Cancelled EQ2

[Guest]

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

I cancelled my EQ2 subscription. Since it was on 3 month billing and this
was 2 days after the free month ran out, my account will still work for a
while, so I'll probably play now and then and see if it gets better, but for
now, my plans are WoW for a while, and I'll also pick up the new DAoC
expansion soon. I'm willing to maintain two MMORPG subscriptions, and I
think those will be WoW and DAoC.

My problem with EQ2 is that it just doesn't feel like an MMORPG to me. The
combination of locked encounters and not being able to even buff people
outside the group makes it so you have most of the disadvantages that some
have pointed out with instances (hi Ben!), without the advantages. It's
basically a shared instance--a concept that hurts my brain.

In EQ1 or DAoC, if I am fighting somewhere or passing through an area, and
see other players, we can affect each other. We have to worry about not
training each other, not aggroing each others mobs, and stuff like that. In
EQ2, the main affect of other players in the same area is to reduce the
number of mobs available.

I also dislike what happens when you break a locked encounter. Breaking it
makes it so no one gets XP or quest credit for it. So, once someone not in
my group engages a mob, if they get in trouble, there is no way for them to
ask us for help with the encounter. All they can do is break the encounter
and ask for help in not dying. Basically, you can only get help to avoid
losing a fight--you can't get help to win a fight, unless you arrange for
that help before the fight starts.

Then there is the way grouped mobs work. I've got a quest to kill 40
gnolls. If I go out and find a group of three gnolls, engage them, kill
two, and then decide that I am not going to be able to beat the third, and
run away--no XP and no quest credit for the two I've killed. I could kill
5000 gnolls and not complete my "kill 40" quest, just because I didn't kill
them in the way the game wants me to. I'd not mind this so much if they'd
have made it make sense...e.g., if the quest was to loot 40 gnoll scalps or
something like that...then killing a couple and running would clearly not
satisfy the quest requirements.

I'm also not pleased with the solo content. I mostly play MMORPGs either
solo or with a small group of RL friends. Soloing has gotten rather slow
for my Druid at level 13. Most of my quests are either green (and give very
little XP) or involve groups of 5 or 6 blue mobs or groups of 3 double
up-arrow blue mobs. Advancing by old fashioned killing, rather than quests,
requires an ungodly number of kills (it feels like EQ1 did in the 50's).

It's basically a single-player game, except they replaced the single player
with a single group.

--
--Tim Smith

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:21:58 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>In EQ2, the main affect of other players in the same area
>is to reduce the number of mobs available.

IOW you're saying EQ2 became much easier and less dull without any
accidental trains and KSing.

I have tried EQ2 using the 7 days trial. It didn't win me over at all
while I was hooked onto EQ more easily on just the first day.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:21:58 GMT, Tim Smith wrote:

> I cancelled my EQ2 subscription. Since it was on 3 month billing and this
> was 2 days after the free month ran out, my account will still work for a
> while, so I'll probably play now and then and see if it gets better, but for
> now, my plans are WoW for a while, and I'll also pick up the new DAoC
> expansion soon. I'm willing to maintain two MMORPG subscriptions, and I
> think those will be WoW and DAoC.
Mine got it about three days ago. I'd like to go back to DAoC - the new
models look a bit better to me. Only problem is I don't know what's been
added that's new. I might try WoW if I get solvent again.

>
> My problem with EQ2 is that it just doesn't feel like an MMORPG to me. The
> combination of locked encounters and not being able to even buff people
> outside the group makes it so you have most of the disadvantages that some
> have pointed out with instances (hi Ben!), without the advantages. It's
> basically a shared instance--a concept that hurts my brain.
This was my wife's gamekiller. It really does break immersion when she has
to ask *which* Antonica or *which* Oakmyst I'm in. Same for me to a lesser
extent. I really do think they've gone overboard on the instancing.

>
> In EQ1 or DAoC, if I am fighting somewhere or passing through an area, and
> see other players, we can affect each other. We have to worry about not
> training each other, not aggroing each others mobs, and stuff like that. In
> EQ2, the main affect of other players in the same area is to reduce the
> number of mobs available.
I wish they'd have done something along the lines of DAoC in this respect.
Give the helper some experience (outside of the encounters experience) but
not let them take the whole encounter (killstealing). I just picture all
the avatars running around in EQ2 with full body condoms. Don't interact
too much with your fellow players you might get some of their experience. I
know they implemented it to combat PLing but to me it just takes away from
the game.

>
> I also dislike what happens when you break a locked encounter. Breaking it
> makes it so no one gets XP or quest credit for it. So, once someone not in
> my group engages a mob, if they get in trouble, there is no way for them to
> ask us for help with the encounter. All they can do is break the encounter
> and ask for help in not dying. Basically, you can only get help to avoid
> losing a fight--you can't get help to win a fight, unless you arrange for
> that help before the fight starts.
And you gotta love the pickup groups where it is leader only to break the
encounter. That can be abused just as well as anything else. Woe be to the
GL who breaks an encounter that is winnable (even though to them it might
look otherwise). Or the one who breaks it just for spite.

