soon (tm) does then.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
December 7, 2004 8:00:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <fobar0157vbfb32onj5fm5bneca87ddnc4@4ax.com>,
ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name 42 <nospam@nospam.com>:
>
> >I was under the impression that downtime in EQ2 is virtually
> >nonexistent. Such that in EQ1, my soloing character spends 75%+ of his
> >time regenning health/mana. Even at the low levels if I'm not being pok-
> >buff powerlevelled. Anyway, I'm suggesting that the number of kills you
> >get per hour soloing in EQ2 is 4x higher... so now its 240:400 instead
> >of 60:400. 240:400 isn't that bad, better than half, even. Plus you
> >"know" EQ1... maybe the best spots for soloing in EQ2 aren't known...
> >perhaps you could drag that 400 down a bit by heading 'elsewhere'. Or
> >perhaps your equipment isn't as good as it could be. Or you could be
> >doing more and or better quests.
>
> I don't agree with the amount of downtime you're suggesting for low
> level EQ1 characters,

Hmmm... I agree at the super low levels that's a bit high. But even in
my mid teens I'd fight for 15-20 seconds and then regen for 2 minutes.
(~15 mana per tic regen for 20 tics is only 300 mana... I'd easily burn
that in an 18 second solo fight in my teens)

> but that aside, yes, EQ2 has less downtime, but
> even if it had no downtime at all (which is not true) it would still
> be taking way more than twice as long per level

I was only guessing at your eq2 kill rate. But it sounds like you'd be
able to kill 150+ mobs in the amount of time it takes to kill 60 in EQ1?
Still leaves you a long way short of matching your EQ1 progress... but
its not quite the picture you originally painted.

> and I'm still talking
> about a L25 EQ2 character vs a L43 EQ1.

That a good point that was never clarified: Is that level progression
assumed or real? Do you perhaps need only 400 yellows at 43 in EQ2 too?
Or do you have reason to beleive that at 43 you'll need 800 or 1600
yellows to progress?
>
> >And most importantly the real question is -why- does it matter if its
> >400 kills to break 25? Is there enough content that you can do 20 kills
> >in each of 20 places? Or are have you seen all there is to see of the
> >25th level game in 40 kills.
>
> Remember its not a completely new game after I ding. I may not see all
> of it in just L25, but believe me I have seen all of it from L20-30.

Fair enough. Is this something you'd expect to be corrected in 2
expansions or perhaps, as some others have mentioned a few patches? Most
new release MMOGs are light on content particularly when compared to the
now venerable EQ1.

> >In EQ1, levelling has gotten too easy. People gain levels so fast they
> >miss huge chunks of content that would have been fun if they'd come out
> >of PC/OT to try them. Perhaps EQ2s approach of slowing it down is a
> >'good thing'??
>
> I agree, make it slow enough so that they will 1. see the content, and
> 2. learn to play well enough to build on later, but EQ2 takes it too
> far. Much too far.

As I see it, the real problem isn't that it takes a long time to level,
but rather that you've consumed all the content for you're level, and
will need to kill 400 mobs per level for the next five levels, before
you can consume new content... and the prospect of killing 2000 'same-
old' mobs is ... unattractive to say the least??
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:00:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c1ed8b953860594989901@shawnews...

> As I see it, the real problem isn't that it takes a long time to level,
> but rather that you've consumed all the content for you're level, and
> will need to kill 400 mobs per level for the next five levels, before
> you can consume new content... and the prospect of killing 2000 'same-
> old' mobs is ... unattractive to say the least??

This isn't a problem for people who group, they clearly have far more
choices at every stage but I can see that it's going to be a problem for the
soloer. I think it's true that EQ2 is even tougher on the soloer than EQ1,
at least at this stage in its evolution. This might change as they tweak
things but I wouldn't expect to see anything dramatic. EQ2 was clearly
designed with the grouped player in mind, despite SOE's claims of ample
soloability. It's not really viable if it requires killing the same thing
1000 times. I know I'd never put up with that.

That being said, I can't say enough about the amount of content in this game
for the grouped player. I just finished up some quests in Stormhold, a place
I thought I'd explored pretty thoroughly in beta. I'm now at the same level
I hit in beta at my highest (24) and just discovered a system of tunnels
below the armory that I never knew existed. Our group spent all night there,
making progress on two quests that had been rather elusive and mysterious,
and discovering a whole new world. We also hit the Tomb of Valor, an
instanced zone that I never got flagged for in beta. We wiped at the
entrance and there's an 8-hour lockout after exiting, so we'll have to try
it again tomorrow. At level 24 I haven't even been through this one dungeon
yet, let alone off the continent, and at 25 I can begin access quests that
will take me off the continent. And everything I'm experiencing on my
starting continent has an analog on the evil side of the world, so at best
I've hit some portion of only half the world.

Maybe SOE will introduce more content for soloers as the game evolves. Right
now it looks like the choice is either group up or face the 400 mobs at 25
syndrome. It's not a problem for me, but I can see how it will affect others
who want more pptions for soloing. God knows there are lots of morons out
there playing and every time I try a pickup group I'm reminded of why I'm
so lucky to be part of a group that has been together since EQ, DAoC, SWG,
and even CoH for some of us.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:43:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:qacar094752tbhvknlatbl5jic4iqhlff8@4ax.com...
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name Paul Botts <pauldotbotts@gmailspamthis.dotcom>:
>
> >The other side of the game -- tradeskilling -- is by definition a
> >solo activity, and it's already clear how much richer and better
> >developed that is than it was in EQ1.
>
> That may be true. I never have been a tradeskiller, in any game. In
> game or in real life, if I want something, I tend to buy it, not make
> it. Buying it takes a few seconds, making it... well, rather longer.
> :-)
>
>
> --
>
> "Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin

I group for xp, solo to do certain quests (other quests fly by in a group),
and to tradeskill. Solo xp at my level (16 brawler) is not great, but i do
know heroic opportunities seem to solve the power issue. Of course, it would
also help to be able to see exactly the effect of different food drink to
regen rates.

I tend to like wandering about harvesting and bashing ... e.g. i have to
kill orc scouts, there's a line of nodes, i'll wander down the line
harvesting and slaying. The harvested items i've been trading straight away
for items or skills i need, using the crafters channel, although due to the
aforementioned lack of food/drink stats, no-one seems to be specialising in
it, so those items tend to get chucked.

If you want to make money and nothing else, you can make a lot solo, by
crafting and doing tasks for your wholesaler, but i am lazy. Collectables
and so forth do sell well.

Another thing about soloing in eq1 was that there used to be a lot of high
level mobs in low level zones... fighting orcs in the oasis, and being
trained by spectres! Now, if you are trained, who cares, leave the mobs
alone and they wander away. They have relatively short aggro radius so far.

