Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I just cannot decide which to play :(

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:22:35 PM

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

Vote for me..

1 = wow
2 = EQ

More about : decide play

Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:43:46 PM

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

Of course you have no idea what my tastes are. And since this is an EQ
discussion area I expect you all to say EQ...hehe
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:18:32 PM

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

2

__________________________________________________________
Submitted by: Vidden
This message was submitted through the Erollisi Marr Forum
Related resources
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:40:50 PM

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

Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com
and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't
currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel
of the game.

A thousand threads have been spawned on this subject, but I'll break it down
like this:

EQ is hard. Lots of grinding, lots of repetitiveness, a long, long haul to
get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is
perhaps the better description. You need a certain kind of mindset to sit
for hours in one place gathering XP.

WoW is easy. You can get very high very quickly with no knowledge of the
game whatsoever. The game is very good at leading you along from one area
to the next, allowing you to explore and build your character all at the
same time.

EQ is huge. There have been nine expansions now and a tenth is on the way.
You can wander endlessly about and not see even a tenth of the world. The
sheer amount of content in EQ is staggering; you'll never run out of new
things to see.

WoW is small. The world is fairly self-contained. New expansions are on
the way to add more to the world, but for now, it's easy to see the whole
world.

EQ has terrible, terrible PvP. EQ tried various ways to implement PvP, but
in the end they couldn't get around the fact that the game was designed for
PvE, and PvP was only added on due to customer demand. They tried, but they
just couldn't get PvP to work effectively.

WoW has terrific PvP. The classes are well-balanced, and you're not
automatically at a disadvantage just because you chose to play a certain
class. WoW was designed from the ground up with both PvP and PvE in mind,
and the effort shows.

EQ has lots of end-game content, with extremely challenging mobs that
require dedicated teamwork from a variety of players. SOE has had years and
years to design and implement raid-level challenges, and nobody does it
better. Plus there are so many raid-level encounters, so many different
ways you can progress, it can make your head spin deciding what you want to
do after you hit level 70.

WoW has very little end-game content. Blizzard is working on this as we
speak, of course, but for now, once you get to 60 you have a few instanced
zones to go to and that's about it.

EQ has an outdated graphics engine. They've tried updating it over the
years, but you'll still feel like you're in a five-year-old game much of the
time. SOE will release yet another graphics update in the next expansion to
try and catch the game up.

WoW has a beautiful graphics engine. Very immersive. Perhaps not
HL2-calliber, of course, but still quite lovely.

EQ is a very-slowly-dying game. SOE recently contracted servers, and now
have half as many as they used to. Don't get me wrong, the servers that
remain have fairly stable populations. But still, you won't see many true
newbies anymore.

WoW is still growing, adding more servers around the world. They have an
impressive number of subscribers and a thriving community.

So, which game is best for you? I can't hardly say, I don't know you. Just
look around at what people have written and decide for yourself.


--
-Richard

Monual Lifegiver
Prelate of Rodcet Nife
Triton
Povar server
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:17:43 AM

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

"Richard Lawson" <nouma@msn.com> wrote in
news:D c92hi0117e@news3.newsguy.com:

> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from
> www.everquest.com and try it for free for seven days. That's
> something Blizzard doesn't currently offer. So you can at least
> decide if you like the look and feel of the game.

I just saw a WoW trial on the cover DVD of PC Gamer when I was in
the bookstore the other day.

Beyond that <shrug> WoW's fun, EQ was fun (but SOE pissed
me off one too many times with the DX9 fiasco).

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

Mairelon, 36th Paladin
Silverhand
July 28, 2005 3:35:49 AM

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

In article <dc92hi0117e@news3.newsguy.com>, nouma@msn.com says...
> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com
> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't
> currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel
> of the game.
>
> A thousand threads have been spawned on this subject, but I'll break it down
> like this:
>
> EQ is hard. Lots of grinding, lots of repetitiveness, a long, long haul to
> get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is
> perhaps the better description.

EQ isn't that hard. And I wouldn't go with boring either. It certainly
gives you all the tools to hang yourself with. (Falling into the Hole
Dragons, Werewolves, and Giants in zones with much lower level content,
seemingly random npc faction related aggro as you pass huts, or
villages, npcs just standing by a tree... runners causing swarms of
adds, etc...

EQ will kill your character often with little warning or hope of escape
until you've really learned the ropes.

EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires
long xp grinds to level up.

But the random deaths keep it from getting too boring. ;) 

Frustrating more than hard or boring.


> You need a certain kind of mindset to sit
> for hours in one place gathering XP.

The power-levelling alts of old-timers know whats the best xp/hour and
that's all they care about. They won't move much, the rest of the herd
follows them... few have the inclination to go anywhere outside the box.

