Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which MMOG to try?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 9:54:52 PM

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

I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
to which to go with.

I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels; it
doesn't have to be great (I was happy enough soloing a cleric any level
up to 62 or berserker any level up to 57 in EQ1, so it doesn't have to
be great... but it can't feel like dead stop either)

I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
worthwhile rewards; EQ1 failed miserably here, despite having "quest" in
the name, there really weren't all that many quests for any given
character (having 10 quests for each of 10 classes for each of 10 races
is NOT the same as having 1000 quests, for any given character its the
same as having 10 quests)

I want a game with tactical options to it, where with thought I can
apply the tools each class has to find new solutions to combat, and
combine the tools of several classes into even more new solutions. I
-like- figuring out new plans and trying them. EQ1 had this in spades,
if you looked for it, even 5 years in to the game we were still
stumbling across new uses for spells... or discovering that a new
situation made a tactic we'd discarded three years ago suddenly the
perfect approach.

On the flip side, as EQ1 leveled up it tended to leave fewer options;
they made most mobs stun immune, many snare immune, fear immune, and so
on; this was a boring idea; while there should be -some- mobs immune to
any given tool, to encourage variety in approach, it shouldn't be
necessary to discard perfectly good tactics for -all- encounters,
presenting fewer tools leads to fewer different approaches, and makes
things get boring faster.

I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
resembles EQ1, which had a lot of ideas I liked, and because it seems to
have a robust quest environment.

On the other hand, I'm also leaning away from it, because I've heard
there aren't many tactical options, that it rapidly becomes pointless to
solo, and because, to be frank, it vaguely resembles EQ; I spent 5 years
in the old version of Norrath, perhaps something entirely different,
instead of just somewhat different, is in order.

On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
based on that? I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
to come out?

Lance

More about : mmog

Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:54:29 PM

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

Lance Berg wrote:
> I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
> several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
> about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
> to which to go with.
I will give you my opinions of how Final Fantasy would meet your
requirements. Since EQ and FF are the MMOG's I've put a major time
investment in, (I puttered around in SWG, but I can't recommend it to
anyone... just too messed up).
> I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels; it
> doesn't have to be great (I was happy enough soloing a cleric any level
> up to 62 or berserker any level up to 57 in EQ1, so it doesn't have to
> be great... but it can't feel like dead stop either)
Final Fantasy Soloablity: 1, maybe 2 out of 5. A few classes are
'reasonable' soloers, mainly Beastlord (an advanced job) and Red Mage (A
kinda do it all that can tank, do damage, heal)
> I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
> worthwhile rewards; EQ1 failed miserably here, despite having "quest" in
> the name, there really weren't all that many quests for any given
> character (having 10 quests for each of 10 classes for each of 10 races
> is NOT the same as having 1000 quests, for any given character its the
> same as having 10 quests)
Final Fantasy sometimes falls flat on quests, sometimes scores big. Even
though you are doing the same thing everyone else is, the cutscenes
often give you a 'You are special for doing this' feel. The mission
system leads you through the game's storyline, while the other quests
either help it along or explain backstory. Most quest rewards, while not
phenomenal, are worth doing the quest for.
3.5 out of 5 (I've never seen a 5 out of 5)

> I want a game with tactical options to it, where with thought I can
> apply the tools each class has to find new solutions to combat, and
> combine the tools of several classes into even more new solutions. I
> -like- figuring out new plans and trying them. EQ1 had this in spades,
> if you looked for it, even 5 years in to the game we were still
> stumbling across new uses for spells... or discovering that a new
> situation made a tactic we'd discarded three years ago suddenly the
> perfect approach.
Unfortunatly, I have a fairly balanced 'static party', consisting of a
tank, healer, buffer/debuffer, and 3 damage dealers, so we don't try
much in the way of radical tactics. Most pickup groups are concerned
with min/maxing so much (to the point that they want to wait for a pally
tank instead of getting the war, even though the war is 95% as good)
that they don't bend much on tactics either.

However, I will say our group, by playing smart and being flexible has
done things that I can easily find 20 people to tell me are impossible.
(Example mission 3 dragon. We've (my party) have killed it repeatedly
with 4-6 people (for various friends, aquaintinces, and people begging
in the square), and only once with a black mage to 'sleep' one of the
two mobs. Yet I get told everytime I try to help someone with it that
'it can't be done without a blackmage', I had a 74th level character
tell me he's done it many dozens of times, and every time they had no
blm they wiped. )

> On the flip side, as EQ1 leveled up it tended to leave fewer options;
> they made most mobs stun immune, many snare immune, fear immune, and so
> on; this was a boring idea; while there should be -some- mobs immune to
> any given tool, to encourage variety in approach, it shouldn't be
> necessary to discard perfectly good tactics for -all- encounters,
> presenting fewer tools leads to fewer different approaches, and makes
> things get boring faster.
Most monsters have strengths and weaknesses based on their base types
(boss mobs are an exception). Few will change as you go through the
levels. Skeletons are resistant to dark spells, and weak against light
spells, and this has applied since the level 3 skellies that come out at
night in the newbie zone to the level 45 skellies we are fighting in the
Necropolis.
I can't confirm that this doesn't change later, I'm only half way
through the levels (and about 1/4 through the xp I need to earn.)
I could however see where the monster fighting aspect of the game could
get old quickly in FF.
> I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
<snip>
> about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> to come out?
UO - Had to be mentioned. Wouldn't play it on a bet.
DAoC - claimed by many to be 'EQ done right'.
FFXI - Definatly not for everyone. No free trial either (aside from the
month you get for buying the basic box, which comes with the first
expansion).
Ashron's Call (I'd stay far far away from AC2 though... worse than SWG)
Anarchy Online... in fact.. sec
http://community.anarchy-online.com/content/news/articl...
They are giving you a free year to try it out (the basic game, no
expansions)
I enjoyed the betatest for Jumpgate: TRI a couple of years ago, but it's
a tiny game from what numbers I've heard (less than 10000) and is not
exactly a traditional game. It did not however grab me enough to pay for
it. Free trial iirc.
http://www.jossh.com




> Lance
P.S. If you want to be not entirely lost and having to find yourself in
FF if you start playing, let me know before hand and I'll pick up a
worldpass for Odin for you, and I can answer questions on the sometimes
slightly odd way they do things.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:21:32 AM

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

"Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com...
> I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
> resembles EQ1, which had a lot of ideas I liked, and because it seems to
> have a robust quest environment.
>
> On the other hand, I'm also leaning away from it, because I've heard
> there aren't many tactical options, that it rapidly becomes pointless to
> solo, and because, to be frank, it vaguely resembles EQ; I spent 5 years
> in the old version of Norrath, perhaps something entirely different,
> instead of just somewhat different, is in order.
>
> On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
> game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
> based on that? I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
> being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
> about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> to come out?
>
> Lance
>
I have enjoyed playing EQ2 so far.
The quests are a real hoot, there's no shortage of them and you can get
rewards from coin to weapons, armour and accessories. Some quests are nice
and short such as deliveries, others require crossing several areas.

The tradeskilling is more involved than EQ1 and relies a bit on other
players at the moment, but given it's only been a month that can be
expected.
To gather components for your tradeskilling you need to harvest and use
different skills such as mining, gathering and trapping. Each of these
skills go up depending on what you are harvesting, and to harvest certain
areas a minimum skill level is required. You may choose just to be an
artisan and not adventure out at all, experience is independent.

I have found it hard to solo, particularly over level 13 where the mobs you
need to attack are built for groups.
My other half and I have grouped and have had relatively good success, of
course the more people you have the easier it gets.
On the grouping side however, a fair bit of discussion has gone on about
mages spell not being able to stack (summoners) and there being no use for
more than one ranger/predator in a group as their spells don't stack either.
Once you engage a mob in a group the whole group becomes "locked" and only
members of your group can attack them, so there's no KS'ing. ont he other
hand if you run from the encounter you do not gain any xp from it.

The merchanting system isn't too bad either, mobs don't drop any money so
basically you get what you earn through quests and selling.
You need a room to sell from, and a merchant board.You can browse the market
from your room, and IIRC it's only your alignment unless you go to see a
black market broker (who charges a 20% fee) for stuff.

Players from different time zones are generally located on a particular
server, and there are role-playing servers too. Most of the aussies are on
Najena, and I'm sure the other guys from a.g.e. can let you know where they
concentrated too.

Like EQ1, you get 30 days free gaming with your dvd or cd purchase. Guess
you could always try it out, and give it the flick after 30 days if you
don't like it! =)

I should add SOE didn't pay me to write this...hehehe


--
eq2.najena.Simonette
eq2.najena.Floriana
eq.bristlebane.Simonette
eq.bristlebane.Agapanthus
Related resources
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:23:12 AM

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

"Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com...

> On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
> game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
> based on that? I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
> being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
> about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> to come out?

Vanguard beta is *rumoured* to be opening for beta at around Q32005.

May not be your style, but Eve-Online was quite fun, did not play it for
long though (played EQ too much). Would probably play it if I had the time.

But yer...aside from that, Vanguard is all I waiting for, only 'real'
upcoming mmorpg that I am aware of (aint had much time to browse either
though!).

Guild wars was quite fun, not much depth (only played weekend beta though),
soloable (can hire mercs), can play sorta like a single player game, if you
choose, and also a grouping game.

Warning though, has mass instancing so stay away if you hate that. For GW,
I think they did the instancing better than EQ2, YMMV.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:31:47 AM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Lief wrote:

> Vanguard beta is *rumoured* to be opening for beta at around Q32005.
>
> May not be your style, but Eve-Online was quite fun, did not play it for
> long though (played EQ too much). Would probably play it if I had the time.
>
> But yer...aside from that, Vanguard is all I waiting for, only 'real'
> upcoming mmorpg that I am aware of (aint had much time to browse either
> though!).