I don't find the people on antonia bayle to be hard to group with at all, at
least in the commonlands. There is always someone starting up a group, and
if you don't have a perfect mix, it doesn't really matter. So long as you
have someone in the healing group of classes, someone to tank (as a brawler
i do ok, but i miss the eq1 feign death, eq2 watered it down), it's nothing
like eq1 where i might get turned down from a group.

The fact that a lot of people have as a quest "kill 30 orc pawns" means they
want as many people as possible, because whatever the individual xp is from
the pawn, it's the quest xp that is not divided. Besides, people get
obsessed with finishing quests and clearing out the journal. I do, anyhow.
The way you can rez a priest class if they cast this spell before hand is
funky, so if things wipe, i can fd, then rez the priest. This makes groups
very flexible and desirable.

If you don't like the people you are grouping with, try getting to know ppl
on the chat channels first, then grouping with them.

Good luck anyway, and use feedback politely with positive suggestions, and
they will listen and not dismiss you as a ratbag.

Eski 16 brawler 15 outfitter Antonia Bayle
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:01:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:27:01 GMT, Ben Sisson
<ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrotC:D RIVE_E

>That may be true. I never have been a tradeskiller, in any game. In
>game or in real life, if I want something, I tend to buy it, not make
>it. Buying it takes a few seconds, making it... well, rather longer.
>:-)

Ah. I love TSing. I played a tailor in UO and a weaponsmith in SWG,
and I'm torn between going for carpenter or cook in EQ2. Because of
the way the various buffs work in EQ2 TSing, it's a lot more like
combat than drag/click/repeat. (There's nothing like sitting there,
making your jum-jum pie, and seeing message like "So-and-so was hit
for 250 points of damage due to Frayed Material!" I've seen more
people die at sewing tables than at forges. Tragic.)
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 12:30:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:16:51 -0800, Bob Perez wrote:

> "Ben Sisson" <ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:qacar094752tbhvknlatbl5jic4iqhlff8@4ax.com...
>
>>>The other side of the game -- tradeskilling -- is by definition a
>>>solo activity, and it's already clear how much richer and better
>>>developed that is than it was in EQ1.
>>
>> That may be true. I never have been a tradeskiller, in any game. In
>> game or in real life, if I want something, I tend to buy it, not make
>> it. Buying it takes a few seconds, making it... well, rather longer.
>
> Take another look at Paul's message. It's not so much about the
> tradeskilling itself, it's about the meta game of resource collecting. That
> still may not be your thing but it is a whole other world of activity that
> has its own significant rewards and rules of engagement, and definitely and
> easily soloable. There's something very satisfying about working up each of
> your respective gathering skills to enable finding the resources that are in
> demand. And when you happen upon one of the really valuable rares, you have
> the choice of profitting enormously (you can sell most of them for multiple
> gold) or having a very powerful item made up for yourself by a crafter.

Eh, I don't buy that. It may be a metagame but that's not what I (or a
significant amount of others in my opinion) signed on for. It just smacks
of boring and taking the whack-a-mole gameplay to the extreme. Where is the
challenge of going from plains berry bush to sandwashed rock formation?
Granted, if there are baddies nearby you might have a challenge but isn't
that what the killing is for? In my opinion if you're falling back to this
excuse for a game you might as well wrap it up and hit cancel now. JMO
--
RJB
12/7/2004 9:21:23 AM

Sometimes the need to mess with their heads outweighs the millstone of
humiliation.
--Fox Mulder (X-Files)
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 4:22:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:49:06 GMT, Ben Sisson
<ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Basically, soloing is nonviable in EQ2.

Yep, a lot of the quests aren't completable solo, even when you're a
good few levels above the things you'll be killing.

In my case this isn't a problem - every Friday night my Guild gets
together, and we team up and do the quests we need teams for.

When alone, I'm usually OK, though - you just need to know where to go
in order to hunt. As a Rogue, however, I had a very hard time soloing
green++, who were the common target for people wanting loot, as they
were a lot more likely to drop chests.

I'm still undecided on the 'forced to group' thing - it's annoying,
and ties me into a gameplaying style I might not choose, but I DO have
fun when I team up with guildmates, and the loot drops fast and
furious when I do.

So far, so fun. I'm staying for another month, at least.

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:39:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name 42 <nospam@nospam.com>:
>
> >I was under the impression that downtime in EQ2 is virtually
> >nonexistent. Such that in EQ1, my soloing character spends 75%+ of his
> >time regenning health/mana. Even at the low levels if I'm not being pok-
> >buff powerlevelled. Anyway, I'm suggesting that the number of kills you
> >get per hour soloing in EQ2 is 4x higher... so now its 240:400 instead
> >of 60:400. 240:400 isn't that bad, better than half, even. Plus you
> >"know" EQ1... maybe the best spots for soloing in EQ2 aren't known...
> >perhaps you could drag that 400 down a bit by heading 'elsewhere'. Or
> >perhaps your equipment isn't as good as it could be. Or you could be
> >doing more and or better quests.
>
> I don't agree with the amount of downtime you're suggesting for low
> level EQ1 characters, but that aside, yes, EQ2 has less downtime, but
> even if it had no downtime at all (which is not true) it would still
> be taking way more than twice as long per level and I'm still talking
> about a L25 EQ2 character vs a L43 EQ1.

Thing is, though, what if you were comparing leveling a L25 EQ2 character
now to leveling a L25 EQ1 character 5 years ago? Can you honestly say that
5 years ago, less than ONE MONTH after the game opened, that people were
breezing through Level 25, and some people were already up to Level 40?

Problem is that I doubt you can answer the above question. I honestly doubt
that anyone can, unless they start up a bona-fide original-code server and
allow only true newbies (well, say, newbies with UO and M59 experience) onto
it.

Honestly, I think your comparison here is an apples / oranges thing.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:47:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"dontemailme" <dontemailme@dontemailme.com> wrote

> Another thing about soloing in eq1 was that there used to be a lot of high
> level mobs in low level zones... fighting orcs in the oasis, and being
> trained by spectres! Now, if you are trained, who cares, leave the mobs
> alone and they wander away. They have relatively short aggro radius so
far.

Actually, I *liked* that in EQ1. Nothing keeps you on your toes at a boring
Orc1 camp in E Commons like knowing that there's not 1, but *2* griffons
currently flying around.


> Good luck anyway, and use feedback politely with positive suggestions, and
> they will listen and not dismiss you as a ratbag.

Optimist.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:47:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:47:49 GMT, "Ken Andrews" <gobble@degook.com>
wrotC:D RIVE_E

>Actually, I *liked* that in EQ1. Nothing keeps you on your toes at a boring
>Orc1 camp in E Commons like knowing that there's not 1, but *2* griffons
>currently flying around.

