Cancelled EQ2

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
70 answers Last reply
More about cancelled
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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!
  24. 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.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <4I-dnZRkhP7SOl3cRVn-pQ@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com
    says...

    > He makes it sound like the scalp solution would be a good explaination
    > for why killing part of a group doesn't count, but it seems to me that
    > it isn't.

    Well... perhaps I'm over thinking it... but it made sense to me. In that
    I wouldn't be able to stop and rummage the bodies for items if I'm
    running for my life... so even though I killed the two gnolls and ran
    from the 3rd I get no credit because I didn't stick around.

    This would work best if the encounter was only lootable when you
    finished it... i don't know if that's the case or not.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,alt.games.everquest2 (More info?)

    Lance Berg wrote:

    > 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.

    How many times did you get trained -- by accident -- in
    EC or QH? THAT is what people are talking about,
    not KC. There are still trains in EQ2, they're just FAR
    less common and not in the low-level zones. What I've
    seen of the level 20+ dungeons reminds me of KC,
    though -- I've died (or came close) twice right after
    zoning in...
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    > 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.

    I couldn't agree more! In the short run this may seem like a bad thing, but
    I guarantee anyone who plays EQ2 it will be fantastic in the long run. It
    took people months to get to level 50 in EQ 1 before power leveling (and
    before Kundark). Now it takes maybe 4 days. Everyone has to earn their own
    "right-of-passage" meaning no one can take shortcuts to become an uber-power
    in the game.

    To those who believe WOW is so much better, take this into consideration:
    There are already level 60s, and have been for at least 2 weeks. Any game
    where max level can be reached in the first three weeks of the game's debut
    has some serious level balance issues.
    Not to menchin that these level 60s like to play in enemy newbie areas
    picking on level 10s. That is NOT a productive gaming enviorment.

    The perfect MMORPG is far from being completed, but to those more
    experienced gamers who know what they are looking for EQ2 is the better
    choice.

    Feel free to rip on any of my writing above.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c2a6812f08e524c98992c@shawnews...
    > In article <4I-dnZRkhP7SOl3cRVn-pQ@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com
    > says...
    >
    > > He makes it sound like the scalp solution would be a good explaination
    > > for why killing part of a group doesn't count, but it seems to me that
    > > it isn't.
    >
    > Well... perhaps I'm over thinking it... but it made sense to me. In that
    > I wouldn't be able to stop and rummage the bodies for items if I'm
    > running for my life... so even though I killed the two gnolls and ran
    > from the 3rd I get no credit because I didn't stick around.
    >
    > This would work best if the encounter was only lootable when you
    > finished it... i don't know if that's the case or not.
    >

    The corpse itself will be lootable, but in EQ2 that means little. Corpses
    never have anything beyond a bit of tradeskill fluff, like Canine Saliva or
    Goblin Eyes. Any real loot, like an armor drop, book drop or anything will be
    inside a treasure chest, which only appears after the entire encounter is
    defeated.


    --
    Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
    Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
    Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,alt.games.everquest2 (More info?)

    "Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in message
    news:zV3wd.164574$6w6.36596@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

    > How many times did you get trained -- by accident -- in
    > EC or QH? THAT is what people are talking about,
    > not KC. There are still trains in EQ2, they're just FAR
    > less common and not in the low-level zones. What I've
    > seen of the level 20+ dungeons reminds me of KC,
    > though -- I've died (or came close) twice right after
    > zoning in...
    >
    >
    I've seen a train in the Down Below - we hid around the corner waiting for
    them to go back to their point.
    If they're aggroable to you they will come after you if you're close enough.

    It's great to have the sprint to help with the getaway too =)
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article
    <IX3wd.129107$7i4.106835@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, AJ
    <wanink@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    > To those who believe WOW is so much better, take this into consideration:
    > There are already level 60s, and have been for at least 2 weeks. Any game
    > where max level can be reached in the first three weeks of the game's debut
    > has some serious level balance issues.