>
> Then there is the way grouped mobs work. I've got a quest to kill 40
> gnolls. If I go out and find a group of three gnolls, engage them, kill
> two, and then decide that I am not going to be able to beat the third, and
> run away--no XP and no quest credit for the two I've killed. I could kill
> 5000 gnolls and not complete my "kill 40" quest, just because I didn't kill
> them in the way the game wants me to. I'd not mind this so much if they'd
> have made it make sense...e.g., if the quest was to loot 40 gnoll scalps or
> something like that...then killing a couple and running would clearly not
> satisfy the quest requirements.
Amen

>
> I'm also not pleased with the solo content. I mostly play MMORPGs either
> solo or with a small group of RL friends. Soloing has gotten rather slow
> for my Druid at level 13. Most of my quests are either green (and give very
> little XP) or involve groups of 5 or 6 blue mobs or groups of 3 double
> up-arrow blue mobs. Advancing by old fashioned killing, rather than quests,
> requires an ungodly number of kills (it feels like EQ1 did in the 50's).
It's out there. They're funneling you into the quests to advance. That's
fine except that (IMO) the majority of quests that give you any goodly
amount of experience would require a group to complete. Or if you did them
solo you'd have to be several levels higher than optimal and get a lesser
reward anyway. I would like the option of the quest giver telling me, "Hey,
this mission I'm going to give you might be a bit much for you. You're
going to need friends. Still want to take it?".

--
RJB
12/15/2004 11:34:24 AM

When I get real bored, I like to drive down town and get a great parking
spot, then sit in my car and count how many people ask me if I'm leaving.
--Steven Wright

 

[Guest]

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

Tim Smith wrote:

> My problem with EQ2 is that it just doesn't feel like an MMORPG to me. The
> combination of locked encounters and not being able to even buff people
> outside the group makes it so you have most of the disadvantages that some
> have pointed out with instances (hi Ben!), without the advantages. It's
> basically a shared instance--a concept that hurts my brain.

This might be the heart of why I canceled from EQII. I love playing
priest classes in EQL, but in EQII one seemed only useful in a group, or as
wandering rez machine. The "not being able to heal people in an encounter
unless you are grouped with them" also is a deal killer for the way I like
to play. In EQL, I've made friends by being willing to toss off a quick
heal at a critical moment for someone else. In EQII, unless you are
grouped with someone, there really is no reason to talk to them at all.
And I think this "no need to speak" mentality put a big damper on the
general chatter and conversations that I miss from EQL.


> Then there is the way grouped mobs work. I've got a quest to kill 40
> gnolls. If I go out and find a group of three gnolls, engage them, kill
> two, and then decide that I am not going to be able to beat the third, and
> run away--no XP and no quest credit for the two I've killed. I could kill
> 5000 gnolls and not complete my "kill 40" quest, just because I didn't kill
> them in the way the game wants me to. I'd not mind this so much if they'd
> have made it make sense...e.g., if the quest was to loot 40 gnoll scalps or
> something like that...then killing a couple and running would clearly not
> satisfy the quest requirements.

Yeah, I could tell early on that I wasn't going to like this, either.
It felt very artificial to me, much more an immersion breaker than the
instancists of the various zones. Some guys tells me to kill 40 gnolls. I
find a group of 3, kill 2, and run away from the 3. The guy who gave me
the quest then says "Sure, you killed two, but you did let that third get
away. I'm so upset about that that I'm not even going to count the two you
did kill!"

I felt cut off from other players from the very start because of the
game mechanics, and truly felt the constant immersion breaker of certain
game elements. What finally pushed me over the edge was the "pay
exorbitant prices for more character slots, altaholics." As I've said, I
know that MMORPGs are businesses, and they ought to be making a profit. I
don't mind paying enough in my monthly sub to make that happen. But when
they take the "gouge the players in any conceivable way" philosophy that
SOE so enthusiastically embraces.

--
Annie

In EQII:

Unsubscribed

AGE EverQuest Live FAQ:
http://www.icynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm

Mirrored at:
http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/age.faq.htm

http://www.derfy.net/agefaq.html

_______

If you can't figure out my email address, you're not supposed to write me.

 

[Guest]

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

Tim Smith wrote:
> I cancelled my EQ2 subscription. Since it was on 3 month billing and
> this was 2 days after the free month ran out, my account will still
> work for a while, so I'll probably play now and then and see if it
> gets better, but for now, my plans are WoW for a while, and I'll also
> pick up the new DAoC expansion soon. I'm willing to maintain two
> MMORPG subscriptions, and I think those will be WoW and DAoC.

It seems like it's one and done for a lot of people regarding EQ2.

I left for WoW after a month, too, and intended on returning to EQ2 later,
but the more I hear about aspects of the game I'd yet to encounter, the more
I doubt that'll ever happen, unless there are some significant changes.

--
chainbreaker

If you need to email, then chainbreaker (naturally) at comcast dot
net--that's "net" not "com"--should do it.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:39:23 -0500, Lance Berg wrote:

<snip>

> I think whats happening is that EQ2 treats "grouped mobs" as single
> entities, you have to kill the whole group or you didn't beat the
> entity. You aren't forever locked out of beating that quest just
> because you missed one mob of a group, any groups you kill still count,
> its just that the two you killed out of the group of three never do
> count. Or am I wrong there?
Yes, that is correct.

>
> Killing a couple, looting their scalps, and running would mean that the
> two scalps do count... I don't see how thats any different than just
> killing them, running, and having them count would be. Maybe I'm
> missing what you are saying.
But they don't. You said it yourself above. They're in a group. So if you
kill two of the three you *don't get* the two scalps no matter what you do
with the third (unless you kill it too). The other alternative is to seek
out the uncommon "solo" gnoll.