And there are similair hazards in the newbie zones in EQ2...I've seen
two Big Bads in the Peat Bog, one in the caves, and one in Oakmyst.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg Bob Perez <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledshadowpike> wrote:
: Take another look at Paul's message. It's not so much about the
: tradeskilling itself, it's about the meta game of resource collecting. That
: still may not be your thing but it is a whole other world of activity that
: has its own significant rewards and rules of engagement, and definitely and
: easily soloable. There's something very satisfying about working up each of
: your respective gathering skills to enable finding the resources that are in
: demand. And when you happen upon one of the really valuable rares, you have
: the choice of profitting enormously (you can sell most of them for multiple
: gold) or having a very powerful item made up for yourself by a crafter.

This reminds me considerably of the most recent changes to Horizons where
collection fields and initial processing machines are, for the most part,
swarmed with hordes of same Teir mobs. It's beyond me why SOE would want
to copy something as fubar as a Horizons design decision but this is
SOE.

K
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:25:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:8q8ar0dotttn9vkddt686apv45atcrs3f0@4ax.com...
> Where? The reward structure for soloing.
>
> First a quick comparison.
> "Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin

Are you comparing to a twinked character in EQ1? Did you have gear, buffs,
potions etc.... that made soloing easier? That would come close to making
them comparable in terms of the time.

I guess you have to average out the time over all to level a character solo,
not simply compare one level to another. I know it's FAR easier to level a
character to 10 in EQ2 than in EQ1. I leveled my first character in EQ2 to
10th level in about 6 hours. Part of that time was spent looking around and
figuring out the various commands and wondows and stuff. I could NEVER have
levelled a non-twinked (not that I ever had the resources to do major
twinking anyway) character to 10 in 6 hours in EQ1.

Does it really slow THAT significantly when you hit 20 in EQ2?

What about finding a good solo camp? Since there are multiple instances is
it easier to get a good camp without waiting around or travelling so much?

What about MOB aggro? At lower levels at least there are far fewer MOBs that
aggro, so is it easier to find MOB's to solo like it is at low levels?

In the lower levels there are all those random exp bonuses, like "You have
found the Stone of Kaladim!" DING! Do you still get those into the teens and
20's?

So far I really like EQ2. I hope you are wrong about soloing because I
really like to solo and so far that's one of the things I like best about
the game at the lower levels.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Slapfish" <slapfish@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:Nsntd.9692$714.392@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>
> "Ben Sisson" <ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:8q8ar0dotttn9vkddt686apv45atcrs3f0@4ax.com...
>> Where? The reward structure for soloing.
>>
>> First a quick comparison.
>> "Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
>
> Are you comparing to a twinked character in EQ1? Did you have gear,
> buffs, potions etc.... that made soloing easier? That would come close
> to making them comparable in terms of the time.
>
> I guess you have to average out the time over all to level a character
> solo, not simply compare one level to another. I know it's FAR easier
> to level a character to 10 in EQ2 than in EQ1. I leveled my first
> character in EQ2 to 10th level in about 6 hours. Part of that time was
> spent looking around and figuring out the various commands and wondows
> and stuff. I could NEVER have levelled a non-twinked (not that I ever
> had the resources to do major twinking anyway) character to 10 in 6
> hours in EQ1.
>
> Does it really slow THAT significantly when you hit 20 in EQ2?
>
> What about finding a good solo camp? Since there are multiple
> instances is it easier to get a good camp without waiting around or
> travelling so much?
>
> What about MOB aggro? At lower levels at least there are far fewer
> MOBs that aggro, so is it easier to find MOB's to solo like it is at
> low levels?
>
> In the lower levels there are all those random exp bonuses, like "You
> have found the Stone of Kaladim!" DING! Do you still get those into
> the teens and 20's?
>
> So far I really like EQ2. I hope you are wrong about soloing because I
> really like to solo and so far that's one of the things I like best
> about the game at the lower levels.
>

Levelling to 10 in EQ1 is actually trivial since they changed the xp per
mob, and removed all death penalties below level 10.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
Graeme, 17 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:32:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Ben Sisson wrote:

> Where? The reward structure for soloing.
>
> First a quick comparison.
>
> EQ1 number of kills solo to get through level 43: ~60
> EQ2 number of kills solo to get through level 25: ~400

My husband was soloing so that he could catch up to my level and we were
aghast at the disparity between "group" (ie, duo) xp and solo xp. As a
soloer he got .25% per solo encounter, encounters that were challenges for
a 19 bard, and he regularly came within a breath of dying. As a duo, able
to take on green "group" encounters, we got 2% per encounter and it took
us no more time to kill than his solo encounters.

Same amount of time...but .25% to 2%. That is ABSURD. SOE is going much
much too far on this.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Jerelyn Foxeye -- http://www.foxeye-art.com

On Antonia Bayle (EQ):
[20 Iksar Templar] Viizanafyaeth
[6 High Elf Fighter] Foxeye

On Order (Horizons):
[10 Monk/Druid Saris] Foxeye
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:38:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Bob Perez wrote:

> Redbeard
> <Veritas>
> Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
> Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
> Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
> http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Heyyy, you have Ixiss in your guild! She was the first iksar templar on
the server (I believe I was second), so she's sorta my hero right now. ^_^

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Jerelyn Foxeye -- http://www.foxeye-art.com

On Antonia Bayle (EQ):
[20 Iksar Templar] Viizanafyaeth
[6 High Elf Fighter] Foxeye

On Order (Horizons):
[10 Monk/Druid Saris] Foxeye
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:27:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Foxeye Vaeltaja" <foxeye@EEKSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.58.0412071337500.30395@bolt.sonic.net...

> Heyyy, you have Ixiss in your guild! She was the first iksar templar on
> the server (I believe I was second), so she's sorta my hero right now. ^_^

Aye, Ixiss is a great lass, we love her much.

Nice to see you tonight in the Crypt. We were just finishing up some AQ4 for
some guild folks when you ran by.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:42:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"RJB" <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5y1nybm3abbr$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com...