    Or it's designed and balanced to have the majority of play occur at max
    level, with the ramp up to that level being a relatively quick warmup.

    I don't think anyone knows which case WoW is going to fall into; it
    probably won't be apparent until after the first expansion comes out.

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

    Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> writes:
    > Aye, [casting passing buffs on lowbies is]
    > 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.

    I agree that Temp on a level 1 is absurd; it's one of the many
    cases of an effect that ought not to work on targets below a
    certain level. (They added a minimum level to KEI, why did they
    leave Temp unchanged? /boggle) But the fact that they didn't
    do the job properly in EQ1 doesn't mean that the overall approach
    is wrong; I still think it would work to disallow most high level
    effects on low level targets (possibly automatically downgrading
    the effect to that of a level-suitable weaker spell).

    The other KEI issue is different: the content at higher levels is
    often tuned to assume that you have level-appropriate buffs, so if
    you don't have them you're at a severe disadvantage. Now, there
    ought to be a choice of buffs; e.g., the tank needs more HP/AC to
    face high level content, but it shouldn't have to be Temp or
    Virtue or whatever, but might instead be any of a number of HP/AC
    buffs from a variety of classes. KEI is awkward because it's such
    a great buff and there's not a lot of choices that come close.
    And I agree it's a problem when Enchanters aren't wanted in groups
    because people can get KEI and/or Haste in PoK and then use the
    group slots for other classes. I haven't played a lot at those
    levels (and neither of my casters has gotten that high yet), but
    I do wonder whether the duration on the buffs is part of the
    problem. If KEI had to be recast every 50-70 minutes instead of
    lasting over 3 hours, people might be more interested in having
    the enchanter around to refresh it. (Obviously the mana cost
    might need to be reduced.)

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

    In article <A6SdnYneBaZKN13cRVn-vg@dejazzd.com>, Lance Berg wrote:
    > 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.

    In EQ1, you didn't help people by attacking their mob unless you had
    permission, because of the risk of kill stealing, but there were other ways
    to help, such as healing someone you see who is in trouble, or popping a
    damage shield on them, or buffing them with AC or HP or KEI, or SOW so they
    can run away if they want. I don't recall people asking for permission to
    give that kind of help, or anyone objecting when they receive it.

    The thing about EQ2 is you can't do those other kinds of help without being
    grouped with them. No running down the road on a long journey and stopping
    to SOW my fellow travellers. No seeing someone whose fight looks like it
    will be close, and saving the day for them by pausing and popping off a big
    heal on them.

    --
    --Tim Smith
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest,alt.games.everquest2 (More info?)

    In article <WcWdnY6csLqVTF3cRVn-rA@dejazzd.com>, Lance Berg wrote:
    > I'd heard, though, that in EQ2 mobs generally ignore you until they get
    > back to their spawn spots, that its relatively hard to be accidentally
    > trained (or deliberately trained for that matter) because the mobs simply
    > tend to ignore everything around them until they get good and ready!

    This may have something to do with whether or not the person that initially
    aggroed them is still alive. I've seen many mobs that ran by me chasing
    someone run back past me after he got away. On the other hand, I was
    standing on a little island in a bay in the Isle of Refuge and someone
    pulled a shark and fought it next to me. He dies, and the shark immediately
    attacked me. It's also possible that this was simply close enough to the
    shark's spawn point (or patrol region, perhaps?) that it was considered to
    be back as soon as it was done with the other guy.


    --
    --Tim Smith
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    johndoe@example.com wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    If that's the case, then WoW should set your heart atwitter for the smooth
    factor alone. :-)
    --
    chainbreaker

    If you need to email, then chainbreaker (naturally) at comcast dot
    net--that's "net" not "com"--should do it.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "AJ" wrote:
    > To those who believe WOW is so much better, take this into consideration:
    > There are already level 60s, and have been for at least 2 weeks. Any game
    > where max level can be reached in the first three weeks of the game's
    debut
    > has some serious level balance issues.

