PvP Coming to EverQuest II

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

Per a letter from John Smedley, President of SOE:

John Smedley's Letter to the Community: April 7th, 2005

Hello Everyone,

First off, I'd like to say thanks for all of the wonderful ideas we received
from you after my last posting. Having this ongoing dialogue is something
SOE is committed to in a major way, and it's one of the biggest things you
all asked for. So you'll see an increase in our public presence, not just
on our boards, but on a lot of the fansites, as well. And we've created a
new position within our ranks, the Director of Community Relations,
specifically to prioritize you, the community, within our service offerings.
Alan Crosby, previously EQ Community Relations Manager, will be stepping
into this role, and all of SOE's community managers and representatives will
report to him, while still maintaining close ties to the game teams, of
course. Under this new structure, we will become even more responsive, even
more dedicated to customer focus!

I'd like to give you a general update on our games this posting:

Since my last post , we launched our first Adventure Pack for EverQuest II -
"The Bloodline Chronicles" - and over half our player base is already
playing it! We are committed to releasing new content between Expansion
Packs that goes beyond our live updates, and so we'll continue to release
these Adventure Packs on a regular basis -- a first for our industry.

The EQII team is still hard at work on the existing game, and I think that
all of the new content the team has added since launch is pretty amazing. In
the past few weeks alone, we've added several new high level raids, an
in-game mail system, Mentoring (something we're really excited about), two
additional character slots for all subscribers , and we just added the new
merchant system, which will allow players to sell items in game without
having to leave their computer running. That's on top of the usual game
additions -- dozens of new quests, spells, items, tradeskill recipes, etc.
You can expect us to keep up this pace for a long time to come. Another part
of the EQII team is hard at work on our first Expansion Pack, coming out
later this year. We've taken a lot of your recent ideas and feedback into
account, and we're working on some innovative ways characters can move and
interact with the environment. Also, we're taking the first step towards
introducing PvP competition with the introduction of a new type of combat!

In Austin , our Star Wars GalaxiesT team is focused on a big change to the
game's combat system. The "Combat Revamp" is now live on the SWG test
server, and it's getting very positive feedback from the SWG playerbase. The
team is also putting the finishing touches on Star Wars GalaxiesT: Episode
III Rage of the WookiesT, which launches in less than a month. The SWG
playerbase is very strong, and we're continuing to put a lot of effort into
making Star Wars GalaxiesT even better and adding new content all the time.
The latest expansion pack adds Episode III content into the universe --
something our SWG players were asking for!

There's also a lot of action on EverQuest . We're consolidating many of the
servers to keep the game an exciting place to be, and we are investing a lot
of time and effort in making this game an even better experience for its
many fans. EverQuest just had its 6th anniversary on March 16th. It's very
gratifying to see such a strong demand for this game, but when you look at
how much of an impact EverQuest has had on so many people's lives - not to
mention the entire industry - it's not very surprising. We continue to hear
remarkable stories of how people are touched by the game. In fact, we just
had a player name her daughter Firiona!

One other subject I wanted to touch on is our Customer Service department.
We've made some significant changes, and I'm proud to say our average
telephone hold times are now 5 minutes or under. And our in-game response
times are among the best in the business! We know how important this is to
our players, and we will continue to focus on decreasing these response
times even further.

We're going to have a lot of new things to talk about in the upcoming months
.. Our games continue to thrive, and we have a bunch of exciting
developments coming out of our San Diego , Austin and Seattle studios.
We're enjoying the present and looking toward a very bright future for SOE
and the online games industry , and I wanted you to know that we truly
appreciate your support and feedback, and we're listening ! We're here to
entertain you.