>
> The distinction does seem to be artificial to me, and maybe a solution
> would be for them to ask you to go stop "gangs of gnolls" rather than
> give you a count of individual gnolls but only count individuals out of
> full groups killed. What they want seems to be consistant, they just
> aren't describing it clearly.
The games mechanics don't give you that option. Say you had to kill 10
gnolls. You could take out a group of 3 by yourself (they'd most likely be
green or grey to you) so you'd need *4* groups of 3 to finish. Or you could
do 3 groups and try to find a solo.

>
>> I'm also not pleased with the solo content. I mostly play MMORPGs either
>> solo or with a small group of RL friends. Soloing has gotten rather slow
>> for my Druid at level 13. Most of my quests are either green (and give very
>> little XP) or involve groups of 5 or 6 blue mobs or groups of 3 double
>> up-arrow blue mobs. Advancing by old fashioned killing, rather than quests,
>> requires an ungodly number of kills (it feels like EQ1 did in the 50's).
>
> Many people have said much the same thing (although most of them seem to
> feel soloing peters out around 20, not 13)
>
> I'd bet some of this is just a question of class, or of tactics. Are
> druids really a solo class? Just because a class of the same name in
> EQ1 was, doesn't mean that they are in EQ2, which is in many ways a
> different game confused by similar terms. And EQ2 has only been around
> a couple months, its unreasonable to expect that the best tactics have
> already been discovered, look at the way EQ1 evolved
Quite honestly with the system in place I really don't see where "tactics"
come into play. You click the mob and it tells you the con and even whether
it's above the con or significantly above the con (up arrows) and whether
they're linked (group). The only tactics involved are the HOs and I see
them becoming more of a spam extra damage (or buff) than anything else.

>>
>> It's basically a single-player game, except they replaced the single player
>> with a single group.
>>
> Hmm, no, I'm not sure I agree entirely, since you don't have to stick
> with the same group for the entire time you play; you can swap members
> in and out, or reduce the number of people in the group (assuming your
> group is two or more) or increase it (assuming its 5 people or fewer).
What's the difference? It still *plays* like a single player game (the same
could be said about any MMOG out there. It really boils down to the
individuals play style) - only the npc's you'd pick up in a single player
game are replaced by real people. I can do what you describe above in
Baldur's Gate or PS:T or in (most) any other CRPG.

** Let me say again, it plays that way because he plays that way (or feels
like it).
>
> I do see, though, how your objection to being unable to benefit from
> people helping you works to your point here; you aren't in a world where
> you can be buffed or helped out in a fight; you can only be rescued,
> thats not a whole lot of interaction within the thing you spend the most
> time doing; fighting.
>
> I'm not convinced, though, that I'd feel the same way about it; by and
> large I found I didn't like the way outside buffs and outside help
> affected EQ1; they meant people would get uber buffs and take on targets
> that should have been impossible, or mow thru possible targets as though
> they were trivial; they meant that people would get outside buffs and
> then have little need for the classes that could have provided those
> buffs in group; they meant people would drag around high level alts to
> trivialize what they were doing... I think for the most part that this
> sort of play damaged the game and contributed to the feeling that you
> should level up to 50, 60, 65, 70 (depending on what the top level of
> the game was at the time) as quickly as possible, where the "real" game
> starts.
My feeling is they should have implemented level based buffs. A 50 won't be
able to get a buff to stick on a 30. The spell set in EQ2 is *much* smaller
than in EQ. Most spells are "upgrades" of lower level spells. I believe you
should be able to buff within this "upgrade" zone. For example, you get
your nifty uber shield spell at level 10. Your next upgrade is level 15.
You should be able to buff people with the level 10 spell up until they're
15. Not overpowering by any means but also not limiting the players the way
it is now. And BTW Sony shot themselves in the foot with the leveling craze
(in other words it's not just because of buffing). All of the extra content
from post-Luclin on (IMO) is meant for top level raiders. What have they
added (as far as content) for the under 50 crowd since then?

>
> If this approach means that people actually play from 1 to 50, instead
> of power leveling past it, and that each class is valued for what it can
> contribute, instad of just what it can contribute that you can't get
> from some outside buffer sitting around in the equivalent of POT, I
> think I'd like it more, not less.
I agree with you here that they should be *played* from 1 to 50+. What I
disagree with are the methods to force you into doing it. My highest
character (in five years) in EQ was only 47. I never made 50. But I had
tons of alts. The lower and mid levels are what made the game to me.
Seeking out new areas and exploring was my bag. For me, there just came a
time when I felt SOE didn't care about the lower level content at all
anymore and they lost me. They lost me with EQ2 even more rapidly when I
discovered the wrapper was prettier than the box. Tear off the wrapper and
you have an ugly brown box (empty).


--
RJB
12/15/2004 1:38:39 PM

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results."
-Albert Einstein

 

[Guest]

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

"Tim Smith" wrote:
> I cancelled my EQ2 subscription. Since it was on 3 month billing and this
> was 2 days after the free month ran out, my account will still work for a
> while, so I'll probably play now and then and see if it gets better, but
for
> now, my plans are WoW for a while, and I'll also pick up the new DAoC
> expansion soon. I'm willing to maintain two MMORPG subscriptions, and I
> think those will be WoW and DAoC.

I did the same thing before my free month was over, and promptly removed the
client.

Cancelled EQLive and removed the client.

Cancelled Anarchy Online and removed the client.

I'll keep WoW for the first six months, then decide on it. Right now it's
the best fit for my gaming style (and the amount of time I can donate toward
playing a game). Plus it's fun with a ton of upside with no discernable
downside as of yet. I freely admit I was expecting the worst for it, given
the potential of the game being overrun with B*Net kiddies. So far I've not
run into a single issue along those lines.