    WoW is balanced for a different kind of gamer. Hardcore grinders and level
    freaks will get bored and leave. This may well be exactly what Blizzard has
    in mind.

    Unlike SOE, I don't expect Blizzard to bend over backwards to please this
    kind of gamer at the expense of the rest of their population. If they do,
    I'll leave WoW as surely as I've left all varieties of EQ.

    > The perfect MMORPG is far from being completed, but to those more
    > experienced gamers who know what they are looking for EQ2 is the better
    > choice.

    I started gaming in the early 70's. I started computer gaming on my trusty
    Commodore VIC-20. I've watched pencil and paper D&D become Zork, Zork
    become MUDs, and MUDs become MMO games. I believe that qualifies me as an
    experienced gamer.

    Yes, I know exactly what I'm looking for. I didn't find it in EQ2.

    Please do not presume to tell me (or anyone else) what they should or
    shouldn't like. It only makes you look like an ass (or a game reviewer,
    which is more often than not the same thing).

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

    On 15 Dec 2004 22:19:40 GMT, johndoe@example.com wrote:

    > 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 used to love going to the noob zones and buffing them. Hiding goodies on
    rats and snakes was always fun too. That won't work at all in EQ2. It's
    like they've sterilized it to the point where everyone *has* to look out
    for themselves only. For me that kind of kills the community. I've gotten
    groups before from being helpful while just passing by. In EQ2 it looks
    like that won't happen.


    --
    RJB
    12/16/2004 8:14:59 AM

    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
    --General George S. Patton
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    What 7 day trial?

    T.
    "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
    news:tqp0s098h5ceqertn7e8fouc7r8160mi57@4ax.com...
    > 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
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Thomas Houseman"
    <thomashousemanHADTOPUTTHISHERETOSTOPTHESWENVIRUS@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:32bpj7F3jets4U1@individual.net...
    > What 7 day trial?
    >
    > T.
    >
    SOE sent out a buddy key for a 7 day trial of EQ2
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <161220040010278336%neild-usenet@misago.org>, neild-
    usenet@misago.org says...
    > In article
    > <IX3wd.129107$7i4.106835@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, AJ
    > <wanink@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    > > To those who believe WOW is so much better, take this into consideration:
    > > There are already level 60s, and have been for at least 2 weeks. Any game
    > > where max level can be reached in the first three weeks of the game's debut
    > > has some serious level balance issues.

    > Or it's designed and balanced to have the majority of play occur at max
    > level, with the ramp up to that level being a relatively quick warmup.

    Perhaps WoW isn't too worried about the PL freaks, and doesn't want to
    punish the average player just to keep the PL freaks in check.

    Perhaps it just proves that getting to max level can be done in 500
    hours played. If so, cool, that will take *me*... 6 or 7 months. Which
    suits me just fine. :)

    > I don't think anyone knows which case WoW is going to fall into; it
    > probably won't be apparent until after the first expansion comes out.

    Agreed. Hell... EQ1's direction wasn't apparent until the 3rd or 4th
    expansion. Or... EQ1 shifted direction around the 4th expansion... take
    your pick.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:

    > 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.

    The inability to rez outside the group is a bug, hopefully to be fixed
    in the upcoming big patch. Not being able to heal I think is worth it
    for stopping powerleveling and the like, but what I don't get is why
    you can't invite people while in a locked encounter? Since the
    encounter rewards aren't determined until you finish, it wouldn't let
    you get exp/loot from greys. I can't see any problems with it, and it
    would make it so you could help people beat an encounter and still be
    rewarded, as long as the reward would have been yours had you grouped
    to begin with.


    > 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 like the tradeskilling system itself, the process of crafting, but
    the dependency on others can become tedious and not being able to sell
    while playing makes it too much of a money sink for me unless I can
    find people to exchange services with.