Wish looks to be interesting as well, fwiw, assuming they aren't the next
horizons (great ideas, bad execution). (For those who don't know about
WISH, it plans to be only ONE huge server, and content will not be
respawned...when something dies, it's GONE. And NPC races will actually
conquer territory over time, so if you don't kill them...the land itself
could change.) Their beta starts Q12005, so I'm hoping we'll know more
about it's prospects soon.

The imp race just makes me laugh...they sound like the ferengies (sp?) of
a fantasy world. And the dragonkin are pretty neat sounding too...iksar
with wings. ^_^


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

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

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

On Order (Horizons):
[10 Monk/Druid Saris] Foxeye
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:31:48 AM

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

Foxeye Vaeltaja wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Lief wrote:
>
>
>>Vanguard beta is *rumoured* to be opening for beta at around Q32005.
>>
>>May not be your style, but Eve-Online was quite fun, did not play it for
>>long though (played EQ too much). Would probably play it if I had the time.
>>
>>But yer...aside from that, Vanguard is all I waiting for, only 'real'
>>upcoming mmorpg that I am aware of (aint had much time to browse either
>>though!).
>
>
> Wish looks to be interesting as well, fwiw, assuming they aren't the next
> horizons (great ideas, bad execution). (For those who don't know about
> WISH, it plans to be only ONE huge server, and content will not be
> respawned...when something dies, it's GONE. And NPC races will actually
> conquer territory over time, so if you don't kill them...the land itself
> could change.) Their beta starts Q12005, so I'm hoping we'll know more
> about it's prospects soon.
>
> The imp race just makes me laugh...they sound like the ferengies (sp?) of
> a fantasy world. And the dragonkin are pretty neat sounding too...iksar
> with wings. ^_^
>
>
I've been in Wish's stress beta.

I hate thier interface, (click where you want to go isometric view, you
can't change the behavior, because they say they can move more
efficiantly by pathing at the server than allowing you character
control) and the rest of the game was so-so when I tried it.. (june or so?)
December 16, 2004 3:36:32 AM

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

In article <Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com
says...
>
> On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
> game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
> based on that?

Warcraft III isn't exactly representative of WoW anymore than Lords of
Everquest is representative of EQ1. It might not be your thing, but I
wouldn't discount it based primarily on the RTS.

> I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
> being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
> about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> to come out?

Well... Anarchy Online is quite mature now, with several expansions
under its belt, and all the content and refinement that implies.

As an added deal, they are basically giving away accounts. You may
download the software (no expansions), install it, and play it. No
purchase price and *no subscription fees*!

If you want to upgrade to the expansions, then the subscription costs
start kicking in... but its definately a nice move.

http://www.anarchy-online.com/content/news/articles/838...

Of course...

DaoC is the 'classic' alternative to EQ. And I'm sure you are aware of
it.

Also... Horizons and AC2 both had weak launches...but i thought they had
promise... and they've had time to shape up... they may have shaped up
ok... I don't have a clue as I haven't followed either... but it might
bear looking into.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 4:24:25 AM

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

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2a78737f543b4198992f@shawnews...
> In article <Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com

> Well... Anarchy Online is quite mature now, with several expansions
> under its belt, and all the content and refinement that implies.
>
> As an added deal, they are basically giving away accounts. You may
> download the software (no expansions), install it, and play it. No
> purchase price and *no subscription fees*!
>
> If you want to upgrade to the expansions, then the subscription costs
> start kicking in... but its definately a nice move.
>
> http://www.anarchy-online.com/content/news/articles/838...

/slight derail

Interesting, will check this out, thanks :) 
December 16, 2004 5:15:23 AM

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

"Foxeye Vaeltaja" <foxeye@EEKSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.58.0412151628170.11512@bolt.sonic.net...
>
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Lief wrote:
>
> > Vanguard beta is *rumoured* to be opening for beta at around Q32005.
> >
> > May not be your style, but Eve-Online was quite fun, did not play it for
> > long though (played EQ too much). Would probably play it if I had the
time.
> >
> > But yer...aside from that, Vanguard is all I waiting for, only 'real'
> > upcoming mmorpg that I am aware of (aint had much time to browse either
> > though!).
>
> Wish looks to be interesting as well, fwiw, assuming they aren't the next
> horizons (great ideas, bad execution). (For those who don't know about
> WISH, it plans to be only ONE huge server, and content will not be
> respawned...when something dies, it's GONE. And NPC races will actually
> conquer territory over time, so if you don't kill them...the land itself
> could change.) Their beta starts Q12005, so I'm hoping we'll know more
> about it's prospects soon.
>
> The imp race just makes me laugh...they sound like the ferengies (sp?) of
> a fantasy world. And the dragonkin are pretty neat sounding too...iksar
> with wings. ^_^

Sounds a lot like DAWN. www.glitchless.com DAWN never came out and I don't
look for it to, ever. 8 GB of hard drive space? and min 2.0 ghz pc yikes
talk about high requirements.
December 16, 2004 5:34:51 AM

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

In article <dt5wd.1210$Es2.373@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, ask.me.for@it.com
says...
>
> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c2a78737f543b4198992f@shawnews...
> > In article <Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com
>
> > Well... Anarchy Online is quite mature now, with several expansions
> > under its belt, and all the content and refinement that implies.
> >
> > As an added deal, they are basically giving away accounts. You may
> > download the software (no expansions), install it, and play it. No
> > purchase price and *no subscription fees*!
> >
> > If you want to upgrade to the expansions, then the subscription costs
> > start kicking in... but its definately a nice move.
> >
> > http://www.anarchy-online.com/content/news/articles/838...
>
> /slight derail
>
> Interesting, will check this out, thanks :) 

Enjoy!... I just happened to stumble on it today... and it looks like it
was only announced today. I was a little surprised... and pleased. I've
wanted to try this game myself. :) 

At any rate, if this is to EQ1 what Everquest Classic is, I'd keep my
expectations in check. After all EQ Classic doesn't have the new models,
or access to key popular sociable newbie zones like Kurns Tower or
Paludal Caverns, or features like the lfg tool, the bazaar, shared bank
slots, etc, etc. I think they just recently enabled PoK access for
players without PoP.

At any rate I'd be pretty shell-shocked playing "EQ Classic". AO "Free
Version" might be similiarly limited... but for the price... one can't
go wrong. :) 
December 16, 2004 6:02:14 AM

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

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2a94381e4a2e6989930@shawnews...
> In article <dt5wd.1210$Es2.373@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, ask.me.for@it.com
> says...
> >
> > "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c2a78737f543b4198992f@shawnews...
> > > In article <Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com
> >
> > > Well... Anarchy Online is quite mature now, with several expansions
> > > under its belt, and all the content and refinement that implies.
> > >
> > > As an added deal, they are basically giving away accounts. You may
> > > download the software (no expansions), install it, and play it. No
> > > purchase price and *no subscription fees*!
> > >
> > > If you want to upgrade to the expansions, then the subscription costs
> > > start kicking in... but its definately a nice move.
> > >
> > > http://www.anarchy-online.com/content/news/articles/838...
> >
> > /slight derail
> >
> > Interesting, will check this out, thanks :) 
>
> Enjoy!... I just happened to stumble on it today... and it looks like it
> was only announced today. I was a little surprised... and pleased. I've
> wanted to try this game myself. :) 
>
> At any rate, if this is to EQ1 what Everquest Classic is, I'd keep my
> expectations in check. After all EQ Classic doesn't have the new models,
> or access to key popular sociable newbie zones like Kurns Tower or
> Paludal Caverns, or features like the lfg tool, the bazaar, shared bank
> slots, etc, etc. I think they just recently enabled PoK access for
> players without PoP.
>
> At any rate I'd be pretty shell-shocked playing "EQ Classic". AO "Free
> Version" might be similiarly limited... but for the price... one can't
> go wrong. :) 

Yah, much thanks man. I'm kinda broke atm and didn't want to pay for a game
I might or might not ever play more than 1x. Now I just have to find a way
to download 800 megs on my dial-up lol.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 8:35:19 AM

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

In article <Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com>, Lance Berg wrote:
> I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels; it
> doesn't have to be great (I was happy enough soloing a cleric any level up
> to 62 or berserker any level up to 57 in EQ1, so it doesn't have to be
> great... but it can't feel like dead stop either)
>
> I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
> worthwhile rewards; EQ1 failed miserably here, despite having "quest" in
> the name, there really weren't all that many quests for any given
> character (having 10 quests for each of 10 classes for each of 10 races is
> NOT the same as having 1000 quests, for any given character its the same
> as having 10 quests)

DAoC has quite a few quests with interesting stories. You can check out a
lot of them at daoc.warcry.com, which will let you search by level and realm
and class, so you can get an idea of whether or not there would be enough at
each level to be interesting to you.

I haven't tried the new expansion, but it should make quests a lot easier to
find--it adds a system like WoW's that marks NPCs that have quests for you.

I seem to recall you are not a fan of PvP. You don't have to PvP in DAoC,
but if you do try the game, don't dismiss PvP. The way it is set up you
generally can't be PKed unless you want to engage in PvP (I'll give the one
exception below), and the PvP activity tends to be organized, with goals
that fit in with the game's story. I had a great time in the battleground,
for example, as my realm tried to take the central keep. We had a trebuchet
and a catapault set up, hurling big rocks at the keep, and archers up on the
towers on the bridge over the moat. They were sending out nukers to try to
get our archers, and I was playing a stealthing character, so was sneaking
around stealthed behind their lines, trying to find nukers who stopped too
long, to get behind and backstab. Think of Crushbone in EQ1, but with the
Orcs being players, and that's what it was like.

The one major exception is the Darkness Falls dungeon. One realm at a time
has access to it, based on which realm controls the most keeps in the
frontier. When access to DF changes hands, those people currently in it are
*not* kicked out. So, if your realm has access to DF, there might still be
people from other realms in there, so you could get PKed.