Thanks,

John Smedley

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

In article <115dfjrh82r354b@news.supernews.com>,
myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE says...
> Per a letter from John Smedley, President of SOE:
>
> John Smedley's Letter to the Community: April 7th, 2005

A tongue in cheek response to John Smedley's Letter to the Community:
April 8, 2005

> Hello Everyone,

Hello John,

>
> First off, I'd like to say thanks for all of the wonderful ideas we received
> from you after my last posting. Having this ongoing dialogue is something
> SOE is committed to in a major way, and it's one of the biggest things you
> all asked for. So you'll see an increase in our public presence, not just
> on our boards, but on a lot of the fansites, as well. And we've created a
> new position within our ranks, the Director of Community Relations,
> specifically to prioritize you, the community, within our service offerings.
> Alan Crosby, previously EQ Community Relations Manager, will be stepping
> into this role, and all of SOE's community managers and representatives will
> report to him, while still maintaining close ties to the game teams, of
> course. Under this new structure, we will become even more responsive, even
> more dedicated to customer focus!

> I'd like to give you a general update on our games this posting:
>
> Since my last post , we launched our first Adventure Pack for EverQuest II -
> "The Bloodline Chronicles" - and over half our player base is already
> playing it!

Then almost half your playerbase declined? Good for them!

> We are committed to releasing new content between Expansion
> Packs that goes beyond our live updates, and so we'll continue to release
> these Adventure Packs on a regular basis -- a first for our industry.

Yup, until now, the players thought their monthly subscriptions were
supposed to be covering some sort of ongoing content development. If
they wanted to play a static online game there are several free ones out
there. So what exactly are you doing with all the subscription money
now?

>
> There's also a lot of action on EverQuest . We're consolidating many of the
> servers to keep the game an exciting place to be, and we are investing a lot
> of time and effort in making this game an even better experience for its
> many fans. EverQuest just had its 6th anniversary on March 16th. It's very
> gratifying to see such a strong demand for this game,

Strong demand and sever consolidation in the same paragraph. I can't be
the only one that sees some incongruity in claiming a game that appears
to have hemorrhaged 50+% of its playerbase in 3 months to be in strong
demand...

> but when you look at
> how much of an impact EverQuest has had on so many people's lives - not to
> mention the entire industry - it's not very surprising. We continue to hear
> remarkable stories of how people are touched by the game. In fact, we just
> had a player name her daughter Firiona!

Start saving now for the lawsuit; dear Firiona probably isn't going to
be quite as impressed. (Assuming her parents remember to feed her during
their downtime.)

> One other subject I wanted to touch on is our Customer Service department.
> We've made some significant changes, and I'm proud to say our average
> telephone hold times are now 5 minutes or under.

Telephone hold times are now 5 minutes or under because you've
demonstrated that there is no reason to call. You don't provide customer
service anyways, so whats the point?

> And our in-game response
> times are among the best in the business! We know how important this is to
> our players,

Good, thought out, personalized customer service is important to your
players. Getting told to "stuff it" isn't high on our priority list; no
matter how quickly you do it.

> and we will continue to focus on decreasing these response
> times even further.

Why not just cancel your phone lines and remove the /petition command?
You could then brag how proud you are that your customer complaints and
your hold times have dropped to zero.

> We're going to have a lot of new things to talk about in the upcoming months
> . Our games continue to thrive, and we have a bunch of exciting
> developments coming out of our San Diego , Austin and Seattle studios.
> We're enjoying the present and looking toward a very bright future for SOE
> and the online games industry , and I wanted you to know that we truly
> appreciate your support and feedback, and we're listening ! We're here to
> entertain you.

"Unless you have an issue. Then we're not really here at all. Please ask
someone else, somewhere else, and assume its your own fault!

PS Even it is our fault we won't...er can't, yeah that's it: "can't" do
anything to fix it anyways."