I'm interested in giving Tabula Rasa a try when it hits OB. Heck, I may
even try Vanguard. ;-)

Crash

 

[Guest]

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

I think are forgetting that time and time again, Sony has stated that
their games are made to where you have to have other people help you.
Neither EQ1 or EQ2 are really solo games. The way that I see it. Any
game that is online and multiplayer is ment to be played with other
people (even if you are given the chance to play solo).

I do agree with you though about the part about lock mobs and the quest
credit if you dont complete the encounter. I was in beta for 3 months,
and that is one thing that bugged the hell out of me. I also hated how
(me being a healer) could not help keep people alive who were not in my
group. Seems pretty unrealistic to me. But then again, perhaps they
werent shooting for realism.

__________________________________________________________
Submitted by: Vidden
This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:49:58 -0600, Crash86 wrote:

> 'm interested in giving Tabula Rasa a try when it hits OB. Heck, I may
> even try Vanguard. ;-)

I think Vanguard will probably be my "next big thing". Tabula Rasa reminds
me of AO too much (graphicswise - call me vain but I like da eye candy).
--
RJB
12/15/2004 3:39:31 PM

Finally, we come to my number two man. His name? Number Two.
--Dr. Evil

 

[Guest]

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

"RJB" wrote:
news:19sk4yw9ntxg6.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:49:58 -0600, Crash86 wrote:
>
> > 'm interested in giving Tabula Rasa a try when it hits OB. Heck, I may
> > even try Vanguard. ;-)
>
> I think Vanguard will probably be my "next big thing". Tabula Rasa reminds
> me of AO too much (graphicswise - call me vain but I like da eye candy).

I never had an issue with AO's graphics. I'm happily willing to sacrifice
graphics for smoothness of play.

That's probably why the SOE graphics engine debacle angered me so much ...
my opinion was that it wrecked gameplay for no valid reason.

Crash

 

[Guest]

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

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
news:XYidnV6C8f1P613cRVn-sA@dejazzd.com:
> I'm not convinced, though, that I'd feel the same way about it; by and
> large I found I didn't like the way outside buffs and outside help
> affected EQ1; they meant people would get uber buffs and take on
> targets that should have been impossible, or mow thru possible targets
> as though they were trivial; they meant that people would get outside
> buffs and then have little need for the classes that could have
> provided those buffs in group; they meant people would drag around
> high level alts to trivialize what they were doing... I think for the
> most part that this sort of play damaged the game and contributed to
> the feeling that you should level up to 50, 60, 65, 70 (depending on
> what the top level of the game was at the time) as quickly as
> possible, where the "real" game starts.
>
> If this approach means that people actually play from 1 to 50, instead
> of power leveling past it, and that each class is valued for what it
> can contribute, instad of just what it can contribute that you can't
> get from some outside buffer sitting around in the equivalent of POT,
> I think I'd like it more, not less.
>

The outside buffing issue is solved in EQ2, seperate from the locked
encounters really. You must be grouped with someone for their buffs to
stick. I still play EQ2, mostly because friends do, not because I think
it's better than EQ1. I dislike the encounter locking personally, I
dislike the inability to help others with something as simple as a heal
or rez. I am not thrilled with the tradeskill system. Basically, if I
were not playing with friends, I'd close my EQ2 account, and who knows, I
may yet do that, as I also play EQ1 with friends.

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

On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
Graeme, 18 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar

 

[Guest]

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

Quoth RJB :

> Mine got it about three days ago. I'd like to go back to DAoC - the
> new models look a bit better to me. Only problem is I don't know
> what's been added that's new. I might try WoW if I get solvent again.

I'm "playing" a little more Second Life these days. I'm considering
wether take the plunge and take a monthly subscription (as opposed to
the one-time visitor fee) so I can create some permanent content.

--
An Apple a day keeps Microsoft away.

 

[Guest]

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

On 15 Dec 2004 18:08:31 GMT, David Navarro wrote:

> Quoth RJB :
>
>> Mine got it about three days ago. I'd like to go back to DAoC - the
>> new models look a bit better to me. Only problem is I don't know
>> what's been added that's new. I might try WoW if I get solvent again.
>
> I'm "playing" a little more Second Life these days. I'm considering
> wether take the plunge and take a monthly subscription (as opposed to
> the one-time visitor fee) so I can create some permanent content.

Well congratulations if you decide to take the subscription. Especially if
the game is right for you. <g> My first one was about as good as #insert
bad game name here#.
--
RJB
12/15/2004 1:24:00 PM

"Lisa, if you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every
day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way."
-Homer Simpson

 

[Wolfie]

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

Graeme Faelban wrote:
> Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
> news:XYidnV6C8f1P613cRVn-sA@dejazzd.com:
>> I'm not convinced, though, that I'd feel the same way about it; by
>> and large I found I didn't like the way outside buffs and outside
>> help affected EQ1; they meant people would get uber buffs and take on
>> targets that should have been impossible, or mow thru possible
>> targets as though they were trivial; they meant that people would
>> get outside buffs and then have little need for the classes that
>> could have provided those buffs in group; they meant people would
>> drag around high level alts to trivialize what they were doing... I
>> think for the most part that this sort of play damaged the game and
>> contributed to the feeling that you should level up to 50, 60, 65,
>> 70 (depending on what the top level of the game was at the time) as
>> quickly as possible, where the "real" game starts.
>>
>> If this approach means that people actually play from 1 to 50,
>> instead of power leveling past it, and that each class is valued for
>> what it can contribute, instad of just what it can contribute that
>> you can't get from some outside buffer sitting around in the
>> equivalent of POT, I think I'd like it more, not less.
>>
>
> The outside buffing issue is solved in EQ2, seperate from the locked
> encounters really. You must be grouped with someone for their buffs
> to stick.