--
--Tim Smith
December 16, 2004 9:23:21 AM

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

42 wrote:
> In article <dt5wd.1210$Es2.373@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, ask.me.for@it.com
> says...
>
>>"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1c2a78737f543b4198992f@shawnews...
>>
>>>In article <Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com
>>
>>>Well... Anarchy Online is quite mature now, with several expansions
>>>under its belt, and all the content and refinement that implies.
>>>
>>>As an added deal, they are basically giving away accounts. You may
>>>download the software (no expansions), install it, and play it. No
>>>purchase price and *no subscription fees*!
>>>
>>>If you want to upgrade to the expansions, then the subscription costs
>>>start kicking in... but its definately a nice move.
>>>
>>>http://www.anarchy-online.com/content/news/articles/838...
>>
>>/slight derail
>>
>>Interesting, will check this out, thanks :) 
>
>
> Enjoy!... I just happened to stumble on it today... and it looks like it
> was only announced today. I was a little surprised... and pleased. I've
> wanted to try this game myself. :) 
>
> At any rate, if this is to EQ1 what Everquest Classic is, I'd keep my
> expectations in check. After all EQ Classic doesn't have the new models,
> or access to key popular sociable newbie zones like Kurns Tower or
> Paludal Caverns, or features like the lfg tool, the bazaar, shared bank
> slots, etc, etc. I think they just recently enabled PoK access for
> players without PoP.
>
> At any rate I'd be pretty shell-shocked playing "EQ Classic". AO "Free
> Version" might be similiarly limited... but for the price... one can't
> go wrong. :) 

That's awesome! Thanks for posting that link. I always wanted to give
that game a try but was too cheap to shell out for it given my other
gaming expenditures with EQ, etc. I will definately download and give it
a try. Should be fun. Thank you again! :-)
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:35:06 AM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:31:47 GMT, Foxeye Vaeltaja wrote:

<snip>
> Wish looks to be interesting as well, fwiw, assuming they aren't the next
> horizons (great ideas, bad execution). (For those who don't know about
> WISH, it plans to be only ONE huge server, and content will not be
> respawned...when something dies, it's GONE. And NPC races will actually
> conquer territory over time, so if you don't kill them...the land itself
> could change.) Their beta starts Q12005, so I'm hoping we'll know more
> about it's prospects soon.

Signed up for the beta and am crossing my fingers. I've actually been
signed up for a year now. Stoopid EQ2 and WoW delayed the beta. Damn..
damn.. damn.... <g>

BTW there is a Wheel of Time MMOG in pre-Alpha for anyone interested.
http://www.dimensionalware.com/wotrpg.php Yes, I hope to be a darkfriend
soon!


--
RJB
12/16/2004 8:32:34 AM

Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."
-Anon.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:08:38 PM

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:54:52 -0500, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
wrote:

>I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
>several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
>about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
>to which to go with.

I am/was in the exact same postion. Except my many characters in EQ1
were low-mid level. I hated the high level grind, and suffered from
alt-aholism. :) 

I played EQ2 and WoW in Beta. I really really really wanted to like
EQ2, and I was much more critical going into WoW.

I am sure people in this newsgroup will jump all over this post and
call me a "WoW Fanboi", but the truth is I never expected to love
playing it like I do. I went into the WoW beta looking for reasons to
dislike the game.

The following are my opinions only and should be taken as such....

>I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels;

EQ2 gets much tougher as you level. You are basically forced to group
in EQ2, and not only that, but you are forced to form groups centered
around a healer or two if you want efficient advancement. This isn't a
bad thing. These games are after all "massive multiplayer".

WoW on the other hand feels much more like EQ1 to me when it comes to
the "grind" ,only much more fun and engaging. Mixed/Pickup groups of
2-3 can kill level appropriate content (which includes mobs 2-4 levels
higher than themselves) with good tactics and teamwork without being
forced to bring along a healing class. Any class can solo all the way
to 60 if they want, but grouping is more efficient as it should be.

The conning system in WoW is much more like EQ1. It isn't confusing
like EQ2 with up/down arrows, group/solo mobs etc etc, and it doesn't
tell you automatically which mobs are linked. It is possible to have a
"bad pull" in WoW, and if you aren't careful you will pick up
wandering adds. I didn't realize how important this element of
"surprise" was until I played EQ2 and found it missing.

>I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
>worthwhile rewards;

Both WoW and EQ2 offer robust and rewarding Quest systems.

From your first few moments in game you are given quest in a linear
progression. The first quests you get take you into the newbie areas
around your starting city. As you level and take on more quests you
are guided farther out into the world. It really keeps the immersion
up in both games.

Both are very similar, but there is something special about the the
quest system in WoW that is hard to describe. The quests themselves
seem more relevant for lack of a better word. They really draw you
into the backstory of your race/class/side. Maybe it's the newness of
the lore and backstory coloring my opinion.

One of the most amazing features in WoW is the ability to share
quests. If you join a pickup group and they are working on a quest,
they can share it with you if you are eligible. When a quest mob dies,
everyone in the group gets credit, and everyone getst the item drop if
their is one. You don't have to camp a named repeatedly to finish a
quest for other group members.

Have I mentioned that you don't "Zone" in WoW? You never see "Loading
Please Wait". The tranisitions appear to be seemless. It really has to
be seen/experienced to see how much it adds to the immersion.

>I want a game with tactical options to it, where with thought I can
>apply the tools each class has to find new solutions to combat, and
>combine the tools of several classes into even more new solutions. I
>-like- figuring out new plans and trying them. EQ1 had this in spades,
>if you looked for it, even 5 years in to the game we were still
>stumbling across new uses for spells... or discovering that a new
>situation made a tactic we'd discarded three years ago suddenly the
>perfect approach.

Group combat in EQ2 is much faster than WoW or EQ1. Some classes can
apply tactics, but the healers are really limited to keeping the tanks
alive with spam heals (wards, heal over time, regen, instant).
Downtime is much less, and makes up for this in a lot of ways, but to
me the overall pace of combat was too fast to really explore tactics.

Solo combat in EQ2 was boring in my opinion. I played a cleric in
Beta. Soloing was melee, DD, heal self, buff self. There just didn't
seem to be enough options to make it fun for me.

WoW feels much more like EQ1 to me when it comes to tactics and trying
new things in combat. Skill/Spell sets are more varied than EQ2
(though still much fewer options than EQ1).

My current level 11 Shaman in WoW can melee DD, Stun, Heal, DoT, DS
himself, apply a flame damage bonus to his weapon, and drop totems
that can buff, snare, agro, heal over time. You mana pool is limited,
and you can have only 1 totem in effect at any given time. It's a
powerful set of abilities, but you have to make tactical desicions on
which ones to use in every battle. Shaman are the jack of all trades
in WoW, so be aware that other classes have fewer options, but overall
you have more choices than in EQ2.

Also you can buff and heal anyone at any time in WoW. As a player that
enjoys playing healing/buffing classes this is a game breaker for me
in EQ2. I can't stand the locked encounters. So far I have not seen
any evidence of people powerleving or "baby sitting" lower levels like
you do in EQ1. WoW seems to have addressed the PL'ing issue without
isolating players with artificial encounter "locks"

>On the flip side, as EQ1 leveled up it tended to leave fewer options;
>they made most mobs stun immune, many snare immune, fear immune, and so
>on;

Not sure about the higher levels in EQ2 or WoW, but I have noticed
some things about WoW that have really impressed me so far.

I have been jumped by players (I play on a PvP server) and creatures
3-7 levels higher than myself. While I still don't have a chance of
winning, my spells and melee hit for full damage (melee and spell
damage scale with level, so I am only chipping away at them). Spells
do get resisted more against higher levels, but it is much more
satisfying to know that I pretty much dish out the same damage no
matter what I am fighting. I haven't seen any of the artificial limits
like you see in EQ1 where creatures/players are immune or impossible
to hit based on an arbitrary level spread.

Another point in WoWs favor are talent points. They are kind of like
AAs. You 1 point per level starting at level 10. By specializing you
can customize your character to your play style. The following link
has extensive info on this feature:

http://wowvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Talents.View&cate...

>I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
>resembles EQ1, which had a lot of ideas I liked, and because it seems to
>have a robust quest environment.

That is exactly what I thought until I played both in beta. EQ2 has 4
arch type classes that then specialize at levels 10 and 20. WoW is
like EQ1. Each class is unique from level 1. Skills complement each
other, but no two classes share the same skills.

>On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
>game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
>based on that?

Graphically it looks more "cartoonish" than EQ2, but it has an amazing
amount of depth when you spend some time with it. The environments are
incredibly detailed and vaired. You can literally see for miles if you
climb to the top of a mountain or hill. It's a complete departure from
EQ1/2 and once you get used to it is a feast for the eyes. Character
animations and emotes are fantastic. I cannot stress enough how much
more immersive it is to travel the world without zoning (or rather
without knowing that you are zoning).

Also the requirements for WoW are not nearly as steep as EQ2. A mid
level machine will have 80% of the eye candy as a top of the line rig.

Another plus for WoW in my opinion is how death is dealt with. When
you die you turn into a ghost and spawn at a graveyard near the area
you died. You have the option of running back to your corpse (you are
invisible and ignored by all mobs in ghost form), or getting a full
res at the graveyard at the cost of res sickness for a couple minutes
and 25% wear damage to all of your equiment. The damage can be
repaired for a small fee. There is no exp loss or debt with death. The
"penalty" is a corpse run or having to repair your gear. If you run
back to your corpse, you can res a decent distance from the actual
body. So you can recover yourself even if a mob is camping your
corpse.

In EQ2 you lose a shard and take a hit to all of your stats unless you
rocover it. If you die in a bad location you risk losing the shard or
eating several deaths (with exp debt) and losing more shards
recovering them.

Overall WoW is MUCH more like EQ1 pre-velious, only done right in my
opinion. EQ1 will always be "The Game" for me, but WoW in my mind is
the true successor. Blizzard has taken all of the elements that hooked
me on EQ1 like a drug and improved them many times over.

EQ2 is so radically different from EQ1 that it really is a completely
different game. It isn't a bad game. In fact EQ2 is a fantastic game!