//////

/shrug I hate spin doctors

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

RangerGirl wrote:

>>In Austin , our Star Wars GalaxiesT team is focused on a big change to the
>>game's combat system. The "Combat Revamp" is now live on the SWG test
>>server, and it's getting very positive feedback from the SWG playerbase.
>
>
> For "positive" read, lots and lots of negative feedback and complaints about
> a
> completely misguided approach that is driving away a large contingent of the
> veteran players away to other game systems. Looks like they're up to the
> same
> tricks with EQ and EQ2 . . . . adopt the fingers in ears approach and start
> to
> sing "la, la, la . . . . . . . " very loudly.

What is the combat system revamp is SWG? The concept of SWG is cool,
but the implementation of the game is pretty piss poor....Has it gotten
any better?

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

<jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
> RangerGirl wrote:
>
> >>In Austin , our Star Wars GalaxiesT team is focused on a big change to the
> >>game's combat system. The "Combat Revamp" is now live on the SWG test
> >>server, and it's getting very positive feedback from the SWG playerbase.
> >
> >
> > For "positive" read, lots and lots of negative feedback and complaints about
> > a
> > completely misguided approach that is driving away a large contingent of the
> > veteran players away to other game systems. Looks like they're up to the
> > same
> > tricks with EQ and EQ2 . . . . adopt the fingers in ears approach and start
> > to
> > sing "la, la, la . . . . . . . " very loudly.
>
> What is the combat system revamp is SWG? The concept of SWG is cool,
> but the implementation of the game is pretty piss poor....Has it gotten
> any better?

Man I so have to agree with that. SWG was sooooo close to being a great
game. It had tremendous potential, and an incredible license to build a
game world around. Among many smaller "failures" in their implementations,
the one that made the game "unplayable" for me was the complete and total
lack of a third dimension. When a 9 foot tall wookie runs into a 6 inch
tall rock, the rock *must* be the loser in such a confrontation. Not in
SWG.

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

foamy wrote:
> In beta I was running down a ramp from a building, and went to jump
> off the side near the end. WTF I can't do that ? There was big hole
> in a wall and rather than run around went to climb through over the
> small lip in front of it. WTF I can't do that ? I felt like I had the
> freedom of movement as that of a rat in a maze.
>
> That was the end for me, never bought the game on release.
>
> Jim

That's close to my impression of Guild Wars, at least the version of it I
played.

--
chainbreaker

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

Hey, that's good news. EQ2 is a better game than WoW, lack of PvP is
it's major failing. Maybe I'll give it a try, again, whenever they get
beyond the "first step" (and the second and third ) - or maybe
won't. I'm having trouble generating any enthusiasm for MMORPGS these
days. I'm starting to believe that EQ was just a fluke. It's good to
see EQ2 is doing something about their biggest failing, though. A game
that's short on content really cannot be without PvP to fill the gap.

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

In article <7wekdj8vft.fsf@ca.icynic.com>, don-ns@iCynic.com says...
> Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com> writes:
> > ... It's good to
> > see EQ2 is doing something about their biggest failing, though. A game
> > that's short on content really cannot be without PvP to fill the gap.
>
> Um, doesn't that mean that EQ2's biggest failing is actually
> lack of content?
>

Point! Set! Match!

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:24:04 -0700, Bob Perez wrote:

>I'm still lol at anyone who seriously suggests that EQ2 is short on content.
>(shakes head)

Yea, it has to come from people who can't find half of the content that's
there. It's true what that barbarian NPC in Graystone Yard says:

"Treasures can be found throughout the land, for those who care to look."
--
Henrik Dissing
Vork - Dwarf Guardian and Weaponsmith on Highkeep
Member of Knights of Knowledge
(e-mail: hendis AT post DOT tele DOT dk)

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

<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>
> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cc1f937919c23da989aba@shawnews...
> > In article <7wekdj8vft.fsf@ca.icynic.com>, don-ns@iCynic.com says...
> >> Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> > ... It's good to
> >> > see EQ2 is doing something about their biggest failing, though. A game
> >> > that's short on content really cannot be without PvP to fill the gap.
> >>
> >> Um, doesn't that mean that EQ2's biggest failing is actually
> >> lack of content?
> >>
> >
> > Point! Set! Match!
>
> I'm still lol at anyone who seriously suggests that EQ2 is short on content.
> (shakes head)
>

I'll seriously suggest that EQ2 is short on content.