>> Take another look at Paul's message. It's not so much about the
>> tradeskilling itself, it's about the meta game of resource collecting.
>> That
>> still may not be your thing but it is a whole other world of activity
>> that
>> has its own significant rewards and rules of engagement, and definitely
>> and
>> easily soloable. There's something very satisfying about working up each
>> of
>> your respective gathering skills to enable finding the resources that are
>> in
>> demand. And when you happen upon one of the really valuable rares, you
>> have
>> the choice of profitting enormously (you can sell most of them for
>> multiple
>> gold) or having a very powerful item made up for yourself by a crafter.
>
> Eh, I don't buy that. It may be a metagame but that's not what I (or a
> significant amount of others in my opinion) signed on for. It just smacks
> of boring and taking the whack-a-mole gameplay to the extreme. Where is
> the
> challenge of going from plains berry bush to sandwashed rock formation?
> Granted, if there are baddies nearby you might have a challenge but isn't
> that what the killing is for? In my opinion if you're falling back to this
> excuse for a game you might as well wrap it up and hit cancel now. JMO

That'd be fine if I'd said anything like that in my message, lol but I
didn't. The resource collection metagame is just another layer on top of
everything else, it's not anything you or I "signed up for", nor is it the
excuse for a game, it's just another opportunity. You don't like it, that's
fine, because you don't have to, there are plenty of other things to do.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie
December 8, 2004 5:04:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:11:03 -0800, "Bob Perez"
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

>Maybe SOE will introduce more content for soloers as the game evolves. Right
>now it looks like the choice is either group up or face the 400 mobs at 25
>syndrome. It's not a problem for me, but I can see how it will affect others
>who want more pptions for soloing. God knows there are lots of morons out
>there playing and every time I try a pickup group I'm reminded of why I'm
>so lucky to be part of a group that has been together since EQ, DAoC, SWG,
>and even CoH for some of us.

How different do you think your opinion of EQ2 would be without those
people? Do you think you would find groups to get into easily enough?
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:04:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Mike" <Mike@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:fb9dr0d0s7pdnpgn11qae9mnft36hdt62p@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:11:03 -0800, "Bob Perez"
> <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>
>>Maybe SOE will introduce more content for soloers as the game evolves.
>>Right
>>now it looks like the choice is either group up or face the 400 mobs at 25
>>syndrome. It's not a problem for me, but I can see how it will affect
>>others
>>who want more pptions for soloing. God knows there are lots of morons out
>>there playing and every time I try a pickup group I'm reminded of why I'm
>>so lucky to be part of a group that has been together since EQ, DAoC, SWG,
>>and even CoH for some of us.
>
> How different do you think your opinion of EQ2 would be without those
> people? Do you think you would find groups to get into easily enough?

I don't think anything would change. I'm a pretty gregarious person by
nature and always gravitate toward people. Over the years I've learned what
to look for in other gamers to find that kindred spirit, and I've never had
trouble finding groups. If your question is whether EQ2 makes it more
difficult than other games, I don't think so. In fact, I believe the
archetype system promotes greater opportunities for grouping than anything
SOE's ever done before.

--
Redbeard
<Veritas>
Dwarven Mystic and Alchemist
Loyal Citizen of the Antonia Bayle
Current resident of the Willow Wood, City of Qeynos
http://veritas.everquest2guilds.com

Descendant of the Elder Winterfury Thunderwolf
<Resolution, Retired>
Barbarian Prophet of The Tribunal
Retired Citizen of Firiona Vie
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:02:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c1ed8b953860594989901@shawnews>, 42 wrote:
>> I agree, make it slow enough so that they will 1. see the content, and 2.
>> learn to play well enough to build on later, but EQ2 takes it too far.
>> Much too far.
>
> As I see it, the real problem isn't that it takes a long time to level,
> but rather that you've consumed all the content for you're level, and will
> need to kill 400 mobs per level for the next five levels, before you can
> consume new content... and the prospect of killing 2000 'same- old' mobs
> is ... unattractive to say the least??

In EQ1, the problem was made worse by the large death penalty. If you had a
choice of grinding out another 100 mobs where you were, or moving to
someplace new for variety, but moving meant an increased risk of death until
you learned the new spot, and that death would add quite a bit to your
grind, a lot of people would stay put.

DAoC also had a large penalty, but on the first death in each level, it was
only 1/3 normal, and 2/3 on the second death, so eating one death per level
was not nearly as bad as in EQ1. Also, the XP loss was capped to whatever
XP you had in the level, so you could not lose a level. So, whenever you
dinged, you could switch hunting spots without much risk, or go exploring.
This made level grinding more tolerable.

Notice the newer games have gone even farther in reducing death penalties,
especially WoW. I'd expect that in EQ2 (and WoW) people will be much more
likely to move around a lot, rather than just sitting in place grinding out
level after level at one spot.

WoW seems to have a lot less downtime than most other games I've tried, at
least at the low levels. So far, I've almost never bothered using food or
drink (eating food in WoW basically causes you to regen health quickly, and
drink regens mana), because by the time I finish looting, I'm usually close
enough to full health and full mana that the time it would take to actually
consume the food and drink is enough to get me full.

EQ2 isn't quite as fast, but still, it is pretty quick. Also, at the 10%,
20%, etc. marks on the XP bar, you get a boost to full health and power. If
you want to be an obsessive power gamer, you can use this. :-) E.g., if you
see that an area has some easy mobs and some hard mobs, and you are gonna
kill them all, do easy ones until you are just below a 10% boundary, then
do one of the hard ones to push you over, and you finish the fight at full
health and power.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:25:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:

>Notice the newer games have gone even farther in reducing death penalties,
>especially WoW. I'd expect that in EQ2 (and WoW) people will be much more
>likely to move around a lot, rather than just sitting in place grinding out
>level after level at one spot.

Interesting relevent quote from Jim Carrey talking about his new movie
("A Series of Unfortunate Events"):

'"He's a sociopath," Carrey says in his first major interview about
the role. "There's a bit more of an edge to this than the Grinch (whom
Carrey famously portrayed in the 2000 film version). But the danger
has to be real. If it isn't, the victories the kids have aren't
real."'

Funny how in such a simple way, a goofball actor like Jim Carrey
talking about a completely unrelated movie has more insight into why a
weak penalty for death is not necessarily a good thing than a dozen
mmorpg devs and execs.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
December 8, 2004 7:45:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <6vscr05huql072crntkjailk8gtbcsjisk@4ax.com>,
ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:
>
> Funny how in such a simple way, a goofball actor like Jim Carrey
> talking about a completely unrelated movie has more insight into why a
> weak penalty for death is not necessarily a good thing than a dozen
> mmorpg devs and execs.

I hear what you are saying but...

In the real world the stock market can cost you your fortune or triple
it, while buying bonds is very safe, but low yeild. In EQ the
stockmarket is just as risky; it can sitll wipe out your fortune but it
doesn't have rewards to counter balance the risk. It doesn't have any
potential to yeild more than bonds.

Players can choose the safe easy road, and get the best yeild in the
game. So they do. Death is costly, and risking it is pointless because
the rewards for doing so are not proportionally greater. Are not, in
fact, even slightly greater.

Victory in the face of possible death is no more rewarded than victory
in the safest PL camp by a zone in.