The bottom line for me is that WoW plays and feels like EQ1 did when I
started playing back in Aug '99. If you have the resources (eq can
afford the price of the game) I highly recommend giving it a shot. I
don't think you will be disappointed.

I am sorry if this posts has offended anyone in these groups. I am
merely expressing my opinion. My love for EQ1 has not diminished not
has my respect for the active members of these groups.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:25:24 PM

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:54:52 -0500, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
wrote:

>I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
>several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
>about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
>to which to go with.

I'll do the EQ vs. WoW comparison since I'm in the process of moving
between the two. I haven't played EQ2 (although I might pick it up
early next year) and my highest lvl in WoW is 20, so I can't speak to
the mid and high end game.

>I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels; it
>doesn't have to be great (I was happy enough soloing a cleric any level
>up to 62 or berserker any level up to 57 in EQ1, so it doesn't have to
>be great... but it can't feel like dead stop either)

WoW does a good job in this area, most peopleagree that it's pretty
solo friendly all the way to max level. Some classes appear to have
it easier soloing quests than others. My warrior has difficulty
dealing with 2 mobs of his level at a time. My rogue did a quest the
other night where he snuck to the top of a tower full of mobs, any
one of which could have killed him in a straight up fight, snuck up
behind the boss mob at the top and knocked out long enough for me to
pick the lock on the quest chest I needed, then hit my sprint key and
make it back out past all the mobs that were still up. Took 5 or 6
deaths before I got it right but since death isn't a big deal it never
got frustrating.

>I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
>worthwhile rewards; EQ1 failed miserably here, despite having "quest" in
>the name, there really weren't all that many quests for any given
>character (having 10 quests for each of 10 classes for each of 10 races
>is NOT the same as having 1000 quests, for any given character its the
>same as having 10 quests)

People I know that play both EQ2 and WoW are pretty evenly split on
which has the better quest system so it's probably safe to say that
both are miles ahead of EQ1 in that department. Some here will bitch
about the hand-holding in the WoW quests but I like the fact that I'm
not going to spoiler sites to look them up. Most quests are open to
all characters although some are class or tradeskill specific.

The quality of the quests varies. Many are pretty simple delivery and
slaughter quests (WoW's way of grinding exp) but even at low levels,
some are pretty interesting and involved.

My warrior got one which started out just slaughtering some bandits
and bringing 20 headbands back to the caption of the guard. Once that
was finished, he wanted some further information and sent me to the
talk to the 'secret service' back in the capital, which started a
series of delivery quests that took maybe 30 minutes and actually made
a lot of sense in the context of the quest. After getting the
information, I was told to intercept a bandit courier (and given a
pretty good idea of where to find him). The courier had a note which
explained who the head of the bandits was. My next step was to escort
a traitor who would show me where their main base was. Now that I've
found the hideout, I'm given a quest to go in and kill the guy. Since
it's an 'elite' dungeon, this next step will take a group.

>I want a game with tactical options to it, where with thought I can
>apply the tools each class has to find new solutions to combat, and
>combine the tools of several classes into even more new solutions. I
>-like- figuring out new plans and trying them. EQ1 had this in spades,
>if you looked for it, even 5 years in to the game we were still
>stumbling across new uses for spells... or discovering that a new
>situation made a tactic we'd discarded three years ago suddenly the
>perfect approach.

Overall, I like the pacing of combat better in EQ1. In WoW, most
fights against normal mobs are over with in under 20 seconds. The only
saving grace is that they have elite dungeons full of tougher mobs.
What little I've seen of those gives me hope that group play will be
more like EQ1 if you stick to the dungeons.

Tactical flexibility is a mixed bag. My warrior has things to do
during combat but not many meaningful choices that would make a huge
impact. He's more interesting than an EQ warrior of that level but
that ain't saying much. My rogue has almost too many tactical options,
even at his low level. ... but given the low hitpoints on normal mobs,
his tactics come into play mostly before I engage. I don't think
people really know yet what high end combat will be like in WoW so
that question will probably stay open for a while. It's simply too
early to say.

>On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
>game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
>based on that?

No way to tell w/o trying it. I was pretty much in the same boat
before trying it. I didn't really expect to like the graphics but I
was pleasantly surprised. They look better than I expected and I've
had some 'woah, this is cool' moments while exploring.

It's too early to say how much staying power WoW will have but I think
it's a safe bet that most people will get 3-6 months of enjoyment out
of it even if they don't go for PvP or raiding. There are only 9(?)
classes total but the 4 (warrior, hunter, rogue, shaman) I've played
into the teens play very differently. There will be a lot of
replayability there just trying out the different classes.

> I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
>being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
>about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
>to come out?
>

DAoC maybe?

Rgds, Frank
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 6:35:51 PM

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

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-
1w@dejazzd.com:

> I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
> several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
> about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
> to which to go with.
>
> I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels; it
> doesn't have to be great (I was happy enough soloing a cleric any level
> up to 62 or berserker any level up to 57 in EQ1, so it doesn't have to
> be great... but it can't feel like dead stop either)
>
> I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
> worthwhile rewards; EQ1 failed miserably here, despite having "quest"
in
> the name, there really weren't all that many quests for any given
> character (having 10 quests for each of 10 classes for each of 10 races
> is NOT the same as having 1000 quests, for any given character its the
> same as having 10 quests)
>
> I want a game with tactical options to it, where with thought I can
> apply the tools each class has to find new solutions to combat, and
> combine the tools of several classes into even more new solutions. I
> -like- figuring out new plans and trying them. EQ1 had this in spades,
> if you looked for it, even 5 years in to the game we were still
> stumbling across new uses for spells... or discovering that a new
> situation made a tactic we'd discarded three years ago suddenly the
> perfect approach.
>
> On the flip side, as EQ1 leveled up it tended to leave fewer options;
> they made most mobs stun immune, many snare immune, fear immune, and so
> on; this was a boring idea; while there should be -some- mobs immune to
> any given tool, to encourage variety in approach, it shouldn't be
> necessary to discard perfectly good tactics for -all- encounters,
> presenting fewer tools leads to fewer different approaches, and makes
> things get boring faster.
>
> I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
> resembles EQ1, which had a lot of ideas I liked, and because it seems
to
> have a robust quest environment.
>
> On the other hand, I'm also leaning away from it, because I've heard
> there aren't many tactical options, that it rapidly becomes pointless
to
> solo, and because, to be frank, it vaguely resembles EQ; I spent 5
years
> in the old version of Norrath, perhaps something entirely different,
> instead of just somewhat different, is in order.
>
> On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
> game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
> based on that? I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
> being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
> about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> to come out?

EQ2 would probably be a good one to pass some time to allow some of the
others to maybe make it to beta.

It has a very good quest system, with boatloads of quests.

It is soloable, but it does slow down considerably in the high teens.

Tactical options for soloing are pretty limited, more available for
groups, if you can get a good group going.

Many like the tradeskill system, my biggest gripe is the extreme
dependency on other tradeskillers to get the basic components for mid
level and higher combines.

Personally, I still prefer EQ1, warts and all to EQ2, but am playing both
as I have friends playing both.

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

On Steamfont
Graeme, 18 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 7:59:59 PM

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

"Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com...
> I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
> several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
> about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
> to which to go with.
>
> I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels; it
> doesn't have to be great (I was happy enough soloing a cleric any level
> up to 62 or berserker any level up to 57 in EQ1, so it doesn't have to
> be great... but it can't feel like dead stop either)
>
> I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
> worthwhile rewards; EQ1 failed miserably here, despite having "quest" in
> the name, there really weren't all that many quests for any given
> character (having 10 quests for each of 10 classes for each of 10 races
> is NOT the same as having 1000 quests, for any given character its the
> same as having 10 quests)
>
> I want a game with tactical options to it, where with thought I can
> apply the tools each class has to find new solutions to combat, and
> combine the tools of several classes into even more new solutions. I
> -like- figuring out new plans and trying them. EQ1 had this in spades,
> if you looked for it, even 5 years in to the game we were still
> stumbling across new uses for spells... or discovering that a new
> situation made a tactic we'd discarded three years ago suddenly the
> perfect approach.
>
> On the flip side, as EQ1 leveled up it tended to leave fewer options;
> they made most mobs stun immune, many snare immune, fear immune, and so
> on; this was a boring idea; while there should be -some- mobs immune to
> any given tool, to encourage variety in approach, it shouldn't be
> necessary to discard perfectly good tactics for -all- encounters,
> presenting fewer tools leads to fewer different approaches, and makes
> things get boring faster.
>
> I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
> resembles EQ1, which had a lot of ideas I liked, and because it seems to
> have a robust quest environment.
>
> On the other hand, I'm also leaning away from it, because I've heard
> there aren't many tactical options, that it rapidly becomes pointless to
> solo, and because, to be frank, it vaguely resembles EQ; I spent 5 years
> in the old version of Norrath, perhaps something entirely different,
> instead of just somewhat different, is in order.
>
> On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
> game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
> based on that? I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
> being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
> about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> to come out?
>
> Lance


Give World of Warcraft a try...I've been hooked on it...I finally understand
why people called EQ "Evercrack"...
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:26:14 PM

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

Well I played EQ2, got a brawler up to 25, then WoW came out. I bough WoW
since I could not get my wife interested in playing EQ2 and figured I would
play WoW a night or two a week and continue with EQ2.

I cancelled my EQ2 account, and play WoW when ever I can find the extra
time..............

EQ2 was awesome (still is), had great graphics (I have a good machine so did
not have any issues), decent quests, pretty easy to get a group etc.
Tradeskills blew but that is my opinion and with the economics settling down
may alleviate at least some of the issues I had. But overall a fun game.
Note, I had no issues soloing even at 25, I could take 2up arrow white mobs,
and groups of white mobs if I planned my moves correctly, lots of times it
was close, but possible.

WoW (IMHO) is just better. The quests are excellent, you can share with
people in your group so everyone can work toward the same goal. Grouping is
fun (though I would like it to allow for 6 people not the 5), and soloing is
possible. I have a 30 hunter (solos very well) and a 25 paladin (solos
pretty well), the paladin most of the time is grouped with my wife's
paladin, this is actually a great duo.