Feel free to laugh at, and try to compare EQ2 (or any other "new" game)
favorably with, the content lead of EQ. There is no contest. Maybe in a
couple years EQ2, or WoW, or, or, or... but not today.

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

<bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
> Faned scribbled:
>
> > I'll seriously suggest that EQ2 is short on content.
>
> Based on...?

The amount of comment that exists currently...

> > Feel free to laugh at, and try to compare EQ2 (or any other "new"
> > game) favorably with, the content lead of EQ. There is no contest.
> > Maybe in a couple years EQ2, or WoW, or, or, or... but not today.
>
> There's a huge difference between "short on content" and
> "less content than EQ." It's like saying Larry Ellison is
> "short of money" because Bill Gates has considerably more
> money. But it's a nice strawman anyway.


Yep, there's a huge difference.

Not surprisingly, a lot of EQ players are *very* well situated to recognize
that difference, since we watched EQ itself go through the "short on
content" phase. You'll find that the majority of EQ players say the "golden
age" of EQ, when it finally had enough content to not be "short on content",
was around when Velious was released, *not* pre-Kunark, which is where any
"new" game will be (actually most new games seem to have jumped right to a
"Kunark-like" period, with more content than EQ itself had at launch, but
still "short" ).

"Strawman" is a good description of your reply, though. =P

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

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrnd5e3v9.2jd.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>> RangerGirl wrote:
>>
>> >>In Austin , our Star Wars GalaxiesT team is focused on a big change
>> >>to the game's combat system. The "Combat Revamp" is now live on the
>> >>SWG test server, and it's getting very positive feedback from the
>> >>SWG playerbase.
>> >
>> >
>> > For "positive" read, lots and lots of negative feedback and
>> > complaints about a
>> > completely misguided approach that is driving away a large
>> > contingent of the veteran players away to other game systems. Looks
>> > like they're up to the same
>> > tricks with EQ and EQ2 . . . . adopt the fingers in ears approach
>> > and start to
>> > sing "la, la, la . . . . . . . " very loudly.
>>
>> What is the combat system revamp is SWG? The concept of SWG is cool,
>> but the implementation of the game is pretty piss poor....Has it
>> gotten any better?
>
> Man I so have to agree with that. SWG was sooooo close to being a
> great game. It had tremendous potential, and an incredible license to
> build a game world around.

I agree. SWG was the biggest disappointment I've seen from the genre,
edging out Horizons by only a small margin.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:wfi6e.38108$Pc.7600
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Faned scribbled:
>
>> I'll seriously suggest that EQ2 is short on content.
>
> Based on...?
>
>> Feel free to laugh at, and try to compare EQ2 (or any other "new"
>> game) favorably with, the content lead of EQ. There is no contest.
>> Maybe in a couple years EQ2, or WoW, or, or, or... but not today.
>
> There's a huge difference between "short on content" and
> "less content than EQ." It's like saying Larry Ellison is
> "short of money" because Bill Gates has considerably more
> money. But it's a nice strawman anyway.

I wasn't around for the first 6 months of EQLive, but from what I hear, it
had even less content that EQ2 does now. EQ2 doesn't strike me as lacking
in content, though those who have already hit max level have understandably
run out of stuff to do in many cases. That's to be expected though, I'd
say.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

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

"Faned" wrote
>>
>> > I'll seriously suggest that EQ2 is short on content.
>>
>> Based on...?
>
> The amount of comment that exists currently...

So - how much content exists now? I've never felt as
constrained as I did in EQ for level-appropriate content
with decent XP/loot.