Thus the large death penalty is out of place. It encourages people not
to take risks. There is no reward for taking risks, only the possibility
of losing xp. Whats the point of that?
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 7:59:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name 42 <nospam@nospam.com>:

>In article <6vscr05huql072crntkjailk8gtbcsjisk@4ax.com>,
>ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
>> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
>> name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:
>>
>> Funny how in such a simple way, a goofball actor like Jim Carrey
>> talking about a completely unrelated movie has more insight into why a
>> weak penalty for death is not necessarily a good thing than a dozen
>> mmorpg devs and execs.
>
>I hear what you are saying but...
>
>In the real world the stock market can cost you your fortune or triple
>it, while buying bonds is very safe, but low yeild. In EQ the
>stockmarket is just as risky; it can sitll wipe out your fortune but it
>doesn't have rewards to counter balance the risk. It doesn't have any
>potential to yeild more than bonds.
>
>Players can choose the safe easy road, and get the best yeild in the
>game. So they do. Death is costly, and risking it is pointless because
>the rewards for doing so are not proportionally greater. Are not, in
>fact, even slightly greater.
>
>Victory in the face of possible death is no more rewarded than victory
>in the safest PL camp by a zone in.
>
>Thus the large death penalty is out of place. It encourages people not
>to take risks. There is no reward for taking risks, only the possibility
>of losing xp. Whats the point of that?

You say you heard but I think you missed the point completely. The
reward in this case is not material, it is in the form of 'having
fun', or 'being addicted' maybe would be better. People are many times
happier with a rusty sword they feel they earned because of a direct
threat against them getting it than ten swords of elite uberness that
they feel was handed to them.

It's the secret to mmorpg addictiveness. Make them work harder, and
they'll become more addicted (assuming they want to keep playing,
accomplished through other means) right up until they hit the wall...
then comes the hatred.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
December 8, 2004 8:42:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <8d2dr0h27tm13hof4lfnjf91lb2juum729@4ax.com>,
ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name 42 <nospam@nospam.com>:
>
> >In article <6vscr05huql072crntkjailk8gtbcsjisk@4ax.com>,
> >ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
> >> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> >> name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:
> >>
> >> Funny how in such a simple way, a goofball actor like Jim Carrey
> >> talking about a completely unrelated movie has more insight into why a
> >> weak penalty for death is not necessarily a good thing than a dozen
> >> mmorpg devs and execs.
> >
> >I hear what you are saying but...
> >
> >In the real world the stock market can cost you your fortune or triple
> >it, while buying bonds is very safe, but low yeild. In EQ the
> >stockmarket is just as risky; it can sitll wipe out your fortune but it
> >doesn't have rewards to counter balance the risk. It doesn't have any
> >potential to yeild more than bonds.
> >
> >Players can choose the safe easy road, and get the best yeild in the
> >game. So they do. Death is costly, and risking it is pointless because
> >the rewards for doing so are not proportionally greater. Are not, in
> >fact, even slightly greater.
> >
> >Victory in the face of possible death is no more rewarded than victory
> >in the safest PL camp by a zone in.
> >
> >Thus the large death penalty is out of place. It encourages people not
> >to take risks. There is no reward for taking risks, only the possibility
> >of losing xp. Whats the point of that?
>
> You say you heard but I think you missed the point completely. The
> reward in this case is not material, it is in the form of 'having
> fun', or 'being addicted' maybe would be better.

I get that. I really do. But it has to be balanced. As long as EQ has
'the easy way' (static zone-in camps, or maybe a cleric rez-bot, or
stuff like PC, OT, and BoT) it undermines the the 'having fun' or 'being
addicted' that comes from beating a tough encounter.

I banged my lvl 52 sk's poor head against HS last week in a 3 man group
of similiar level players. It was great fun. I died many times. But we
took out every named we saw, and had a blast beating the various wings.
(Except east... we couldn't quite crack east... yet) In 4 days I
couldn't convince a single other person in our level range in either of
the 2 guilds represented by our little 3 man crew to show the slighest
interest in coming out. They went to Greigs End or POI.

A guildie in the same period of time gained 6 levels (I gained 2
yellows) in some PoP PL group he was in. His lifebar never dropped below
90% and his mana never fell below 80%.

I'm sure I had more fun than he did, but I've got a lot less to show for
it. In EQ the fun way is the least productive way (Indeed if my group
hadn't included a 90% rezzing cleric I'd have lost 2 levels instead of
gaining 2 yellows). Its a bad game design. A death penalty that
punishes you for doing something risky in a game that allows you to get
better reward from doing something trivial is counter to any rationale I
can think of.

The death penalty doesn't make EQ more addicting, because people just go
where its trivially easy to avoid dying.

VERY FEW people ever go near content that has the possibility of causing
multiple unrezzed deaths.

EQ would need to be completely revamped to remove trivial & PL content
in order for its death penalty to make sense. Sure you can argue that
people are just cheating themselves by powerleveling in trivial places,
but SOE has to take responsibility for the fact that they've left that
environment intact. It would be better for the game if they closed those
loopholes as they were discovered.

But since they haven't done so, preserving the vicious death penalty is
just an anacronism, one that does nothing more than to further herd
players into the safest easiest places.

> People are many times
> happier with a rusty sword they feel they earned because of a direct
> threat against them getting it than ten swords of elite uberness that
> they feel was handed to them.

Trouble is: What player is going to be smitten with the addiction after
defeating a difficult encounter for rusty swords, when its plain as day
he can do nothing worth mentioning and get much furhter ahead.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 10:36:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Ben Sisson wrote:
> It's the secret to mmorpg addictiveness. Make them work harder, and
> they'll become more addicted (assuming they want to keep playing,
> accomplished through other means) right up until they hit the wall...
> then comes the hatred.

That's true up to a point. Make them work *too* hard and they'll simply
quit.

Finding that fine line is the trick.

--
chainbreaker

If you need to email, then chainbreaker (naturally) at comcast dot
net--that's "net" not "com"--should do it.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:25:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 2004-12-07, Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:27:01 GMT, Ben Sisson
><ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrotC:D RIVE_E
>
>>That may be true. I never have been a tradeskiller, in any game. In
>>game or in real life, if I want something, I tend to buy it, not make
>>it. Buying it takes a few seconds, making it... well, rather longer.
>>:-)
>
> Ah. I love TSing. I played a tailor in UO and a weaponsmith in SWG,
> and I'm torn between going for carpenter or cook in EQ2. Because of
> the way the various buffs work in EQ2 TSing, it's a lot more like
> combat than drag/click/repeat. (There's nothing like sitting there,
> making your jum-jum pie, and seeing message like "So-and-so was hit
> for 250 points of damage due to Frayed Material!" I've seen more
> people die at sewing tables than at forges. Tragic.)

Yeah, EQ2 tradeskilling is nice. I maxed fletching in EQ1, doing it
from the days when it was hard as hell (1 arrow per combine ;)  ),
and it was never fun beyond giving more 'depth' to my ranger
character. The EQ2 system is much more engaging - it remains to
be seen if it remains so though... the forge at level 2 will still
be the forge at level 20, wheras new dungeons and monsters are
new content.