I guess its hard for many people to justify leaving a safe, simple,
recognized 'best xp' camp to go somewhere that's suboptimal at the best
of times and will likely as not get you slaughtered ...owing to lack of
knowledge about the layout pathing mob capabilites etc... not to mention
the aforementioned wandering dragons, murderous npcs, and gaping holes
in the ground... it takes a true adventurer. :) 

> WoW is easy. You can get very high very quickly with no knowledge of the
> game whatsoever. The game is very good at leading you along from one area
> to the next, allowing you to explore and build your character all at the
> same time.
>
> EQ is huge. There have been nine expansions now and a tenth is on the way.
> You can wander endlessly about and not see even a tenth of the world. The
> sheer amount of content in EQ is staggering; you'll never run out of new
> things to see.
>
> WoW is small. The world is fairly self-contained. New expansions are on
> the way to add more to the world, but for now, it's easy to see the whole
> world.

Both however are growing.

> EQ has terrible, terrible PvP. EQ tried various ways to implement PvP, but
> in the end they couldn't get around the fact that the game was designed for
> PvE, and PvP was only added on due to customer demand. They tried, but they
> just couldn't get PvP to work effectively.
>
> WoW has terrific PvP. The classes are well-balanced, and you're not
> automatically at a disadvantage just because you chose to play a certain
> class. WoW was designed from the ground up with both PvP and PvE in mind,
> and the effort shows.

/agree

> EQ has lots of end-game content, with extremely challenging mobs that
> require dedicated teamwork from a variety of players. SOE has had years and
> years to design and implement raid-level challenges, and nobody does it
> better. Plus there are so many raid-level encounters, so many different
> ways you can progress, it can make your head spin deciding what you want to
> do after you hit level 70.
>
> WoW has very little end-game content. Blizzard is working on this as we
> speak, of course, but for now, once you get to 60 you have a few instanced
> zones to go to and that's about it.

As before both however are growing. :) 

> EQ has an outdated graphics engine. They've tried updating it over the
> years, but you'll still feel like you're in a five-year-old game much of the
> time. SOE will release yet another graphics update in the next expansion to
> try and catch the game up.
>
> WoW has a beautiful graphics engine. Very immersive. Perhaps not
> HL2-calliber, of course, but still quite lovely.

/agree

> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game.

It seems to be dieing in fits and spurts more than slow and gradual.
Each new mmorpg bites off a chunk. And it doesn't appear that EQ is
attracting new players anymore in remotely significant numbers.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 9:18:54 AM

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

>>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game.

>One can wonder why SOE doesnt simply pull the plug,instead of
>making it so that more and more players cancel,with half the the
>players now than 2 years ago it cant be very profitable,maybe
>they are hoping for EQ players slowly move to EQ2? :p 

I'm sure that was their original plan but EQ2 hardly attracting new
players. Most have left for WoW or gone back to EQL. SOE must now be
scratching their heads about what to do with two EQ games with a low
subs
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 9:21:35 AM

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

>Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com
>and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't
>currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel
>of the game.

Actually Blizzard do. The US mag PC Gamer has a 14 day trail on the
cover DVD. Only a matter of time before you can download it of the net.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:59:08 AM

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

> Anyone stupid enough to ask this question on an EQ newsgroup should
definitely go play some other game...

Read my second post retard.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:35:39 PM

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

Anyway, as it stands I reactivated my EQ account last night and I was
very inpressed with the new Graphics UIpdate. The only thing that bugs
me is that my PC has MORE than enough power to run it, but it still
graphically lags.
Now I just have to decide what to play. I am leaning towards a Dark elf
Necro to start with.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 5:52:03 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:35:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <dc92hi0117e@news3.newsguy.com>, nouma@msn.com says...
>> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com
>> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't
>> currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel
>> of the game.
>>
>> A thousand threads have been spawned on this subject, but I'll break it down
>> like this:
>>
>> EQ is hard. Lots of grinding, lots of repetitiveness, a long, long haul to
>> get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is
>> perhaps the better description.
>
>EQ isn't that hard. And I wouldn't go with boring either. It certainly
>gives you all the tools to hang yourself with. (Falling into the Hole
>Dragons, Werewolves, and Giants in zones with much lower level content,
>seemingly random npc faction related aggro as you pass huts, or
>villages, npcs just standing by a tree... runners causing swarms of
>adds, etc...
>
>EQ will kill your character often with little warning or hope of escape
>until you've really learned the ropes.

Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ.

>EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires
>long xp grinds to level up.

And it requires long waits for groups to do the long xp grinds.

>But the random deaths keep it from getting too boring. ;) 

Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ.