>> > Feel free to laugh at, and try to compare EQ2 (or any other "new"
>> > game) favorably with, the content lead of EQ. There is no contest.
>> > Maybe in a couple years EQ2, or WoW, or, or, or... but not today.
>>
>> There's a huge difference between "short on content" and
>> "less content than EQ." It's like saying Larry Ellison is
>> "short of money" because Bill Gates has considerably more
>> money. But it's a nice strawman anyway.
>
> Yep, there's a huge difference.
>
> Not surprisingly, a lot of EQ players are *very* well situated
> to recognize that difference, since we watched EQ itself go
> through the "short on content" phase.

Yeah, been there, done that -- and EQ2 isn't "short of content"
by that standard, at least to 40ish. It is short at the high-end
of the game -- but the vast majority of players aren't at the
high-end yet.

> "Strawman" is a good description of your reply, though. =P

I'm just pointing out that EQ2 has enough content to allow a
player to XP up to 40 (at least) without doing the same thing
twice. How's that 'short of content?' It's certainly (from
my perspective anyway) *more* open than EQ was after
Velious -- for players not at the level-limit.

I've seen "short of content" (five groups at the giant fort in
Frontier Mountains, for instance) -- EQ2 is NOT short of
content.

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

<bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>
> "Faned" wrote
> >>
> >> > I'll seriously suggest that EQ2 is short on content.
> >>
> >> Based on...?
> >
> > The amount of comment that exists currently...
>
> So - how much content exists now? I've never felt as
> constrained as I did in EQ for level-appropriate content
> with decent XP/loot.

That is a result of "herd mentality" (in a grouping game this isn't
necessarily derogatory) rather than any lack of content. There are dozens
of spots for all level ranges with decent experience and loot in EQ, the
vast majority of them unused.

> >> > Feel free to laugh at, and try to compare EQ2 (or any other "new"
> >> > game) favorably with, the content lead of EQ. There is no contest.
> >> > Maybe in a couple years EQ2, or WoW, or, or, or... but not today.
> >>
> >> There's a huge difference between "short on content" and
> >> "less content than EQ." It's like saying Larry Ellison is
> >> "short of money" because Bill Gates has considerably more
> >> money. But it's a nice strawman anyway.
> >
> > Yep, there's a huge difference.
> >
> > Not surprisingly, a lot of EQ players are *very* well situated
> > to recognize that difference, since we watched EQ itself go
> > through the "short on content" phase.
>
> Yeah, been there, done that -- and EQ2 isn't "short of content"
> by that standard, at least to 40ish. It is short at the high-end
> of the game -- but the vast majority of players aren't at the
> high-end yet.

And the day after EQ came out none of the players were at the high end. A
year later however...

> > "Strawman" is a good description of your reply, though. =P
>
> I'm just pointing out that EQ2 has enough content to allow a
> player to XP up to 40 (at least) without doing the same thing
> twice. How's that 'short of content?' It's certainly (from
> my perspective anyway) *more* open than EQ was after
> Velious -- for players not at the level-limit.

I am sure the game companies wish all players had the view that "I haven't
run out of stuff to do, so there's plenty of content." Rather
self-centered, but definitely favorable for the game companies.

> I've seen "short of content" (five groups at the giant fort in
> Frontier Mountains, for instance) -- EQ2 is NOT short of
> content.

You're again confusing the results of herd mentality with an indication, of
any sort, about the amount of content. Even in the Kunark era, and
assuming arguendo that only the latest expansion's loot and experience
would be worthwhile, Overthere, Dalnir's Crypt, Firiona Vie, Droga (or
Nurga, I never remember which is which), and the rest of the Frontier
Mountains zone itself all offered comparable experience/loot at that level
range.

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

Faned scribbled:

> I am sure the game companies wish all players had the view that "I
> haven't run out of stuff to do, so there's plenty of content." Rather
> self-centered, but definitely favorable for the game companies.