Nontheless, I'm finding it very satisfying having a bank full of
boxes *I* made with *my* name on them, using a rapier I made,
jewellery I made, etc. Its still very low level stuff, but its
kind of fun to be self sufficient like that, and developing
another side of the character. In fact, some of the stuff I've
made is junk.. .but I look in my bank at my 'crude elm strongbox'
with barely more slots than a store bought bag, and its next
to the better and better boxes as I got better. Eventually I'll
sell it, and thats ok, but its more stuff to do.

I like the variety , I guess - combat, quests, tradeskilling. I
even made my own spells as I levelled up, and so far the search
for components hasnt been a tedious mindless grind in the way it
might be in EQ1. Instead of needing 'arbitrary random rune 32
rare drop from zone Xyz' I need many many components... but I can
make these components from the raw materials, if I want to, or
buy them from a more junior tradesperson.

Example:

Rune requires;
lead ornament
lead spike
etc

lead ornament requires
refined lead bar
coal
temper

refined lead bar requires
raw lead
coal
fossil temper

fossil temper requires
chloro wash
liquid
candle

chloro wash requires
roots
liquid
candle

and so on... so I can work all the way from 'I mined my lead,
gathered some roots and bought some water, coal and candles',
or I can just go buy the lower components required, or I can
buy the end product.

Making the item is like combat, sort of... as you make the item
its 'hit points' (progress bar) changes dependant on your
success but your 'hit points' (its durability) decreases. The
trick is to complete the progress bar before all the durability
runs out. Durability is divided into 4 phases, and if you
complete before the 1st has been consumed you make a pristine
item, if you only manage it in the last its crude, with impact
on number returned, quality of end result, etc.

There are various spells (tradeskills) you can use during the
combat to trade off various aspects of the item to boost
progress (its durability, your mana, or your success chance),
and sometimes you will have to use these to respond to special
attacks (events) from the item, such as using 'cutting' to
respond to an unexpected knot in a piece of wood.

Should you ignore those events, as well as damaging the item they
can damage you - you could conceivably be killed by a writing
desk accident while scribing a new spell :) 

Matt
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:28:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 2004-12-07, Ken Andrews <gobble@degook.com> wrote:
> "dontemailme" <dontemailme@dontemailme.com> wrote
>
>> Another thing about soloing in eq1 was that there used to be a lot of high
>> level mobs in low level zones... fighting orcs in the oasis, and being
>> trained by spectres! Now, if you are trained, who cares, leave the mobs
>> alone and they wander away. They have relatively short aggro radius so
> far.
>
> Actually, I *liked* that in EQ1. Nothing keeps you on your toes at a boring
> Orc1 camp in E Commons like knowing that there's not 1, but *2* griffons
> currently flying around.

Wanderers can still aggro you - but once something is trained off its spawn
spot or patrol path, it will not aggro anyone other than the trainer until
it has returned home and continued patrolling, or whatever.

matt
December 8, 2004 6:16:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2004-12-08, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> WoW seems to have a lot less downtime than most other games I've tried, at
> least at the low levels. So far, I've almost never bothered using food or
> drink (eating food in WoW basically causes you to regen health quickly, and
> drink regens mana), because by the time I finish looting, I'm usually close
> enough to full health and full mana that the time it would take to actually
> consume the food and drink is enough to get me full.

What level? Later on food gives buffs. Also I find bandages help
a LOT later on.

I experience downtime starting at level 15 and need to use food
(for buffs) and bandages.
December 8, 2004 6:18:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Moopy <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> writes:

> and so on... so I can work all the way from 'I mined my lead,
> gathered some roots and bought some water, coal and candles',
> or I can just go buy the lower components required, or I can
> buy the end product.

This goes away at higher levels, though, you can no longer make all
the parts you need yourself but need to e.g. buy spikes from a smith
and washes from an alchemist, to make your maple strongbox.

You can still get all the raw material yourself, and have the
satisfaction of knowing you made actual thing you're using, but you
will no longer be self sufficient. You won't need to actually work
together with anyone else, though, you just need to get the materials
from them.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:36:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:MPG.1c2026c99d938b01989908@shawnews:

> In article <6vscr05huql072crntkjailk8gtbcsjisk@4ax.com>,
> ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
>> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
>> name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:
>>
>> Funny how in such a simple way, a goofball actor like Jim Carrey
>> talking about a completely unrelated movie has more insight into why a
>> weak penalty for death is not necessarily a good thing than a dozen
>> mmorpg devs and execs.
>
> I hear what you are saying but...
>
> In the real world the stock market can cost you your fortune or triple
> it, while buying bonds is very safe, but low yeild. In EQ the
> stockmarket is just as risky; it can sitll wipe out your fortune but it
> doesn't have rewards to counter balance the risk. It doesn't have any
> potential to yeild more than bonds.
>
> Players can choose the safe easy road, and get the best yeild in the
> game. So they do. Death is costly, and risking it is pointless because
> the rewards for doing so are not proportionally greater. Are not, in
> fact, even slightly greater.
>
> Victory in the face of possible death is no more rewarded than victory
> in the safest PL camp by a zone in.

Personally, I find that succeeding in a difficult fight is far more
rewarding than a trivial success.

>
> Thus the large death penalty is out of place. It encourages people not
> to take risks. There is no reward for taking risks, only the
possibility
> of losing xp. Whats the point of that?
>

For me, overcoming the challenge is the point.

Regardless, the xp penalty in EQ1 is pretty trivial after a 96% rez, the
only real penalty becomes the additional downtime of the CR, and getting
rebuffed.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
Graeme, 17 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:41:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c2034142a735dc2989909@shawnews:

> In article <8d2dr0h27tm13hof4lfnjf91lb2juum729@4ax.com>,
> ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca says...
>> People are many times
>> happier with a rusty sword they feel they earned because of a direct
>> threat against them getting it than ten swords of elite uberness that
>> they feel was handed to them.
>
> Trouble is: What player is going to be smitten with the addiction
> after defeating a difficult encounter for rusty swords, when its plain
> as day he can do nothing worth mentioning and get much furhter ahead.
>

Personally, I'd get bored to death with that and just quit. I enjoy
challenges in EQ, I do, however, try to get a rez when I do die, but, I
have eaten many unrezzed deaths 60+.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
Graeme, 17 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:46:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Graeme Faelban" wrote:
> RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:D c502o1fxb4n$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com:
>
> > On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:37:02 GMT, AJ wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Did you even play EQ 1 when it first came out? It took people two
> >> months to
> > Ben's been here a lot longer than I remember seeing you.
> >
> >> get to level 30! I'm sure EQ2 has a better balance of equipment, too.
> >> Meaning a twink warrior won't have too much of an advantage over a
> >> nontwinked one. That's where EQ1 went wrong, everyone had a twink
> >> gaining 25
> > I don't recall seeing twinks as a (serious) problem until after
> > Velious. EQ started downhill with Luclin and they haven't slowed down
> > since. As a matter of fact I believe GoD *really* opened that up with
> > the silly book travel BS and the shared bank slots.
>
> PoP for book travel. GoD was shared bank slots though, I think, not
> certain now off hand.