>> You need a certain kind of mindset to sit
>> for hours in one place gathering XP.
>
>The power-levelling alts of old-timers know whats the best xp/hour and
>that's all they care about. They won't move much, the rest of the herd
>follows them... few have the inclination to go anywhere outside the box.

Yes,and SOE supporting this mind set,caging in all players in one zone
which gives the best xp,leaving the explorers or people who like some
variety(me) in the cold,or why is the xp in places like Veksar,Droga
etc. so horrible?

>
>I guess its hard for many people to justify leaving a safe, simple,
>recognized 'best xp' camp to go somewhere that's suboptimal at the best
>of times and will likely as not get you slaughtered ...owing to lack of
>knowledge about the layout pathing mob capabilites etc... not to mention
>the aforementioned wandering dragons, murderous npcs, and gaping holes
>in the ground... it takes a true adventurer. :) 

Even more adventurous types like me are driven away from out of the
way places,cause the xp there is laughable compared to the latest
expansion,way to go Sony,I will never buy another expansion,I dont
like to be blackmailed.


>> EQ has lots of end-game content, with extremely challenging mobs that
>> require dedicated teamwork from a variety of players. SOE has had years and
>> years to design and implement raid-level challenges, and nobody does it
>> better. Plus there are so many raid-level encounters, so many different
>> ways you can progress, it can make your head spin deciding what you want to
>> do after you hit level 70.

Sure,you have to be level 70 to enjoy the game. :p 

>> EQ has an outdated graphics engine. They've tried updating it over the
>> years, but you'll still feel like you're in a five-year-old game much of the
>> time. SOE will release yet another graphics update in the next expansion to
>> try and catch the game up.

Nice,instead of adding content and fixing bugs,we get another graphics
update,remember the last one? :p 

>> EQ is a very-slowly-dying game.

One can wonder why SOE doesnt simply pull the plug,instead of
making it so that more and more players cancel,with half the the
players now than 2 years ago it cant be very profitable,maybe
they are hoping for EQ players slowly move to EQ2? :p 

Meldur
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 5:55:00 PM

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

abryant1@shaw.ca wrote in news:1122499355.640381.298580
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Vote for me..
>
> 1 = wow
> 2 = EQ
>

1

Anyone stupid enough to ask this question on an EQ newsgroup should
definitely go play some other game...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 9:09:49 PM

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

abryant1@shaw.ca wrote in news:1122562748.542059.121070
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>> Anyone stupid enough to ask this question on an EQ newsgroup should
>> definitely go play some other game...
>
> Read my second post retard.
>

Next time I'll put a smiley face on it so you understand it was humor...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:59:24 PM

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

On 28 Jul 2005 08:35:39 -0700, abryant1@shaw.ca wrote:

>Anyway, as it stands I reactivated my EQ account last night and I was
>very inpressed with the new Graphics UIpdate. The only thing that bugs
>me is that my PC has MORE than enough power to run it, but it still
>graphically lags.
>Now I just have to decide what to play. I am leaning towards a Dark elf
>Necro to start with.

of course =)

Meldur
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:36:20 AM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> writes:
> ...seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle
> about 10k subscribers...

Say what? Are you seriously claiming that each server can handle
only about 500 subscribers? Heck, my server has more characters
than that just in the Bazaar!

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 56 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 52 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- Teviron, Knight 21 on E. Marr
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:41:19 AM

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

Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in news:7wiryuaa0c.fsf@ca.icynic.com:

> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> writes:
>> ...seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle about
>> 10k subscribers...
>
> Say what? Are you seriously claiming that each server can handle
> only about 500 subscribers? Heck, my server has more characters
> than that just in the Bazaar!
>

I believe the claim is 10k per server, which would make that 210k
subscribers. Not that I think the number is necesarilly correct.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
July 29, 2005 1:55:17 AM

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

In article <llghe1l1q1ts7osvf5v9dmmvfb6h93k568@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:35:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <dc92hi0117e@news3.newsguy.com>, nouma@msn.com says...
> >> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com
> >> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't
> >> currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel
> >> of the game.
> >>
> >> A thousand threads have been spawned on this subject, but I'll break it down
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> EQ is hard. Lots of grinding, lots of repetitiveness, a long, long haul to
> >> get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is
> >> perhaps the better description.
> >
> >EQ isn't that hard. And I wouldn't go with boring either. It certainly
> >gives you all the tools to hang yourself with. (Falling into the Hole
> >Dragons, Werewolves, and Giants in zones with much lower level content,
> >seemingly random npc faction related aggro as you pass huts, or
> >villages, npcs just standing by a tree... runners causing swarms of
> >adds, etc...
> >
> >EQ will kill your character often with little warning or hope of escape
> >until you've really learned the ropes.
>
> Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ.