Why is WoW better? Not sure, I just have more fun, the graphics and
everything being a little cartoonish add to this I am sure, the lack of
zoning REALLY adds to this, and the fact that I can do tradeskills (as a
secondary thing, not having to read the web to figure out what the best
combo of "effects" makes the chance for a pristine combine easier, etc) adds
a little something. EQ2 feels more like a grind (since zoning is a perceived
timesink).
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:49:13 PM

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

In article <cqd3s09tutc7oortu8l8ooi1bmhsrb12pk@4ax.com>, Khosh wrote:
> Group combat in EQ2 is much faster than WoW or EQ1. Some classes can apply
> tactics, but the healers are really limited to keeping the tanks alive
> with spam heals (wards, heal over time, regen, instant). Downtime is much
> less, and makes up for this in a lot of ways, but to me the overall pace
> of combat was too fast to really explore tactics.

Note that in both EQ2 and WoW, you can generally cast while in melee. You
can get interrupted in EQ2, like in EQ1, but it is much less likely than in
EQ1. So, if the healer gets aggro, he can still keep right on healing
himself and others, while the tanks or CC people get things under control.

This considerably reduces the complexity of group combat compared to EQ1 or
DAoC.

....
> Another plus for WoW in my opinion is how death is dealt with. When you
> die you turn into a ghost and spawn at a graveyard near the area you died.
> You have the option of running back to your corpse (you are invisible and
> ignored by all mobs in ghost form), or getting a full res at the graveyard
> at the cost of res sickness for a couple minutes and 25% wear damage to
> all of your equiment. The damage can be repaired for a small fee. There is

Not quite all mobs. There are some places where they don't want you to be
able to use ghost form to explore, so they have mobs that see and attack
ghosts.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:49:14 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:49:13 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>Note that in both EQ2 and WoW, you can generally cast while in melee. You
>can get interrupted in EQ2, like in EQ1, but it is much less likely than in
>EQ1. So, if the healer gets aggro, he can still keep right on healing
>himself and others, while the tanks or CC people get things under control.
>
>This considerably reduces the complexity of group combat compared to EQ1 or
>DAoC.

True, I had not considered that point. You can also be interrupted in
WoW. I definately prefer the pace of combat in EQ1 to the others. I
still rank WoW closer to EQ1 than EQ2 overall in regards to combat
pace and tactics.

>> Another plus for WoW in my opinion is how death is dealt with. When you
>> die you turn into a ghost and spawn at a graveyard near the area you died.
>> You have the option of running back to your corpse (you are invisible and
>> ignored by all mobs in ghost form), or getting a full res at the graveyard
>> at the cost of res sickness for a couple minutes and 25% wear damage to
>> all of your equiment. The damage can be repaired for a small fee. There is
>
>Not quite all mobs. There are some places where they don't want you to be
>able to use ghost form to explore, so they have mobs that see and attack
>ghosts.

Cool! I will tread more lightly while in the spirit realm :) 
December 17, 2004 6:08:02 PM

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

"Pamela Carlton" <lambchop@whocareswhere.com> writes:

> "Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
> news:Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com...
> > I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
> > resembles EQ1, which had a lot of ideas I liked, and because it seems to
> > have a robust quest environment.
> >
> > On the other hand, I'm also leaning away from it, because I've heard
> > there aren't many tactical options, that it rapidly becomes pointless to
> > solo, and because, to be frank, it vaguely resembles EQ; I spent 5 years
> > in the old version of Norrath, perhaps something entirely different,
> > instead of just somewhat different, is in order.
> >
> > On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
> > game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
> > based on that? I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
> > being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
> > about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> > to come out?
> >
> > Lance
> >
> I have enjoyed playing EQ2 so far.
> The quests are a real hoot, there's no shortage of them and you can get
> rewards from coin to weapons, armour and accessories. Some quests are nice
> and short such as deliveries, others require crossing several areas.

My quest journal is constantly at the 50 quest limit, I wish they
would have set it higher. OTOH then I would probably be at that
limit, what with the zillions of collection quests.

> I have found it hard to solo, particularly over level 13 where the mobs you
> need to attack are built for groups.

There are plenty of solo mobs for all levels, you just need to go to
the right places to find them (Antonica or Commonlands at level 13).
If you're the right class you can easily solo greep group monsters up
to at least 20 (I'm at 23 and can still handle them if I choose the
right ones), too. People have said that guardians (the defensive
fighter class) can take blue ^^ group mobs up to the high 20s at
least, with good AC.

They're also adding a bunch of new solo quests next week, so maybe it
will be a bit more fun for soloers then, depending on what levels
they're for and what the experience reward is.


> My other half and I have grouped and have had relatively good success, of
> course the more people you have the easier it gets.
> On the grouping side however, a fair bit of discussion has gone on about
> mages spell not being able to stack (summoners) and there being no use for
> more than one ranger/predator in a group as their spells don't stack either.

Umm, no use for multiple predators? How about doing damage? They may
not be quite as good as mages, but they deal out very respectable
damage compared to anything else and almost all that damage is instant
so stacking doesn't matter (and even if it wasn't, surely multiple
DoTs from different casters stack, or did they learn nothing from
EQ?). I'd be more worried about the stackability of, say, bards
(specialised in group buffs) or rogues (the tanking scout).
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:08:03 PM

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

>"Pamela Carlton" <lambchop@whocareswhere.com> writes:

<patrik@nordebo.com> wrote:
>My quest journal is constantly at the 50 quest limit, I wish they
>would have set it higher. OTOH then I would probably be at that
>limit, what with the zillions of collection quests.

They should (IMO) have left it unlimited, added decent search/sort UI to it,
and let people take on as much as they like. I hear the reason they limited
it (late in Beta) was that it was causing lag to search hundreds of quests for
each player in a group that gets a kill to see if there's a match.

I wish they'd fixed it by letting players deactivate quests as needed, and
reactivate them before actually performing the activity.

>There are plenty of solo mobs for all levels, you just need to go to
>the right places to find them (Antonica or Commonlands at level 13).

I've seen a number of people make this argument, and it's probably true up to
a point. I know for me, it's painfully slow to solo, and almost impossible to
do most of the quests I find at my current level. I can do quests that I've
had for a few levels and the mobs are green or light blue, but new
level-challenging quests often require a group or waiting a few levels to do.

I'm also very bored soloing, and it seems that XP gains are about half of what
I get in even a bad 3-person group.

For me, and what I'd recommend to anyone considering EQ2, soloing is what you
do while looking for a group, or to kill a bit of time when you can't play
long enough to commit to a group. Oh, and tradeskillers can spend a lot of
solo time.

If you like adventuring and killing, and don't want to group most of the time,
EQ2 likely is not the best game for you. There are probably exceptions, but
the content design really is group-oriented/solo-possible rather than
group-or-solo-equal.

That's lucky for me, as I strongly prefer to group, both with friends and in
pickup groups. In a game with easy soloing, it's sometimes hard to make new
friends and find people willing to put effort into coordinating and working
together.

>If you're the right class you can easily solo greep group monsters up
>to at least 20 (I'm at 23 and can still handle them if I choose the
>right ones), too. People have said that guardians (the defensive
>fighter class) can take blue ^^ group mobs up to the high 20s at
>least, with good AC.

Probably true. Soloing is not impossible, just less efficient and (for me)
less rewarding. Obviously, such a judgement depends on what you enjoy about
the game, but if you really don't like grouping I have a hard time believing
that EQ2 is the game for you.

>> My other half and I have grouped and have had relatively good success, of
>> course the more people you have the easier it gets.

A good duo is far more powerful than soloing. Healer/tanks are the
core of an EQ group, with everything else optional. The more the merrier,
but really once you get a fighter and a priest together, you have a group.

>> On the grouping side however, a fair bit of discussion has gone on about
>> mages spell not being able to stack (summoners) and there being no use for
>> more than one ranger/predator in a group as their spells don't stack either.

>Umm, no use for multiple predators? How about doing damage?

From what I've seen (not that much, admittedly), worries about stacking are
mostly unfounded in practice. Almost everyone has decent DPS when not
engaged in some other role. Unfortunately, if enough people think
differently, it becomes a problem in the game which is VERY difficult for a
designer to fix.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
DATE
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 2:58:43 AM

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

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2a78737f543b4198992f@shawnews...
> In article <Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com>, emporer@dejazzd.com
> says...
> >
> > On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the
> > game or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG
> > based on that?
>
> Warcraft III isn't exactly representative of WoW anymore than Lords of
> Everquest is representative of EQ1. It might not be your thing, but I
> wouldn't discount it based primarily on the RTS.
>
> > I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play
> > being largely the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good
> > about SWG. So whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard
> > to come out?
>
> Well... Anarchy Online is quite mature now, with several expansions
> under its belt, and all the content and refinement that implies.
>
> As an added deal, they are basically giving away accounts. You may
> download the software (no expansions), install it, and play it. No
> purchase price and *no subscription fees*!
>
> If you want to upgrade to the expansions, then the subscription costs
> start kicking in... but its definately a nice move.
>
> http://www.anarchy-online.com/content/news/articles/838...
>
> Of course...
>
> DaoC is the 'classic' alternative to EQ. And I'm sure you are aware of
> it.
>
> Also... Horizons and AC2 both had weak launches...but i thought they had
> promise... and they've had time to shape up... they may have shaped up

I played both for nearly a year and they both had much better cameras then
EQ2, AC2 had great graphics (two year old pc) and Horizons a great shopping
system but I have no intention to go back.