I really like that. The whole concentration angle
makes sense. I'm not too sure of the buffs which don't
take concentration, however -- giving someone a SoW
doesn't take concentration, but disappears when not
grouped, for instance. I'd rather see a 1/4 concentation
cost for it -- to make it consistent. (And to stop the
constant recasting.) There's no reason why they
couldn't have put in smaller buffs that way IMO. But,
as is, it's a "good thing" in general.

> I dislike the encounter locking personally,

I'm willing to put up with it simply to avoid the training
and KS nonsense that goes with it. It too has flaws
but it's damn hard to train someone intentionally in
EQ2 -- and KS is just impossible, at least within
their definition of KS. More than that, it stops the
ability to power-level.

> I dislike the inability to help others with something as
> simple as a heal or rez.

Neither of which is impossible now -- you just can't
power-level by doing so while they fight.

While some seem to concentrate on the KS or
whatever, it seems what they REALLY focused
on was stopping power-leveling. If you played
a druid up to 50 and decide you'd really rather
have a brawler, that's fine -- you just actually
have to *play* the brawler up in levels. I
certainly power-leveled in EQ (nothing like
leveling a wizard with KEI and Aego and
mod rods from level 1 up...) But I also know
that wizard wasn't anywhere near as good at
his class as he would have been without it...

> I am not thrilled with the tradeskill system.

Me either but I was never happy with the mindless
click-fest tradeskills were in EQ either. This is a
bit better than that -- but needs tweaking to make
it workable. Of course we're not really seeing
what it will be like yet either due to the tradeskill
society leveling, etc.

 

[Guest]

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

RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:19hlkyjk66lrn$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:39:23 -0500, Lance Berg wrote:
>> I'd bet some of this is just a question of class, or of tactics. Are
>> druids really a solo class? Just because a class of the same name in
>> EQ1 was, doesn't mean that they are in EQ2, which is in many ways a
>> different game confused by similar terms. And EQ2 has only been
>> around a couple months, its unreasonable to expect that the best
>> tactics have already been discovered, look at the way EQ1 evolved
> Quite honestly with the system in place I really don't see where
> "tactics" come into play. You click the mob and it tells you the con
> and even whether it's above the con or significantly above the con (up
> arrows) and whether they're linked (group). The only tactics involved
> are the HOs and I see them becoming more of a spam extra damage (or
> buff) than anything else.

Actually, the (group) vs (solo) designation tells you if it is intended
to be a solo encounter or a group encounter. You can find single mobs
that are designated as group encounters. The linking you see based on
the mobs lighting up if you click on one of them.

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

On Steamfont
Graeme, 18 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,alt.games.everquest2 (More info?)

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> I cancelled my EQ2 subscription. Since it was on 3 month billing and this
> was 2 days after the free month ran out, my account will still work for a
> while, so I'll probably play now and then and see if it gets better, but for
> now, my plans are WoW for a while, and I'll also pick up the new DAoC
> expansion soon. I'm willing to maintain two MMORPG subscriptions, and I
> think those will be WoW and DAoC.

If I maintain two, it will be EQ2 and WOW. However, I may cancel EQ2
depending upon what my experience is like over the next couple of weeks
[month is up on Jan 9].

>
> My problem with EQ2 is that it just doesn't feel like an MMORPG to me. The
> combination of locked encounters and not being able to even buff people
> outside the group makes it so you have most of the disadvantages that some
> have pointed out with instances (hi Ben!), without the advantages. It's
> basically a shared instance--a concept that hurts my brain.

I can't speak from experience with previous MMORPG games, as I have
none, but I agree, I like the ability to help out a guy who suddenly
finds himself over his head. I have thanked, and been thanked, numerous
times in Wow for just such a scenario. While it is not horrible to have
to ghost back to your body over a 5 minute period, it can be a boring
run and a fight to survive once resurrected. Certainly helping a player
to avoid this when you can [i.e. stumble on the situation] is a good way
to meet others. I have had no such opportunity in EQ2, which tries to
focus on being group oriented, but this feature certainly has a negative
impact in this area.

>
> In EQ1 or DAoC, if I am fighting somewhere or passing through an area, and
> see other players, we can affect each other. We have to worry about not
> training each other, not aggroing each others mobs, and stuff like that. In
> EQ2, the main affect of other players in the same area is to reduce the
> number of mobs available.

If find this latter effect in Wow as well.

>
> I also dislike what happens when you break a locked encounter. Breaking it
> makes it so no one gets XP or quest credit for it. So, once someone not in
> my group engages a mob, if they get in trouble, there is no way for them to
> ask us for help with the encounter. All they can do is break the encounter
> and ask for help in not dying. Basically, you can only get help to avoid
> losing a fight--you can't get help to win a fight, unless you arrange for
> that help before the fight starts.

This hasn't bothered me much. I would rather survive without experience
than die with it. Personally, I think it is a fair enough trade.
Perhaps I am answering for your comments below, but they really are
similar. The jury is out for me whether blocking an engaged encounter
from being hijacked by another player looking to kill steal is a good
thing or a bad thing [as implemented].