I don't understand that -- what else is a *practical* example
of "plenty of content" other than "plenty of stuff to do that
one hasn't done before?"

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

"Moopy" <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd5khvs.1b1f.pingu@keg.zymurgy.org...

> It seemed to be neither veiled, nor unjustified, criticism to me. SOE
> petition
> responses are very fast now. They are also universally (in my experience,
> at
> any rate) prepepared answers that bear no relation to the petition and
> utterly
> ignore any detail you have provided.

I like the responses you get, "Please consult with your fellow players" and
other useful responses when the issue is an NPC that's been removed from a
zone. All I was asking for was a simple yes/no whether it would be replaced
or if I should just delete the quest.

My "fellow players" didn't seem to have an answer... the concensus finally
was to just delete the quest as it hadn't been addressed since it occurred
before the BC release.

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

"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd5lc7e.2jd.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> I can point to other *individuals* that have "done it all" in EQ2/WoW. In

I'm rather surprised they don't list a total number for marketing, but
there're at least 300 quests on the Freeport side, likely more on the other.

Besides, if they'd done it all, wouldn't the Frogloks be unlocked?

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

"Kasar" <kasar@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:s4qdneEUt_ZF2cPfRVn-uw@comcast.com:

> "Moopy" <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd5khvs.1b1f.pingu@keg.zymurgy.org...
>
>> It seemed to be neither veiled, nor unjustified, criticism to me. SOE
>> petition
>> responses are very fast now. They are also universally (in my
>> experience, at
>> any rate) prepepared answers that bear no relation to the petition
>> and utterly
>> ignore any detail you have provided.
>
> I like the responses you get, "Please consult with your fellow
> players" and other useful responses when the issue is an NPC that's
> been removed from a zone. All I was asking for was a simple yes/no
> whether it would be replaced or if I should just delete the quest.

Perhaps you don't quite understand the role of the GM. They are not meant
to give hints on quests, bugged or otherwise. If the NPC were, in fact,
merely moved, they wouldn't be able to tell you one way or the other.

> My "fellow players" didn't seem to have an answer... the concensus
> finally was to just delete the quest as it hadn't been addressed since
> it occurred before the BC release.

That's part of it. If you search and fail to find the necessary NPC, your
choice is to keep searching, put it off until later or give up. GM
assistance is not meant to be available for that.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

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

In article <Xns9638C12FA582FRumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >
> > Of course I would hardly characterize my response as a 'balanced and
> > fair argument'. Like a Michael Moore 'documentary', my objective was
> > to make a point and drive it home hard, indulging in a little
> > hyperbole of my own in the name of balancing out the indefensible
> > self-congratualtory tone of the original letter.
>
> That's the way I took it, actually. I just thought I'd point out now that
> your classification of their letter's tone as "indefensible self-
> congratulations" is certainly a bit of an exaggeration.

Maybe. I do feel the letter was a slap in the face to people like bizbee
and others who've recently been on the receiving end of their new
customer service program.

/quote:
"One other subject I wanted to touch on is our Customer Service
department. We've made some significant changes, and I'm proud to say
our average telephone hold times are now 5 minutes or under. And our in-
game response times are among the best in the business!"
/end quote

If that isn't self congratulatory, I don't know what is. And given that
by many accounts the *effectiveness* of their customer service has
declined in lockstep with the response times there is nothing to merit
congratulation. Perhaps if he'd addressed this to his shareholders
instead of his customers it would be better received.

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

<pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> wrote:
> On 2005-04-14, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
> > That assumes, of course, that the people who have "done it all" have any
> > desire to unlock the frogloks (which, for the most part, is a very bad
> > assumption). Just because for everyone the standard for "done it all"
> > includes personal goals does not imply that everyone will have the personal
> > goal of doing all the quests. For a large portion of people, doing quests
> > is just slowing one down from "doing it all".
>
> Oh. Well. Thats completely freaking absurd.
>
> So if I consider myself to have 'done it all' by running around the newbie
> island I have in fact done it all, and its SOE's fault for lack of
> content?
>
> Right.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood your position.