ATB
Grimchrim (Runnyeye Troll warrior)
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 6:40:47 PM

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

"Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:Boadnd_kuLROU13cRVn-1w@dejazzd.com...
> I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
> several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
> about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as to
> which to go with.
>
> I want a game where I can solo and group to reasonably high levels; it
> doesn't have to be great (I was happy enough soloing a cleric any level up
> to 62 or berserker any level up to 57 in EQ1, so it doesn't have to be
> great... but it can't feel like dead stop either)
>
> I want a game with quests, real quests that are engaging and yeild
> worthwhile rewards; EQ1 failed miserably here, despite having "quest" in
> the name, there really weren't all that many quests for any given
> character (having 10 quests for each of 10 classes for each of 10 races is
> NOT the same as having 1000 quests, for any given character its the same
> as having 10 quests)
>
> I want a game with tactical options to it, where with thought I can apply
> the tools each class has to find new solutions to combat, and combine the
> tools of several classes into even more new solutions. I -like- figuring
> out new plans and trying them. EQ1 had this in spades, if you looked for
> it, even 5 years in to the game we were still stumbling across new uses
> for spells... or discovering that a new situation made a tactic we'd
> discarded three years ago suddenly the perfect approach.
>
> On the flip side, as EQ1 leveled up it tended to leave fewer options; they
> made most mobs stun immune, many snare immune, fear immune, and so on;
> this was a boring idea; while there should be -some- mobs immune to any
> given tool, to encourage variety in approach, it shouldn't be necessary to
> discard perfectly good tactics for -all- encounters, presenting fewer
> tools leads to fewer different approaches, and makes things get boring
> faster.
>
> I'm leaning towards EQ2, based on what I've heard, because it vaguely
> resembles EQ1, which had a lot of ideas I liked, and because it seems to
> have a robust quest environment.
>
> On the other hand, I'm also leaning away from it, because I've heard there
> aren't many tactical options, that it rapidly becomes pointless to solo,
> and because, to be frank, it vaguely resembles EQ; I spent 5 years in the
> old version of Norrath, perhaps something entirely different, instead of
> just somewhat different, is in order.
>
> On the gripping hand, I've tried Warcraft III and don't care for the game
> or the graphic style; how interested am I going to be in a MMOG based on
> that? I've heard COH has a short play life, with game play being largely
> the same at 40 as it is at 10. I've heard nothing good about SWG. So
> whats left, other than waiting a few years for Vanguard to come out?
>
> Lance

I've read some really good reviews on SWG's new expansion, Jump to
Lightspeed. Supposed to fix a lot of problems the palyers have been griping
about.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 6:40:48 PM

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

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:40:47 GMT, John Lynch, Jr. wrote:

> I've read some really good reviews on SWG's new expansion, Jump to
> Lightspeed. Supposed to fix a lot of problems the palyers have been griping
> about.

But it still hasn't fixed the (loooong promised) combat revamp. It's a bit
of candy to take your mind off of that.
--
RJB
12/22/2004 10:56:36 AM

"Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen."
-Homer Simpson
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 11:51:08 PM

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

"RJB" <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1tf721adlr3hg$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:40:47 GMT, John Lynch, Jr. wrote:
>
>> I've read some really good reviews on SWG's new expansion, Jump to
>> Lightspeed. Supposed to fix a lot of problems the palyers have been
>> griping
>> about.
>
> But it still hasn't fixed the (loooong promised) combat revamp. It's a bit
> of candy to take your mind off of that.
> --
> RJB
> 12/22/2004 10:56:36 AM
>
> "Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen."
> -Homer Simpson

I haven't personally played it. I was just informing the OP of the reviews
I'd read.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:37:44 AM

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

In alt.games.everquest Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
> I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
> several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
> about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
> to which to go with.
>

My answer ... RUN ... RUN LIKE HELL. Do not pay either of these
companies. EQ2 was down for more than 27 hours straight on Friday and
Saturday. Yesterday, Wow delivers a patch through their broken P2P
download tool that a MASSIVE number of customers report problems with
and no help at all. Nobody could play until they found the patch in an
alternative location hosted by none other than customers! Then, they
throw salt in the wound by sending all the servers down today, then up
them come and now the login server is down. It is not even possible to
communicate with them in the web forums as they rely on the login
servers.

I have had it. I chose SOE ... several reasons changed my mind. They
went down and that hastened my decision making perhaps. I chose Wow as
my favorite and play that for awhile and only days later ... down goes
WOW for the same bullshit.

AOL reliability was always written off as "that is just the way it is
.... get used to it". Guess what ... whoever said that was dead wrong.
With the popularity of games software these days [surpasses even the
movie industry], you can bet that this sort of inept management of game
systems will eventually lead to a similar conclusion. I should keep my
subscription to both services just to collect class benefits ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 9:49:00 AM

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

On 23 Dec 2004 02:37:44 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I have had it. I chose SOE ... several reasons changed my mind. They
>went down and that hastened my decision making perhaps. I chose Wow as
>my favorite and play that for awhile and only days later ... down goes
>WOW for the same bullshit.

That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.

>AOL reliability was always written off as "that is just the way it is
>... get used to it". Guess what ... whoever said that was dead wrong.

I'm with AOL in the UK, and I've never had a single problem with them,
in 3 years or more - are they not as stable in the US ?

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:09:28 AM

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> In alt.games.everquest Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm a former EQ1 player, quit a couple months ago after 5 years and
>>several high level characters. After a couple months off, I'm thinking
>>about getting back into playing, and thought I'd start the research as
>>to which to go with.
>>
>
>
> My answer ... RUN ... RUN LIKE HELL. Do not pay either of these
> companies. EQ2 was down for more than 27 hours straight on Friday and
> Saturday. Yesterday, Wow delivers a patch through their broken P2P
> download tool that a MASSIVE number of customers report problems with
> and no help at all. Nobody could play until they found the patch in an
> alternative location hosted by none other than customers! Then, they
> throw salt in the wound by sending all the servers down today, then up
> them come and now the login server is down. It is not even possible to
> communicate with them in the web forums as they rely on the login
> servers.

I wouldn't care about a 27 hour down time, I played EQ1 for years, and
long since did the math; paying 1.8 cents per hour is by far the
cheapest entertainment I've ever purchased, and every now and then
problems which mean I have to spend a couple days doing something else
(a couple days, because a big patch usually gets followed by patches for
the patch, and patches for those patches) just isn't that big a deal.

The WOW behavior sounds more objectionable, not in that they also had
down time and problems, but that their communication systems are screwy;
on the other hand, the math ends up the same, a couple days off doing
something else just isn't that big a deal.

> I have had it. I chose SOE ... several reasons changed my mind. They
> went down and that hastened my decision making perhaps. I chose Wow as
> my favorite and play that for awhile and only days later ... down goes
> WOW for the same bullshit.
>
> AOL reliability was always written off as "that is just the way it is
> ... get used to it". Guess what ... whoever said that was dead wrong.
> With the popularity of games software these days [surpasses even the
> movie industry], you can bet that this sort of inept management of game
> systems will eventually lead to a similar conclusion. I should keep my
> subscription to both services just to collect class benefits ;-)

I'm very confused about your mention of what seems to be one of the
biggest success stories of the internet as "dead wrong". Yes, I'm one
of the thousands of anti AOL snobs... but for every "experienced user"
who refused to have anything to do with a company that wouldn't let us
control our own front end, they got a dozen people who'd never been on
the web at all hooked up and running. For a while, it was the training
wheels of the web, at this point I think its more the volvo station
wagon; a little clunky, but you can drive it safely for the rest of your
life.

Class benefits, well, again, lets say they are down for two days,
instead of the 27 hours you mentioned. You are entitled to roughly 87
cents compensation. If you want to keep paying 13 bucks a month in
order to eventually get your 87 cent slice of the pie, I doubt SOE is
going to be upset. OH by the way, the lawyers are going to end up
getting 44 cents of your 87... and that means they go home with a couple
million bucks in their pockets, so they are the real winners.

Lance

ps well, it was the cheapest form of entertainment... now I'm playing
Anarchy Online, which is charging $0 for the basic game and $0 a month
to play for the first year. If they get two days of down time, I'm
looking at a whole $0 in compensation, your 43 cent share of the SOE pie
looks like a fortune!

>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 1:33:17 PM

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

>In alt.games.everquest Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>> After a couple months off, I'm thinking about getting back into
>> playing, and thought I'd start the research as to which to go with.

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My answer ... RUN ... RUN LIKE HELL. Do not pay either of these
>companies. EQ2 was down for more than 27 hours straight on Friday and
>Saturday. Yesterday, Wow delivers a patch through their broken P2P
>download tool that a MASSIVE number of customers report problems with
>and no help at all.

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling. It's certainly the case that if
100% uptime is your main requirement, you'll sometimes be disappointed with
any of the MMO offerings out there. Stick with single-player games (oh,
and only older ones with no server authentication/registration reqired, and
all the patches to make them playable already done).

If you want interaction with other players and online persistent gameplay,
you're going to put up with some amount of unavailabilty. I don't know of ANY
that aren't going to be down sometimes.

Personally, unless you're going to dedicate all your free time to a game, and
take days off specifically to play it, this seems like a minor consideration.
If you ARE obsessive about a single game, choosing one that's likely to be
more available is still probably less important than the actual gameplay and
social environment that allows you to pour your life into it.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:13:10 PM

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

In alt.games.everquest Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2004 02:37:44 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I have had it. I chose SOE ... several reasons changed my mind. They
>>went down and that hastened my decision making perhaps. I chose Wow as
>>my favorite and play that for awhile and only days later ... down goes
>>WOW for the same bullshit.
>
> That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.

That is a horrible analogy [and spelling]. No offense intended, but it
is.

>
>>AOL reliability was always written off as "that is just the way it is
>>... get used to it". Guess what ... whoever said that was dead wrong.
>
> I'm with AOL in the UK, and I've never had a single problem with them,
> in 3 years or more - are they not as stable in the US ?
>

During the mid 90s AOL had a huge problem with busy signals and
disconnects. A HUGE problem. It was so bad that a class action
lawsuite made them change and they finally started actually putting the
investments needed into the systems to actually make them stable. It
took legal action to get them to fix it, because normal supply and
demand wasn't going to do it. Guess what ... they are still in business
[barely]. Because of the nature of the online gaming industry, I see it
very possible that a similar route just might happen here. My advice to
Sony and Blizzard is to get your act together now, while you have
control and legal costs are cheap.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:13:11 PM

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

On 23 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>> That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.
>
> That is a horrible analogy [and spelling]. No offense intended, but it
> is.

Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
appropriate I believe.
--
RJB
12/23/2004 9:49:46 AM

"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
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:23:42 PM

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

In alt.games.everquest Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't care about a 27 hour down time, I played EQ1 for years, and
> long since did the math; paying 1.8 cents per hour is by far the
> cheapest entertainment I've ever purchased, and every now and then
> problems which mean I have to spend a couple days doing something else
> (a couple days, because a big patch usually gets followed by patches for
> the patch, and patches for those patches) just isn't that big a deal.
>

You know damn well it is not about the hourly cost. Besides, I only
play on average about an hour per day ... not even with all the
downtime. So, that would be 50 cents an hour. But that is not the
point. If you pay to be able to play a game any time you want and it is
not available to play even close to that, then there is bound to be
feelings evoked in response. The issue is that if at the times I want
to play that I can't then it is pointless to be paying for the game at
all.

> The WOW behavior sounds more objectionable, not in that they also had
> down time and problems, but that their communication systems are screwy;
> on the other hand, the math ends up the same, a couple days off doing
> something else just isn't that big a deal.

As a customer, I determine what I think is a big deal. I am glad you
found something else to do. For me, I have a limited amount of time
when I am available to play, so looking forward to that time, I sit
down, pour a beer and login to see ... SORRY ... go do something else
why we fix our systems. Now, what am I supposed to do with that beer?
Now, the only time I have available to play is shot and I won't be able
to play at all. As a customer, that is a big deal to me. Two days in a
row this has occurred. Once because of the patch and once because of
whatever server problems they were having. It is the fact that two days
in a row I was basically not able to play [I did get 20 minutes in on
Tuesday night, late].
>
> I'm very confused about your mention of what seems to be one of the
> biggest success stories of the internet as "dead wrong". Yes, I'm one
> of the thousands of anti AOL snobs... but for every "experienced user"
> who refused to have anything to do with a company that wouldn't let us
> control our own front end, they got a dozen people who'd never been on
> the web at all hooked up and running. For a while, it was the training
> wheels of the web, at this point I think its more the volvo station
> wagon; a little clunky, but you can drive it safely for the rest of your
> life.
>

You don't remember the early AOL days, do you?

> Class benefits, well, again, lets say they are down for two days,
> instead of the 27 hours you mentioned. You are entitled to roughly 87
> cents compensation. If you want to keep paying 13 bucks a month in
> order to eventually get your 87 cent slice of the pie, I doubt SOE is
> going to be upset. OH by the way, the lawyers are going to end up
> getting 44 cents of your 87... and that means they go home with a couple
> million bucks in their pockets, so they are the real winners.
>

The same goes for AOL and it unlimitted service. Right? Wrong! It
wasn't that they were down for 87 cents worth of service. It is the
fact that they are not maintaining a reasonable availability for a
service sold as available 24/7! This IS what cost AOL in the 90's.

> Lance
>
> ps well, it was the cheapest form of entertainment... now I'm playing
> Anarchy Online, which is charging $0 for the basic game and $0 a month
> to play for the first year. If they get two days of down time, I'm
> looking at a whole $0 in compensation, your 43 cent share of the SOE pie
> looks like a fortune!
>

I downloaded Anarchy Online and immediately could not stand the graphics
for that game. All edges. Uck! BTW .. I use an ATI Radeon 9700Pro
128MB DDR.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:24:29 PM

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

In alt.games.everquest Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't care about a 27 hour down time, I played EQ1 for years, and
> long since did the math; paying 1.8 cents per hour is by far the
> cheapest entertainment I've ever purchased, and every now and then
> problems which mean I have to spend a couple days doing something else
> (a couple days, because a big patch usually gets followed by patches for
> the patch, and patches for those patches) just isn't that big a deal.

It's not about the money, it's about being dissapointed when you
happen to have that day off, or whatever, and were planning on
playing. I think it's a little insensitive to tell people they're
simply not allowed to be dissapointed, and it's pretty harmless to
blow off a little steam about the servers being down on usenet.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:30:27 PM

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

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
news:tZWdnR3PXIrnKFfcRVn-uQ@dejazzd.com:

> I wouldn't care about a 27 hour down time, I played EQ1 for years, and
> long since did the math; paying 1.8 cents per hour is by far the
> cheapest entertainment I've ever purchased, and every now and then
> problems which mean I have to spend a couple days doing something else
> (a couple days, because a big patch usually gets followed by patches
> for the patch, and patches for those patches) just isn't that big a
> deal.
>
> The WOW behavior sounds more objectionable, not in that they also had
> down time and problems, but that their communication systems are
> screwy; on the other hand, the math ends up the same, a couple days
> off doing something else just isn't that big a deal.

Communication? When I logged onto WoW last night there was a big
box to the side with a message regarding the downtime, projected
completion and the problems with the login server. Way better than
anything SOE ever did.



> ps well, it was the cheapest form of entertainment... now I'm playing
> Anarchy Online, which is charging $0 for the basic game and $0 a month
> to play for the first year. If they get two days of down time, I'm
> looking at a whole $0 in compensation, your 43 cent share of the SOE
> pie looks like a fortune!
>
>>

Until the 27th, any downtime in WoW isn't costing me anything either.
(bought on the 23rd + 4 days extra for the issues they've had.



--
Arch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang
Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw
Lanys T'vyl (Retired)

Mairelon, 14th Paladin
Silverhand

My WoW Mods: http://therealorang.com
December 23, 2004 6:34:09 PM

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

The servers were down for 27 hours, that is true. To compensate players,
everyone is getting three free days added to their account and there was 48
hours of bonus xp from Sunday to Tuesday. Hardware failures happen, that's
life. IMO they have compensated everyone adequately.

Shaun
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:59:31 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:51:14 -0500, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 23 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>>> That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.
>>
>> That is a horrible analogy [and spelling]. No offense intended, but it
>> is.
>
>Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
>appropriate I believe.

Yes, I am, and no - it was a typo. :) 

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:59:32 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:59:31 +0000, Mark Morrison wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:51:14 -0500, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>
>>>> That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.
>>>
>>> That is a horrible analogy [and spelling]. No offense intended, but it
>>> is.
>>
>>Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
>>appropriate I believe.
>
> Yes, I am, and no - it was a typo. :) 

Hmm I've seen it spelled that way before... possibly a Norwegian? I know
I've seen it spelled that way before (and not a typo). LOL shoulda kept
quiet on that one. <g>
--
RJB
12/23/2004 11:31:35 AM

Doh!
--Homer Simpson
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:59:33 PM

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

RJB wrote:
>
> Hmm I've seen it spelled that way before... possibly a Norwegian? I
> know I've seen it spelled that way before (and not a typo). LOL
> shoulda kept quiet on that one. <g>

I believe "tyre" is an acceptable Brit alternative spelling, although it may
now be considered archaic.

But I just pulled that out of some very dusty memories--I could be wrong,
I'm too lazy to look it up to make sure, and it doesn't really matter that
much, anyway. :-)

--
chainbreaker
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:59:33 PM

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

RJB wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:59:31 +0000, Mark Morrison wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:51:14 -0500, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.
>>>>
>>>>That is a horrible analogy [and spelling]. No offense intended, but it
>>>>is.
>>>
>>>Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
>>>appropriate I believe.
>>
>>Yes, I am, and no - it was a typo. :) 
>
>
> Hmm I've seen it spelled that way before... possibly a Norwegian? I know
> I've seen it spelled that way before (and not a typo). LOL shoulda kept
> quiet on that one. <g>
He misspelled Because
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:59:34 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:03:55 -0600, Tyas wrote:

> RJB wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:59:31 +0000, Mark Morrison wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:51:14 -0500, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 23 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a horrible analogy [and spelling]. No offense intended, but it
>>>>>is.
>>>>
>>>>Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
>>>>appropriate I believe.
>>>
>>>Yes, I am, and no - it was a typo. :) 
>>
>>
>> Hmm I've seen it spelled that way before... possibly a Norwegian? I know
>> I've seen it spelled that way before (and not a typo). LOL shoulda kept
>> quiet on that one. <g>
> He misspelled Because

Aha! There ya go!
--
RJB
12/23/2004 1:22:24 PM

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
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 7:01:56 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:34:09 GMT, "Shaun" <news.address@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>The servers were down for 27 hours, that is true. To compensate players,
>everyone is getting three free days added to their account and there was 48
>hours of bonus xp from Sunday to Tuesday. Hardware failures happen, that's
>life. IMO they have compensated everyone adequately.
>
>Shaun
>
More than adequately, IMO - my 2 chars got about 8 levels between them
(tradeskill and adv) in those 2 days.

Tradskilling was great - when you make an item for the first time, you
get a xp bonus, and with the additional bonus, I was getting 8-11% xp
when making a pristine item for the first time. :) 

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:05:03 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:41cad4ee$0$80494$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:

> In alt.games.everquest Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't care about a 27 hour down time, I played EQ1 for years,
>> and long since did the math; paying 1.8 cents per hour is by far the
>> cheapest entertainment I've ever purchased, and every now and then
>> problems which mean I have to spend a couple days doing something
>> else (a couple days, because a big patch usually gets followed by
>> patches for the patch, and patches for those patches) just isn't that
>> big a deal.
>>
>
> You know damn well it is not about the hourly cost. Besides, I only
> play on average about an hour per day ... not even with all the
> downtime. So, that would be 50 cents an hour. But that is not the
> point. If you pay to be able to play a game any time you want and it
> is not available to play even close to that, then there is bound to be
> feelings evoked in response. The issue is that if at the times I want
> to play that I can't then it is pointless to be paying for the game at
> all.

"...it is not available anywhere close to that..."? I'm not sure how
you're coming to that conclusion considering that:

* There are some 744 hours in this month - we're talking about 27 of them
being lost.