>
> Then there is the way grouped mobs work. I've got a quest to kill 40
> gnolls. If I go out and find a group of three gnolls, engage them, kill
> two, and then decide that I am not going to be able to beat the third, and
> run away--no XP and no quest credit for the two I've killed. I could kill
> 5000 gnolls and not complete my "kill 40" quest, just because I didn't kill
> them in the way the game wants me to. I'd not mind this so much if they'd
> have made it make sense...e.g., if the quest was to loot 40 gnoll scalps or
> something like that...then killing a couple and running would clearly not
> satisfy the quest requirements.

You can run away without pressing the "yell for help" button and you
shouldn't lose your experience.

>
> I'm also not pleased with the solo content. I mostly play MMORPGs either
> solo or with a small group of RL friends. Soloing has gotten rather slow
> for my Druid at level 13. Most of my quests are either green (and give very
> little XP) or involve groups of 5 or 6 blue mobs or groups of 3 double
> up-arrow blue mobs. Advancing by old fashioned killing, rather than quests,
> requires an ungodly number of kills (it feels like EQ1 did in the 50's).

I am only a Human Priest Level 9, but I have not really found that
solo play is being neglected. Actually, I am rather looking forward to
some group play. I am concerned that there won't be enough players at
the time I get there. Looking for people last night proved to be a task
all on its own.

>
> It's basically a single-player game, except they replaced the single player
> with a single group.
>

I am not so sure about that. I can say that there is a vagueness about
many of the EQ2 quests that sometimes just drives me nuts. Go find so
and so in this city. Nevermind that it is a large place. At least,
indicate where I might find them with some sort of hint, rather than
forcing me to check every dang building. I find it frustrating because
I think I have checked every building and talked to every person and I
still didn't find my goal! Wow seems to have this handled in a much
more seamless manner. The quests at least are concise. They are not
just handed to you [in general], but they give enough details so that
you don't spend your time in a completely futile manner. If the goal is
to explore the whole zone ... they tell you to [i.e. think Frostmane
Hold].

I have enjoyed both games, so I am hesitant to give up one or the other,
but I doubt I want to pay for two subscriptions. I may play one game
for awhile and eventually migrate to the other. If so, I will almost
certainly stick with Wow as my first choice.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

 

[Guest]

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

On 15 Dec 2004 20:29:10 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> You can run away without pressing the "yell for help" button and you
> shouldn't lose your experience.

Wrong. If you get far enough away it breaks the encounter and gives you the
"You will no longer get experience for this encounter." I don't know about
the experience (nor could I care) but I *know* you don't get credited with
a quest token.
--
RJB
12/15/2004 3:42:53 PM

There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry.
-George Armstrong Custer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,alt.games.everquest2 (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>>My problem with EQ2 is that it just doesn't feel like an MMORPG to me. The
>>combination of locked encounters and not being able to even buff people
>>outside the group makes it so you have most of the disadvantages that some
>>have pointed out with instances (hi Ben!), without the advantages. It's
>>basically a shared instance--a concept that hurts my brain.
>
>
> I can't speak from experience with previous MMORPG games, as I have
> none, but I agree, I like the ability to help out a guy who suddenly
> finds himself over his head. I have thanked, and been thanked, numerous
> times in Wow for just such a scenario. While it is not horrible to have
> to ghost back to your body over a 5 minute period, it can be a boring
> run and a fight to survive once resurrected. Certainly helping a player
> to avoid this when you can [i.e. stumble on the situation] is a good way
> to meet others. I have had no such opportunity in EQ2, which tries to
> focus on being group oriented, but this feature certainly has a negative
> impact in this area.
>
From reports (I haven't played EQ2), you -can- help someone out in EQ2,
IF they want you to (which was a player developed rule in EQ1, you never
help someone who doesn't want the help), and IF they throw away any
possible reward.

The difference in EQ1, and apparantly in WOW, is that its possible to
help out and still let them keep the rewards, and in EQ1, its also
possible to "help out" someone against their will, possibly even taking
the rewards for yourself on purpose or by accident. Player consensus in
EQ1 was that unless they said otherwise, people would rather try things
on their own and sink or swim on their own efforts, and certainly
wouldn't want to risk having some interloper steal the rewards of the
fight by "helping" unrequested, whether honestly trying to assist or
dishonestly trying to take the kill.

Perhaps most EQ2 players feel the same way; they'd rather try and
survive on their own, and suffer death if they fail, then give up any
chance at the rewards of the kill; thats a little harsher than the EQ1
situation, where they -might- still get the kill, depending on what kind
of help they get... but oddly even though the odds are better in EQ1 its
still something most people turn down when asked.

>
>>In EQ1 or DAoC, if I am fighting somewhere or passing through an area, and
>>see other players, we can affect each other. We have to worry about not
>>training each other, not aggroing each others mobs, and stuff like that. In
>>EQ2, the main affect of other players in the same area is to reduce the
>>number of mobs available.
>
>
> If find this latter effect in Wow as well.
>
Thats the "babyproofing" aspect of EQ2 people keep complaining about;
they've bent over backwards to prevent people messing you up, and in
consequence stolen much of the interaction between people, and made
content more static; when you don't have to worry about a possible
train, ever, there aren't as many surprises.