No, you understood it entirely. I imagine much better than the tone of your
post would indicate. =)

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

<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
> news:slrnd5sqdb.ou0.faned@wyld.qx.net:
>
> > <kasar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> >> news:slrnd5lc7e.2jd.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> >> > I can point to other *individuals* that have "done it all" in
> >> > EQ2/WoW. In
> >>
> >> I'm rather surprised they don't list a total number for marketing,
> >> but there're at least 300 quests on the Freeport side, likely more on
> >> the other.
> >>
> >> Besides, if they'd done it all, wouldn't the Frogloks be unlocked?
> >
> > That assumes, of course, that the people who have "done it all" have
> > any desire to unlock the frogloks (which, for the most part, is a very
> > bad assumption). Just because for everyone the standard for "done it
> > all" includes personal goals does not imply that everyone will have
> > the personal goal of doing all the quests. For a large portion of
> > people, doing quests is just slowing one down from "doing it all".
> >
>
> If that is the game they want to play, then EQ2 is probably not the best
> choice of games for them...

For now, that is exactly my opinion. If you are a "hardcore" player, EQ is
still the game that most fits that playstyle. If you insist on "new", WoW
seems to be aiming to take that crown as soon as possible. EQ2 doesn't
really seem to be heading that direction at all, and in fact some of the
game mechanic designed limitations suggest it never will.

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:29:25 -0700, "Bob Perez"
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

>Per a letter from John Smedley, President of SOE:
>
>John Smedley's Letter to the Community: April 7th, 2005
....snip

>. Our games continue to thrive, ....

>We're enjoying the present and looking toward a very bright future for SOE
>and the online games industry

>John Smedley
>

Just counted the German language WoW Servers - 40.
That makes roughly 400,000 sold WoW copies in German speaking Europe.
WoW is the number one selling game atm in Germany,and I am not talking
about *online* games,where as EQ2 never occured in any selling charts.
Who is thriving?

I guess SOE shareholders are happy with 600,000 sold EQ2 copies
worldwide,when at the same time a competitor sold 10 times the copies.

I see a very bright future for the SOE managemant. :-)

Man,sometimes these letters from SOE reminds me of the propaganda
from the old communistic eastern europe,eyes totally closed from
reality.

Meldur

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

<davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Kasar" <kasar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IcKdnWifHc931sPfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> > "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrnd5lc7e.2jd.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> > > I can point to other *individuals* that have "done it all" in EQ2/WoW. In
> >
> > I'm rather surprised they don't list a total number for marketing, but
> > there're at least 300 quests on the Freeport side, likely more on the other.
> >
> > Besides, if they'd done it all, wouldn't the Frogloks be unlocked?
> >
>
> No, as a matter of fact they wouldn't, if you've kept up with the latest EQ2
> scandals.
>
> Although the Frogloks were announced as being unlockable at release, it was
> just announced (to much wailing and gnashing of teeth) that the quest to
> unlock them will be added about two weeks from now in the May 2005 update.

And *that* is why there is a large portion of MMOG players, across all
games, who do not consider quests a necessary part of the game.

As odd as it sounds even to me, Ever"Quest" just isn't a quest-based game,
in either incarnation. A lot of people didn't care for WoW's questing
system and the "hand holding" it provided, but in my opinion it's probably
the best quest system so far for a MMOG simply due to the fact that it is
considered an integral and necessary part of the game where you are actively
slowing down your progression by not doing quests, rather than slowing down
your progression by doing them.