    --
    Vidirix, 22nd level paladin of Qeynos, Runnyeye server
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> writes:

    > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:06:17 -0500, Lance Berg wrote:
    > > Another solution would be to change the mechanic to match the request;
    > > in other words to count every gnoll you kill regardless of whether you
    > > have cleared out whole gangs, or just one each out of 10 seperate gangs
    > > (which sounds like it would work based on the quest giver's request, but
    > > which doesn't) But that wasn't what I was talking about, which was as I
    > > said, a way to change the text to match the game mechanic.
    >
    > That's what he (and I) would like to see done. If you kill 2 gnolls in a
    > group of 3 the two tokens should count toward your quest. As it stands now
    > unless you defeat the 3 gnolls you get *zero* tokens.

    But if you don't defeat them all, maybe their remaining friend(s) help
    them recover, while if you take them all out you can take the time to
    finish them all off. I'm not sure I really agree that's how it should
    work, but it seems a reasonable in-game explanation that achieves the
    goal of forcing you to deal with the whole encounter if you want the
    reward.


    > > Since Luclin? They added LDoN (great from 20 to 55, not so good after
    > > that except for the LDoN points to buy decent items, which are now
    > > outclassed by OOW items), they added LOY (great from 30 to... what, 60?
    > > Higher?) They added POP, which has content thats groupable from 46 up
    > > (tough, but doable) and soloable from 52 or so up (lower if you are a
    > > bard or some other lucky class). I've heard that GOD and OOW also have
    > > some content usable from 45 on, although I never really tried it.
    > I'll give you the LDoNs (forgot all about that one). The rest I still
    > maintain are for higher level raid-guild based content. I might be inclined
    > to grant a bit of LOY (I'm still leaning toward it targeted IMO to the
    > raiders).

    LoY had, I think, two raids (Captain something in Hate's Fury,
    Innoruuk in Crypt of Nadox), that's fewer than any other expansion.
    It was for mid-level players, mostly, with nothing except frogloks,
    dyes, maps etc for those below 30 and little else for those above 60
    (except soloers who may have found use for the high-50s mobs, I don't
    know). It didn't seem like people went there much, though, no matter
    what level they were, until it became a hot spot.


    > The reason I left EQ2 were a bunch of little problems. I don't like some of
    > the things Tim mentioned and I do like some. There are some things he
    > didn't mention that I dislike (the complete loss of faction for example
    > (well not completely but do I really care if the gnolls dislike me and the
    > Far Seas Traders like me a bit more? From what I can see - no.)).

    I really really wish they had done more with faction in EQ2, and EQ1
    as well.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 16 Dec 2004 16:04:36 +0100, patrik@nordebo.com wrote:

    > But if you don't defeat them all, maybe their remaining friend(s) help
    > them recover, while if you take them all out you can take the time to
    > finish them all off. I'm not sure I really agree that's how it should
    > work, but it seems a reasonable in-game explanation that achieves the
    > goal of forcing you to deal with the whole encounter if you want the
    > reward.

    The problem is I shouldn't have to "explain" it to myself. The engine (or
    design) is flawed in this case. I could make up a "backstory" to every bad
    design or game mechanic in any game and have it "workable". The point is, I
    shouldn't have to.
    --
    RJB
    12/16/2004 10:05:54 AM

    Income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf
    --Will Rogers
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    patrik@nordebo.com wrote:
    > RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> writes:
    >
    >
    >>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:06:17 -0500, Lance Berg wrote:

    >
    > LoY had, I think, two raids (Captain something in Hate's Fury,
    > Innoruuk in Crypt of Nadox), that's fewer than any other expansion.
    > It was for mid-level players, mostly, with nothing except frogloks,
    > dyes, maps etc for those below 30 and little else for those above 60
    > (except soloers who may have found use for the high-50s mobs, I don't
    > know). It didn't seem like people went there much, though, no matter
    > what level they were, until it became a hot spot.
    Everyone forgets bank space... they doubled the bank slots.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 16 Dec 2004 15:39:51 +0100, patrik@nordebo.com wrote:

    >Not being able to heal I think is worth it
    >for stopping powerleveling and the like

    Why do you care? If you don't like it, don't PL. It's not like there
    aren't plenty of high level idiots without PLing... And, besides, as
    long as IGE is around, there'll still be high level people popping up
    who know absolutely nothing about their character or even the game
    itself. PLing is the -least- of the worries in that area.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

    Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    patrik@nordebo.com wrote:

    > Not being able to heal I think is worth it for stopping
    > powerleveling and the like, but what I don't get is why
    > you can't invite people while in a locked encounter?

    I'd guess the same mechanism prevents being able to
    disband without unlocking the encounter. (That'd be
    another "anti-powerleveling" measure.)
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1c2aeb0a9b46575b989932@shawnews>, 42
    <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    > In article <161220040010278336%neild-usenet@misago.org>, neild-
    > usenet@misago.org says...
    > > Or it's designed and balanced to have the majority of play occur at max
    > > level, with the ramp up to that level being a relatively quick warmup.
    >
    > Perhaps WoW isn't too worried about the PL freaks, and doesn't want to
    > punish the average player just to keep the PL freaks in check.

    Seems likely.

    My guess is that they figure the bulk of their long-term player base
    will be hitting the level cap around the time they release their first
    expansion. If that's the case, they'll balance the bulk of the
    expansion content to target level-capped players.

    Anyway, it's just far too early to say anything about the long-term
    appeal of either EQ2 or WoW.

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

    patrik@nordebo.com wrote:
    > Not being able to heal I think is worth it
    > for stopping powerleveling and the like

    Rather than not allow outside healing at all, a better solution would
    be to automatically downgrade the heal to a level appropriate heal.

    i.e., If you're level 50 and trying to cast Super Great Superior Major
    Heal on some level 1 guy, the system could automatically downgrade it
    to Minor Heal or Light Heal.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net> writes:
    > > Not being able to heal I think is worth it for stopping
    > > powerleveling and the like, but what I don't get is why
    > > you can't invite people while in a locked encounter?
    >
    > I'd guess the same mechanism prevents being able to
    > disband without unlocking the encounter. (That'd be
    > another "anti-powerleveling" measure.)

    Hm, what happens if one member of a group goes linkdead during an
    encounter? Does it count as leaving the group and thus unlock the
    encounter, so the rest of the group gets no credit? If so, link
    death becomes a much bigger annoyance than it already is. If it
    doesn't unlock the encounter (but the LD player does get removed),
    that would seem like a loophole for PLing.

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

    Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in news:7wvfb2ndh6.fsf@ca.icynic.com:

    > "Wolfie" <dbgbdwolf@gte.net> writes:
    >> > Not being able to heal I think is worth it for stopping
    >> > powerleveling and the like, but what I don't get is why you can't
    >> > invite people while in a locked encounter?
    >>
    >> I'd guess the same mechanism prevents being able to
    >> disband without unlocking the encounter. (That'd be another
    >> "anti-powerleveling" measure.)
    >
    > Hm, what happens if one member of a group goes linkdead during an
    > encounter? Does it count as leaving the group and thus unlock the
    > encounter, so the rest of the group gets no credit? If so, link
    > death becomes a much bigger annoyance than it already is. If it
    > doesn't unlock the encounter (but the LD player does get removed),
    > that would seem like a loophole for PLing.
    >

    Would be pretty time consuming to constantly restart EQ2 for each and
    every encounter, particularly, since, like in EQ1, there appears to be a
    30ish second time minimum before you can log the character back in.

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

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 18 Dwarven Shaman, 15 Scholar
Ask a new question

Read More

World Of Warcraft Video Games