>
>>I also dislike what happens when you break a locked encounter. Breaking it
>>makes it so no one gets XP or quest credit for it. So, once someone not in
>>my group engages a mob, if they get in trouble, there is no way for them to
>>ask us for help with the encounter. All they can do is break the encounter
>>and ask for help in not dying. Basically, you can only get help to avoid
>>losing a fight--you can't get help to win a fight, unless you arrange for
>>that help before the fight starts.
>
>
> This hasn't bothered me much. I would rather survive without experience
> than die with it. Personally, I think it is a fair enough trade.
> Perhaps I am answering for your comments below, but they really are
> similar. The jury is out for me whether blocking an engaged encounter
> from being hijacked by another player looking to kill steal is a good
> thing or a bad thing [as implemented].

>
>>I'm also not pleased with the solo content. I mostly play MMORPGs either
>>solo or with a small group of RL friends. Soloing has gotten rather slow
>>for my Druid at level 13. Most of my quests are either green (and give very
>>little XP) or involve groups of 5 or 6 blue mobs or groups of 3 double
>>up-arrow blue mobs. Advancing by old fashioned killing, rather than quests,
>>requires an ungodly number of kills (it feels like EQ1 did in the 50's).
>
>
> I am only a Human Priest Level 9, but I have not really found that
> solo play is being neglected. Actually, I am rather looking forward to
> some group play. I am concerned that there won't be enough players at
> the time I get there. Looking for people last night proved to be a task
> all on its own.
>
The claim people are making is that as you level up some more, you get
to a point where soloing becomes impossible, or at least extremely
tedious. At level 9 you are still well under that point (most people
seem to say up around 20, but Tim's saying as low as 13 here).


> I have enjoyed both games, so I am hesitant to give up one or the other,
> but I doubt I want to pay for two subscriptions. I may play one game
> for awhile and eventually migrate to the other. If so, I will almost
> certainly stick with Wow as my first choice.
>

I can't see paying for 2 games at once, I can only play a fixed amount
of time per month no matter how many games I'm splitting that amongst,
which means playing 2 games is paying twice as much per hour of play. I
guess at 15 bucks or so per month I shouldn't care, but I'm more
philosophical than that, I'm as concerned over wasting 5 bucks a month
as I am about wasting 500, its the principle of the thing!

Lance

 

[Guest]

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

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> writes:
> I found I didn't like the way outside buffs and outside help
> affected EQ1; they meant people would get uber buffs and take on targets
> that should have been impossible, or mow thru possible targets as though
> they were trivial; they meant that people would get outside buffs and
> then have little need for the classes that could have provided those
> buffs in group; they meant people would drag around high level alts to
> trivialize what they were doing... I think for the most part that this
> sort of play damaged the game and contributed to the feeling that you
> should level up to 50, 60, 65, 70 (depending on what the top level of
> the game was at the time) as quickly as possible, where the "real" game
> starts.

But rather than make it impossible to buff or otherwise aid people
outside your group, if the goal was to prevent high level characters
PLing lowbies, why not be more direct? Make it impossible to cast
spells or otherwise aid a character too many levels below you. Or
at least disallow high level spells (i.e., maybe it's okay to let a
high level character cast low level spells). EQ1 did some of that
when they changed KEI and various other spells to require the target
be at least a certain level. Better yet, to keep it simpler for good
samaritans to do "drive-by buffs", just let that high level druid
cast SOE or Shield of Thorns, and if the target is too low they only
get the effect (and duration) of SOW or Shield of Thistles. (Hm,
might be best if the caster only got docked the mana for the lower
spell, too.)

I *really like* that when I'm dashing into Rivervale to visit the
druid guild or tribute master, I can look around there and in Misty
and often find a lowbie on whom I can throw a few buffs. Sure, it's
a bit of PLing, but (a) if they don't like it they can click them off,
and (b) I'm not sticking around to keep the buffs fresh, so they still
have to do most of the work on their own. I certainly got my share of
such passing buffs when I was starting out, and I enjoy passing along
the kindness. EQ2 really doesn't sound like my cup of Qeynos Afternoon
Tea at all.

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 51 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 38 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 35 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don

 

[Guest]

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

Don Woods wrote:

> Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> writes:
>
>>I found I didn't like the way outside buffs and outside help
>>affected EQ1; they meant people would get uber buffs and take on targets
>>that should have been impossible, or mow thru possible targets as though
>>they were trivial; they meant that people would get outside buffs and
>>then have little need for the classes that could have provided those
>>buffs in group; they meant people would drag around high level alts to
>>trivialize what they were doing... I think for the most part that this
>>sort of play damaged the game and contributed to the feeling that you
>>should level up to 50, 60, 65, 70 (depending on what the top level of
>>the game was at the time) as quickly as possible, where the "real" game
>>starts.
>
>
> But rather than make it impossible to buff or otherwise aid people
> outside your group, if the goal was to prevent high level characters
> PLing lowbies, why not be more direct? Make it impossible to cast
> spells or otherwise aid a character too many levels below you. Or
> at least disallow high level spells (i.e., maybe it's okay to let a
> high level character cast low level spells). EQ1 did some of that
> when they changed KEI and various other spells to require the target
> be at least a certain level. Better yet, to keep it simpler for good
> samaritans to do "drive-by buffs", just let that high level druid
> cast SOE or Shield of Thorns, and if the target is too low they only
> get the effect (and duration) of SOW or Shield of Thistles. (Hm,
> might be best if the caster only got docked the mana for the lower
> spell, too.)