* There are 31 days in this month - that's only 2 you've missed out on
playing by your own admission.

Nowhere close to that? Stick to the facts and perhaps you wouldn't be so
pissed off all the time.

>> The WOW behavior sounds more objectionable, not in that they also had
>> down time and problems, but that their communication systems are
>> screwy; on the other hand, the math ends up the same, a couple days
>> off doing something else just isn't that big a deal.
>
> As a customer, I determine what I think is a big deal. I am glad you
> found something else to do. For me, I have a limited amount of time
> when I am available to play, so looking forward to that time, I sit
> down, pour a beer and login to see ... SORRY ... go do something else
> why we fix our systems. Now, what am I supposed to do with that beer?
> Now, the only time I have available to play is shot and I won't be
> able to play at all. As a customer, that is a big deal to me. Two
> days in a row this has occurred. Once because of the patch and once
> because of whatever server problems they were having. It is the fact
> that two days in a row I was basically not able to play [I did get 20
> minutes in on Tuesday night, late].

You have options. Considering your level of dissatisfaction, I can't
imagine why you're not exercising them. Do you just prefer to be angry?

>> I'm very confused about your mention of what seems to be one of the
>> biggest success stories of the internet as "dead wrong". Yes, I'm
>> one of the thousands of anti AOL snobs... but for every "experienced
>> user" who refused to have anything to do with a company that wouldn't
>> let us control our own front end, they got a dozen people who'd never
>> been on the web at all hooked up and running. For a while, it was
>> the training wheels of the web, at this point I think its more the
>> volvo station wagon; a little clunky, but you can drive it safely for
>> the rest of your life.
>>
>
> You don't remember the early AOL days, do you?

And that has exactly what to do with their present day service levels?
I'd say they're only known for their mistakes by those who choose to see
little else.

>> Class benefits, well, again, lets say they are down for two days,
>> instead of the 27 hours you mentioned. You are entitled to roughly
>> 87 cents compensation. If you want to keep paying 13 bucks a month
>> in order to eventually get your 87 cent slice of the pie, I doubt SOE
>> is going to be upset. OH by the way, the lawyers are going to end up
>> getting 44 cents of your 87... and that means they go home with a
>> couple million bucks in their pockets, so they are the real winners.
>>
>
> The same goes for AOL and it unlimitted service. Right? Wrong! It
> wasn't that they were down for 87 cents worth of service. It is the
> fact that they are not maintaining a reasonable availability for a
> service sold as available 24/7! This IS what cost AOL in the 90's.

I'm not sure what else to say that might help you understand just how
much one can expect for $14.95/mo. Keeping in mind that we don't face a
27-hour outage every month. In fact, we probably won't see it once every
six months. Look at the big picture.

--
Rumble

"Either write something worth reading,
or do something worth writing." -- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 9:15:40 PM

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

RJB <robartle@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
> appropriate I believe.

I don't think it is a good analogy. First, the monthly cost is 33% of
the cost of the entire software purchase .. half if you realize that the
first month is free. Also, it is not like you can return a car after a
month and call it even. Me, I can cut my losses if I so please and that
will be exactly what I am doing. As far as spelling goes, well perhaps.
So, if this is indeed how they spell it in Britain and he is British,
then my humble apologies on the spelling correction [which was a half
joking nit while I was replying to the analogy].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 9:16:50 PM

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

RJB <robartle@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm I've seen it spelled that way before... possibly a Norwegian? I know
> I've seen it spelled that way before (and not a typo). LOL shoulda kept
> quiet on that one. <g>

There is a city called Tyre.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 9:32:45 PM

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

In alt.games.everquest Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotremovethispartmail.com> wrote:
>
> * There are some 744 hours in this month - we're talking about 27 of them
> being lost.
>
> * There are 31 days in this month - that's only 2 you've missed out on
> playing by your own admission.

It is 2 out of 30, as they bill in 30 day increments [or so the doco
stated]. Even so, 29/31 is only a 93% uptime. Uptime should be based
[outside of normal maintenance] on 99.99+% as normal for uptime. But
that is not my point. Assuming my schedule is that I play everyday for
one hour, then that is the uptime as I see it. Perhaps I would only
play on weekends. If that were so, and likely of some customers, then
SOEs downtime last week would equate to about 20% down for the month for
this type of user. My point, it is a matter of user perspective in
particular and it is a matter of all customers perspective in general.
Your particular opinion and my particular opinion do not matter nearly
as much as what all users in general feel. Like I stated before, AOL
used to quote very similar results and a not to dissimilar scenario and
there were always people saying the same things that many here are
saying, on both sides of the issue, but in the end, it was deemed that
AOL was very much at fault and overselling their product. Quality was
suffering. Quality is suffering here, for both companies.

>
> Nowhere close to that? Stick to the facts and perhaps you wouldn't be so
> pissed off all the time.

I have no trouble being happy when what I am paying for is working and I
am playing the game. All the time pissed off? I only wish you were
closer if that were the case ;-)

>
> You have options. Considering your level of dissatisfaction, I can't
> imagine why you're not exercising them. Do you just prefer to be angry?
>

I am very satisified with the software product when it is up and running.
My dissatisifcation is only with reliabiltiy.

>>> I'm very confused about your mention of what seems to be one of the
>>> biggest success stories of the internet as "dead wrong". Yes, I'm
>>> one of the thousands of anti AOL snobs... but for every "experienced
>>> user" who refused to have anything to do with a company that wouldn't
>>> let us control our own front end, they got a dozen people who'd never
>>> been on the web at all hooked up and running. For a while, it was
>>> the training wheels of the web, at this point I think its more the
>>> volvo station wagon; a little clunky, but you can drive it safely for
>>> the rest of your life.
>>>
>>
>> You don't remember the early AOL days, do you?
>
> And that has exactly what to do with their present day service levels?
> I'd say they're only known for their mistakes by those who choose to see
> little else.

I was referring to the previous service levels as an example. The
online gaming industry is growing through a very similar situation that
AOL went through, which is why I referred to it. Obtuseness is not a
good attribute to project into the discussion by the way. Not only do I
hold no problems with AOL [never did as I was not a customer during
their problem years] but I was a stock holder until three weeks ago.

>
> I'm not sure what else to say that might help you understand just how
> much one can expect for $14.95/mo. Keeping in mind that we don't face a
> 27-hour outage every month. In fact, we probably won't see it once every
> six months. Look at the big picture.
>

Alot! How much do you pay for basic dial-up Internet access? How much
do you pay for any particular service? Do you have DSL? Cable
Internet? What is its uptime? How much do you pay for that? It is not
a matter of what you paid, it is a matter of what you paid for, or
rather, what was sold. If they can't live up to it, they have two
options, fix it so that they can or quit selling it.

Having said that,
I have done my venting, the game is back up, and I am happy. Further,
they have responded directly to my comments to them [Blizzard] and I am
confident that they will do something about the problems. Further, they
did promise a 1 day credit to all customers, which also seems equitable. I
am confident they will try to get the downloader issue fixed, but I am a
little less confident that they will succeed as long as they stick with
P2P.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:13:14 PM

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

In article <1q05oqtyfds8y.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com>,
RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
> >>appropriate I believe.
> >
> > Yes, I am, and no - it was a typo. :) 
>
> Hmm I've seen it spelled that way before... possibly a Norwegian? I know
> I've seen it spelled that way before (and not a typo). LOL shoulda kept
> quiet on that one. <g>

No, you were correct. Tyre is a variant of the spelling of tire that is
mainly British. That doesn't mean all Brits spell it that way, of
course.

Take a look at Goodyear's UK page for examples of Brits spelling it that
way:

http://www.goodyear.co.uk/

They also spell it that way in Australia:

http://www.goodyear.com.au/

Same goes for South Africa.

It looks like "tire" in Japan, when they use English.

As for Norway, I couldn't find any word on the Goodyear Norway sites
that looked remotely like "tire" or "tyre". :-)

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:49:34 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:03:55 -0600, Tyas
<tyas_mt@hotplonkmail.commies> wrote:

>RJB wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:59:31 +0000, Mark Morrison wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:51:14 -0500, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 23 Dec 2004 14:13:10 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>That's like selling your car becasue it got a flat tyre.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a horrible analogy [and spelling]. No offense intended, but it
>>>>>is.
>>>>
>>>>Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
>>>>appropriate I believe.
>>>
>>>Yes, I am, and no - it was a typo. :) 
>>
>>
>> Hmm I've seen it spelled that way before... possibly a Norwegian? I know
>> I've seen it spelled that way before (and not a typo). LOL shoulda kept
>> quiet on that one. <g>
>He misspelled Because

Oh, I completely misunderstood.

Tyre - rubber wheel on car. Tire - fatigue.

In the UK, anyway - according to dictionary.com, it's a British thing.

--

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:54:59 PM

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

On 23 Dec 2004 18:15:40 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>RJB <robartle@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Umm I believe he's British. That's how they spell tire. And the analogy is
>> appropriate I believe.
>
>I don't think it is a good analogy. First, the monthly cost is 33% of
>the cost of the entire software purchase .. half if you realize that the
>first month is free. Also, it is not like you can return a car after a
>month and call it even. Me, I can cut my losses if I so please and that
>will be exactly what I am doing.

Yes, but you're quitting because it was down for 27 hours. And since
you say you only play for an hour a day anyway, you've lost out on 1
hour (or 2, if you regular playtime coincided with the start and end).

You go out to the car to drive to the store, and it's got a flat - you
get pissed off, but you don't decid to junk it. You fix the tyre.

Admittedly, there's nothing you can do but what in the case of a
MMORPG going down, but still...

> As far as spelling goes, well perhaps.
>So, if this is indeed how they spell it in Britain and he is British,
>then my humble apologies on the spelling correction [which was a half
>joking nit while I was replying to the analogy].

I thought it was spelt like this everywhere - one more thing for the
US<->UK proofreaders to look out for. :) 

--

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