I believe it was LoY for the shared bank slots. That was just about the
only reason I picked that one up.

Crash
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:58:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Moopy <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> wrote:
> On 2004-12-07, Ken Andrews <gobble@degook.com> wrote:
>> "dontemailme" <dontemailme@dontemailme.com> wrote
>>
>>> Another thing about soloing in eq1 was that there used to be a lot of high
>>> level mobs in low level zones... fighting orcs in the oasis, and being
>>> trained by spectres! Now, if you are trained, who cares, leave the mobs
>>> alone and they wander away. They have relatively short aggro radius so
>> far.
>>
>> Actually, I *liked* that in EQ1. Nothing keeps you on your toes at a boring
>> Orc1 camp in E Commons like knowing that there's not 1, but *2* griffons
>> currently flying around.

> Wanderers can still aggro you - but once something is trained off its spawn
> spot or patrol path, it will not aggro anyone other than the trainer until
> it has returned home and continued patrolling, or whatever.
Which is a completely sound bevaviour and a good training for mobs to
stay focussed on their task. Remember: first run back to your spawnpoint
and ignore whatever is on your way. "But there's a little tasty
hobbit..*bonk* STAY FOCUSSED!"

Afterwards jump everything in range. Yeah! ;) 

By the way how do you know whether this wanderer is roaming or just
returning to his spawn? Does he wield a "Do not disturb" sign? :D 


Hagen
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:58:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 2004-12-08, Hagen Sienhold <durragon@web.de> wrote:
> By the way how do you know whether this wanderer is roaming or just
> returning to his spawn? Does he wield a "Do not disturb" sign? :D 
>

If he hurtles towards you, slathering spittle from his fangs, screaming
TASTY HALFLING, while waving a kabob skewer, its a safe bet he wasnt
just returning to his spawn point :) 

Matt
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:19:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Ben Sisson wrote:
> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
> name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:
>
>>Notice the newer games have gone even farther in reducing death penalties,
>>especially WoW. I'd expect that in EQ2 (and WoW) people will be much more
>>likely to move around a lot, rather than just sitting in place grinding out
>>level after level at one spot.
>
> Interesting relevent quote from Jim Carrey talking about his new movie
> ("A Series of Unfortunate Events"):
>
> '"He's a sociopath," Carrey says in his first major interview about
> the role. "There's a bit more of an edge to this than the Grinch (whom
> Carrey famously portrayed in the 2000 film version). But the danger
> has to be real. If it isn't, the victories the kids have aren't
> real."'
>
> Funny how in such a simple way, a goofball actor like Jim Carrey
> talking about a completely unrelated movie has more insight into why a
> weak penalty for death is not necessarily a good thing than a dozen
> mmorpg devs and execs.

A somewhat spurious comparison. A lot of 'feelgood' movies are plotted
like this: Good guys get introduced (audience bonds), good guys get into
trouble (audience experiences pathos), good guys get out of trouble
(audience experiences disgust at blatant contrivances and... oh wait...
it's not a George Lucas film is it?. Audience experiences empathetic
happiness, joy, elation, etc, etc, and are grateful for paying $15 just
for a poxy 2 hours of entertainment). The payoff for watching such a
movie is, of course, directly dependant on the audience's perception of
just how much trouble the good guys were in (and whether or not they
wanted those lameassed Gungan morons to survive the damn war in the
first place... ahem). So Jim Carrey's comment is right on the button.

However, MMORPGs aren't just about getting the playing into danger, and
rewarding them with a 'feeling of triumph' for the simple act (or
accident) of surviving the encounter. They are (arguably *primarily*)
concerned with rewarding the player with shiny baubles (a.k.a 'gear')
and Real Ultimate Power (a.k.a levelling). Mobs are there to provide a
challenge (and a primary mechanic for gaining said rewards), make the
process take longer (or *very much* longer :) , and provide a means for
that lynchpin of addiction-psychology: the lure of the random reward.

Even though death, in and of itself, is only a minor inconvenience (in
WoW at least, and I assume that's the primary target of your subtle
harumphing re death-nerfing), it still imposes a time penalty in the
form of the corpse-run (or the dreaded rez-sickness), which seriously
hampers the player's ability to chase the game's rewards, and is
therefore highly undesirable when viewed in the context of
player-as-loot-hunter. After all, the primary goal of an MMORPG designer
isn't to induce soaring elation and shattering despair in the player,
it's purely and simply to get them hooked, and therefore subscribing,
for as long as possible.

--
Remove the mess to reply.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name Cataleptic <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz>:

>Ben Sisson wrote:
>> A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
>> name Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>:
>>
>>>Notice the newer games have gone even farther in reducing death penalties,
>>>especially WoW. I'd expect that in EQ2 (and WoW) people will be much more
>>>likely to move around a lot, rather than just sitting in place grinding out
>>>level after level at one spot.
>>
>> Interesting relevent quote from Jim Carrey talking about his new movie
>> ("A Series of Unfortunate Events"):
>>
>> '"He's a sociopath," Carrey says in his first major interview about
>> the role. "There's a bit more of an edge to this than the Grinch (whom
>> Carrey famously portrayed in the 2000 film version). But the danger
>> has to be real. If it isn't, the victories the kids have aren't
>> real."'
>>
>> Funny how in such a simple way, a goofball actor like Jim Carrey
>> talking about a completely unrelated movie has more insight into why a
>> weak penalty for death is not necessarily a good thing than a dozen
>> mmorpg devs and execs.
>
>A somewhat spurious comparison.

I consider it apt. It is, in fact, rather close to what I've said in
the past, and have been vindicated by later events that seem to show
the easier something is, the less people value it, which then leads to
boredom faster.


> A lot of 'feelgood' movies are plotted
>like this: Good guys get introduced (audience bonds), good guys get into
>trouble (audience experiences pathos), good guys get out of trouble
>(audience experiences disgust at blatant contrivances and... oh wait...
>it's not a George Lucas film is it?. Audience experiences empathetic
>happiness, joy, elation, etc, etc, and are grateful for paying $15 just
>for a poxy 2 hours of entertainment). The payoff for watching such a
>movie is, of course, directly dependant on the audience's perception of
>just how much trouble the good guys were in (and whether or not they
>wanted those lameassed Gungan morons to survive the damn war in the
>first place... ahem). So Jim Carrey's comment is right on the button.
>
>However, MMORPGs aren't just about getting the playing into danger, and
>rewarding them with a 'feeling of triumph' for the simple act (or
>accident) of surviving the encounter. They are (arguably *primarily*)
>concerned with rewarding the player with shiny baubles (a.k.a 'gear')
>and Real Ultimate Power (a.k.a levelling).