Because outside buffs not only screw things up when they are too high
level, but even when they are appropriate. In EQ1 at a low level, for
example, many classes could solo happily if they could get a SOW. No
need for them to group with a druid or shaman to get one, though,
because they could just get one cast on them. I remember that happening
way back before Kunark release even. And even at high levels, getting a
KEI and Virtue meant you had a lot less need or use for an Enchanter or
Cleric; you could use other means of CC (including single pulling plans)
and other means of healing, that came from classes with more to offer in
an actual fight.


>
> I *really like* that when I'm dashing into Rivervale to visit the
> druid guild or tribute master, I can look around there and in Misty
> and often find a lowbie on whom I can throw a few buffs. Sure, it's
> a bit of PLing, but (a) if they don't like it they can click them off,
> and (b) I'm not sticking around to keep the buffs fresh, so they still
> have to do most of the work on their own. I certainly got my share of
> such passing buffs when I was starting out, and I enjoy passing along
> the kindness. EQ2 really doesn't sound like my cup of Qeynos Afternoon
> Tea at all.
>
> -- Don.

Aye, thats a lark, and I'm sure I'd miss it a bit. But I wouldn't miss
the PLing that goes on when people abuse the ability to casually do
this, and I wouldn't miss seeing class discrimination that results from
the practice, and I wouldn't miss the level 1 people running around with
Temp on, and I wouldn't at all miss seeing people run off to get a KEI
before joining a group or lookind down on someone who failed to do so.

Lance

 

[Guest]

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

"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
news:XQ1wd.9737$EO1.1090@fe05.lga:

> "RJB" wrote:
> news:19sk4yw9ntxg6.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:49:58 -0600, Crash86 wrote:
>>
>> > 'm interested in giving Tabula Rasa a try when it hits OB. Heck, I
>> > may even try Vanguard. ;-)
>>
>> I think Vanguard will probably be my "next big thing". Tabula Rasa
>> reminds me of AO too much (graphicswise - call me vain but I like da
>> eye candy).
>
> I never had an issue with AO's graphics. I'm happily willing to
> sacrifice graphics for smoothness of play.
>
> That's probably why the SOE graphics engine debacle angered me so much
> ... my opinion was that it wrecked gameplay for no valid reason.
>

If I have to choose between the two, I'll take gameplay every time as
well. I'd prefer to have both of course.

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

On Steamfont
Graeme, 18 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar

 

[Guest]

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

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> The outside buffing issue is solved in EQ2, seperate from the locked
> encounters really. You must be grouped with someone for their buffs to
> stick. I still play EQ2, mostly because friends do, not because I think
> it's better than EQ1. I dislike the encounter locking personally, I
> dislike the inability to help others with something as simple as a heal
> or rez. I am not thrilled with the tradeskill system. Basically, if I
> were not playing with friends, I'd close my EQ2 account, and who knows, I
> may yet do that, as I also play EQ1 with friends.

I'm still in shock with how poorly SOE "solved" the "outside buffing
issue". There are *so many* ways it could have been solved *much
better* and *trivially*...

EQ2 was designed by the same people who designed EQ1 post-Velious, and
sadly, it shows...in spades.

 

[Guest]

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

johndoe@example.com wrote in news:41c0b46c$0$80327$a1866201@visi.com:

> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> The outside buffing issue is solved in EQ2, seperate from the locked
>> encounters really. You must be grouped with someone for their buffs
>> to stick. I still play EQ2, mostly because friends do, not because I
>> think it's better than EQ1. I dislike the encounter locking
>> personally, I dislike the inability to help others with something as
>> simple as a heal or rez. I am not thrilled with the tradeskill
>> system. Basically, if I were not playing with friends, I'd close my
>> EQ2 account, and who knows, I may yet do that, as I also play EQ1
>> with friends.
>
> I'm still in shock with how poorly SOE "solved" the "outside buffing
> issue". There are *so many* ways it could have been solved *much
> better* and *trivially*...
>
> EQ2 was designed by the same people who designed EQ1 post-Velious, and
> sadly, it shows...in spades.
>

The outside buffing is one of the few things that does not bother me
actually. I dislike the locked encounters quite a bit however.

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

On Steamfont
Graeme, 18 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar

 

[Guest]

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

Crash86 <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote:
> I never had an issue with AO's graphics. I'm happily willing to sacrifice
> graphics for smoothness of play.
>
> That's probably why the SOE graphics engine debacle angered me so much ...
> my opinion was that it wrecked gameplay for no valid reason.

I'm a frames-per-second-a-holic. That's not to say I want 250 FPS
just to brag; having that many FPS is pointless. But I want smooth
game play. Smooth game play is far more important to me than the
snazziest graphics. I'm sensitive to anything less than, oh, about 60
FPS.

At some point, EQ1 started walking down the road of "graphics first,
FPS second". EQ2 takes this philosophy to new heights...which is very
dissapointing for people like me. I don't like EQ2 for that reason
alone, the thing already seems built for computers that'll be built 3
years from now!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,alt.games.everquest2 (More info?)

In alt.games.everquest Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I can't speak from experience with previous MMORPG games, as I have
> none, but I agree, I like the ability to help out a guy who suddenly
> finds himself over his head.

One of my favorite activities in EQ1 was playing my druid and using
his skills to help out people in need. Sometimes, you just get tired
of the grind, and it can be incredibly fulfilling to help a soul in
need, perhaps *especially* fulfilling to help them when they don't
expect it!

I made many friends that way, by being both the helper and the helpee.
I can't express how dissapointed I am that EQ2 completely destroyed
that. I just don't understand what's going on in the minds of the EQ2
designers, it seems like one bad design choice after another.