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:09:50 -0400, "Davian"
<davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Meldur" <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:mt5261te1a077mcn4dm7e5th2b93fmu43m@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:29:25 -0700, "Bob Perez"
>> <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:
>>
>> >Per a letter from John Smedley, President of SOE:
>> >
>> >John Smedley's Letter to the Community: April 7th, 2005
>> ...snip
>>
>> >. Our games continue to thrive, ....
>>
>> >We're enjoying the present and looking toward a very bright future for SOE
>> >and the online games industry
>>
>> >John Smedley
>> >
>>
>> Just counted the German language WoW Servers - 40.
>> That makes roughly 400,000 sold WoW copies in German speaking Europe.
>> WoW is the number one selling game atm in Germany,and I am not talking
>> about *online* games,where as EQ2 never occured in any selling charts.
>> Who is thriving?
>>
>> I guess SOE shareholders are happy with 600,000 sold EQ2 copies
>> worldwide,when at the same time a competitor sold 10 times the copies.
>>
>
>
>Actually I think the latest numbers for WoW are 1.5 million copies sold.
>That was about a month ago. Also, they have yet to release in China. (The
>Chinese beta signups were over 100k in the first hour.)

Ok,I had a more careful look.
On the German Blizzard homepage there is a press announcement,
which says 620.000 sold copies in Europe(not only Germany),and since
1.April 250.000 more shipped to the stores.
Last numbers I heard from the U.S were 1.500.000 sold boxes.
Cant find hard numbers for Korea,lets say 500.000.
So that makes roughly 2.700.000,ok not 10 times ,but nonetheless
another dimension than EQ2 sellings.

>Is EQ2 really at 600k? Or were you just guessing?

No,wasnt guessing,I am sure it was in the official news on SOE
homepage some months ago,so it was a little vague,if the number was
from the "station pass" or exclusivly EQ2.I highly doubt its EQ2 only.


All in all a pretty bad performance from SOE with 6 years experience
advantage in running a MMORPG.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know I repeat myself,instead of running 2 MMORPGs,it would have been
much better to make a hard cut and close EQ1,letting the players of
EQ1 transfer to EQ2 without the need to buy new Boxes,after all the
players already financed the developement of EQ2 with their monthly
EQ1 fees.
They will loose more EQ1 players fast ,its a vicious circle,game
already has become almost unplayable because of impossibiliy to find a
group in a tolerable time on the 2 servers I occasional still play,and
these are already merged ones.

175 Traders just right now on the already merged AB/KB server,pretty
sad to call this "thriving" when the number has come down to a third
compared to 1 or 2 years ago.

Meldur

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

<bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
> Faned scribbled:
>
> > If you are a "hardcore" player, EQ is still the game that
> > most fits that playstyle.
>
> I tend to agree simply because EQ has a great deal more
> high-level content. It's migrated to a high-end game
> over the years (with expansion after expansion targeted
> at the high-end players). It'll take any new game quite
> a while to catch up. But they will eventually.
>
> > EQ2 doesn't really seem to be heading that direction at
> > all, and in fact some of the game mechanic designed
> > limitations suggest it never will.
>
> I think it's way too early to tell what EQ2 will be like.
> Or WoW.
>
> What "game mechanic designed limitations"? Yes,
> there's "anti-zerg" code, but I'd say that's not an issue
> for a "hardcore" player, just the "wannabes."

I was thinking more of the limitation on participants. While some will
consider 24 perfect (the number I've heard, no personal experience as to
whether this is the actual limit on EQ2 raids), it limits the flexibility of
what an encounter can require. If the limit is 24, the encounter must be
designed for even fewer because you can't guarantee a perfect class
distribution, i.e., not all groups of 24 people are equal.

It also presents the problem, assuming similar population levels on EQ2
servers as EQ1 servers, of creating a glut of guilds, since once a guild can
field their 24 participants it will be time to form another guild rather
than deal with making people sit out of raids (from experience, a difficult
thing to deal with).

Which of course exacerbates any content issues, as you now have that many
more guilds interested in the same content (alleviated somewhat by
instancing, but I assume there is some static content in EQ2 as well).