That they are is part of the problem. You simply illustrate why they
don't have the staying power they used to, and further reinforce my
point. They have become about shiny baubles and spreadsheet numbers.
But addiction to mmorpgs doesn't come from that. Addiction comes from
the effort it took to get it. There's already been a scientific study
on this, I'll try to dig up the link again later. But basically you
don't value things that come easy.


>Even though death, in and of itself, is only a minor inconvenience (in
>WoW at least, and I assume that's the primary target of your subtle
>harumphing re death-nerfing)

Assumptions are a dangerous thing. Don't make them unless you are
sure. I am addressing death penalties in all mmorpgs.


>, it still imposes a time penalty in the
>form of the corpse-run (or the dreaded rez-sickness), which seriously
>hampers the player's ability to chase the game's rewards, and is
>therefore highly undesirable when viewed in the context of
>player-as-loot-hunter. After all, the primary goal of an MMORPG designer
>isn't to induce soaring elation and shattering despair in the player,
>it's purely and simply to get them hooked, and therefore subscribing,
>for as long as possible.

And, as mentioned, it is in fact that soaring elation which only comes
under the threat of shattering despair that is the biggest hook of
them all, in the long term, to use your phrasing, though to put it
better: the longer and harder someone needs to work at something the
more addicted they get to it, as long as they maintain the hope of
catching the carrot at some point (if they get discouraged, it all
falls apart and resentment takes over). Has something to do with
dopamine levels or some such thing.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Cataleptic wrote:
> Even though death, in and of itself, is only a minor inconvenience (in
> WoW at least, and I assume that's the primary target of your subtle
> harumphing re death-nerfing), it still imposes a time penalty in the
> form of the corpse-run (or the dreaded rez-sickness), which seriously
> hampers the player's ability to chase the game's rewards, and is
> therefore highly undesirable when viewed in the context of
> player-as-loot-hunter. After all, the primary goal of an MMORPG
> designer isn't to induce soaring elation and shattering despair in
> the player, it's purely and simply to get them hooked, and therefore
> subscribing,
> for as long as possible.

The trick is to find that balance between challenge and frustration.

People simply won't play games that are too hard *or* too easy--according to
their own perceptions of what each is.

That's what enables the games we have to be diverse. If everybody had the
same notions, we'd all be playing the same thing.

--
chainbreaker

If you need to email, then chainbreaker (naturally) at comcast dot
net--that's "net" not "com"--should do it.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:19:33 +1300, Cataleptic
<cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrotC:D RIVE_E

>After all, the primary goal of an MMORPG designer
>isn't to induce soaring elation and shattering despair in the player,
>it's purely and simply to get them hooked, and therefore subscribing,
>for as long as possible.

True enough, but consider this -- if it's possible to race through
content trivially, playes will "see it all", get bored, and leave.

There's also some very worrying comments about PVP from the WoW
designers. One said, on the message boards, he sees no need for any
system to prevent high-level players from ganking newbies, since "if
they don't get any benefit from it, why would they do it?". This
demonstrates an ignorance of griefer psychology that you'd think
Blizzard -- well known for attracting the dregs of the online
community -- should not have.

The boards are currently full of whiners screaming "Nerf this!" and
"My character is too weak!". Blizzard is discovering what they should
have known from the beginning -- a game cannot balance PVP and PVE. If
PVP is the intended endgame, then, the majority of gamers who are
non-PVP will leave. If PVE is the endgame, balancing for PVP will
destroy that. If Blizzard expects to have a satisfying PVE and PVP
endgame, I wish them luck.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Crash86 wrote:
> "Graeme Faelban" wrote:
>
>>RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:D c502o1fxb4n$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:37:02 GMT, AJ wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Did you even play EQ 1 when it first came out? It took people two
>>>>months to
>>>
>>>Ben's been here a lot longer than I remember seeing you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>get to level 30! I'm sure EQ2 has a better balance of equipment, too.
>>>>Meaning a twink warrior won't have too much of an advantage over a
>>>>nontwinked one. That's where EQ1 went wrong, everyone had a twink
>>>>gaining 25
>>>
>>>I don't recall seeing twinks as a (serious) problem until after
>>>Velious. EQ started downhill with Luclin and they haven't slowed down
>>>since. As a matter of fact I believe GoD *really* opened that up with
>>>the silly book travel BS and the shared bank slots.
>>
>>PoP for book travel. GoD was shared bank slots though, I think, not
>>certain now off hand.
>
>
> I believe it was LoY for the shared bank slots. That was just about the
> only reason I picked that one up.
>
> Crash
I wanted the extra bank space. And the lizards... and I never saved up
enough to replace my horse with a lizard.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:48:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Moopy <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> wrote:
> On 2004-12-08, Hagen Sienhold <durragon@web.de> wrote:
>> By the way how do you know whether this wanderer is roaming or just
>> returning to his spawn? Does he wield a "Do not disturb" sign? :D 
>>

> If he hurtles towards you, slathering spittle from his fangs, screaming
> TASTY HALFLING, while waving a kabob skewer, its a safe bet he wasnt
> just returning to his spawn point :) 
LOL - nice return. :D 


Hagen
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:49:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in news:AIKtd.3565$706.1294
@fe05.lga:

> "Graeme Faelban" wrote:
>> RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:D c502o1fxb4n$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com:
>>
>> > On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:37:02 GMT, AJ wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >> Did you even play EQ 1 when it first came out? It took people two
>> >> months to
>> > Ben's been here a lot longer than I remember seeing you.
>> >
>> >> get to level 30! I'm sure EQ2 has a better balance of equipment,
too.
>> >> Meaning a twink warrior won't have too much of an advantage over a
>> >> nontwinked one. That's where EQ1 went wrong, everyone had a twink
>> >> gaining 25
>> > I don't recall seeing twinks as a (serious) problem until after
>> > Velious. EQ started downhill with Luclin and they haven't slowed
down
>> > since. As a matter of fact I believe GoD *really* opened that up
with
>> > the silly book travel BS and the shared bank slots.
>>
>> PoP for book travel. GoD was shared bank slots though, I think, not
>> certain now off hand.
>
> I believe it was LoY for the shared bank slots. That was just about
the
> only reason I picked that one up.
>

Yeah, that sounds right, they all kind of run together now...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
Graeme, 17 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar
!