Where are you going with that? Nobody said it was the end of the world
and you had to roll a new character. But death is not meaningless in EQ.
As a newbie and a lowbie, death is *still* amaziningly inconvenient.

Getting your corpse back, even via DoN, is still a pain. It still
requires several zone hops to get back to where you were. And if you
don't get a rez as part of the DoN summon package you could lose an hour
of play or more (particularly irritating if soloing xp comes slow, or if
farming greens with 0xp incoming, and taking a death do a random red
popping on your ass...)

Getting a rez in the guild lobby isn't that hard, but it can take time.

> >EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires
> >long xp grinds to level up.
>
> And it requires long waits for groups to do the long xp grinds.

Amend to some classes require long waits for groups and I'll go with it.
Clerics never seem to have long waits unless they're really particular
about where they want to go.

> >But the random deaths keep it from getting too boring. ;) 
>
> Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ.

See above.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:55:18 AM

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

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <llghe1l1q1ts7osvf5v9dmmvfb6h93k568@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> online.de says...
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:35:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <dc92hi0117e@news3.newsguy.com>, nouma@msn.com says...
> > >> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com
> > >> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't
> > >> currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel
> > >> of the game.
> > >>
> > >> A thousand threads have been spawned on this subject, but I'll break it down
> > >> like this:
> > >>
> > >> EQ is hard. Lots of grinding, lots of repetitiveness, a long, long haul to
> > >> get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is
> > >> perhaps the better description.
> > >
> > >EQ isn't that hard. And I wouldn't go with boring either. It certainly
> > >gives you all the tools to hang yourself with. (Falling into the Hole
> > >Dragons, Werewolves, and Giants in zones with much lower level content,
> > >seemingly random npc faction related aggro as you pass huts, or
> > >villages, npcs just standing by a tree... runners causing swarms of
> > >adds, etc...
> > >
> > >EQ will kill your character often with little warning or hope of escape
> > >until you've really learned the ropes.
> >
> > Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ.
>
> Where are you going with that? Nobody said it was the end of the world
> and you had to roll a new character. But death is not meaningless in EQ.
> As a newbie and a lowbie, death is *still* amaziningly inconvenient.

And of course a money sink. Which I wouldn't mind if they'd put a banker in
the lobby.
July 29, 2005 2:14:07 AM

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

In article <hh6ie19sv5ltcevbg8dslr6tfj172ioddl@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...

>
> There were some numbers some months ago on a public press release
> from SOE stating EQ2 has around 600,000 subscribers,though it wasnt
> clear if these were only EQ2 subscribers or "station pass"
> subscribers,negative as I am usually are here,I would suspect the
> latter,seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle
> about 10k subscribers,my guess is that the number of EQ subscribers
> is much lower than the number of EQ2 subscribers.

First of all... iirc there are 25 servers left, not 21. I counted a few
weeks ago.

Second 2000 subscribers per server is ludicrously low. A server can
easily support 10-20000 subscribers.

Very few people play eq 24 hours per day. Many play once a week. :) 

Anyhow a reasonably respected site charting mmorpg subscription rates
shows this:

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html

EQ at ~475,000, EQ2 at ~250,000.

Have a gander at the site:

www.mmogchart.com

He provides some good commentary in the analysis and conclusions.

And don't forget to look at the Subscribers 120k+ to give you an visual
idea of the magnitude of difference between the WoW and EQ2 phenomena.
WoW is truly wow!
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 6:59:18 AM

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

On 28 Jul 2005 21:41:19 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in news:7wiryuaa0c.fsf@ca.icynic.com:
>
>> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> writes:
>>> ...seeing that EQ now has only 21 servers left,which can handle about
>>> 10k subscribers...
>>
>> Say what? Are you seriously claiming that each server can handle
>> only about 500 subscribers? Heck, my server has more characters
>> than that just in the Bazaar!
>>
>
>I believe the claim is 10k per server, which would make that 210k
>subscribers. Not that I think the number is necesarilly correct.

There was this article some weeks ago,which talked about the
tecnical aspects of MMORPGs,maybe you remember it,there
the number of average 10k per server was mentioned.
Another hint would be from the time,when Verant showed us
the number of players currently online,in the average on SolRo
this was about 2.5k.
So I think 10k active accounts per server is pretty close.

Meldur
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:16:14 AM

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:55:17 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <llghe1l1q1ts7osvf5v9dmmvfb6h93k568@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>online.de says...
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:35:49 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <dc92hi0117e@news3.newsguy.com>, nouma@msn.com says...
>> >> Well, you can download the original EverQuest trilogy from www.everquest.com
>> >> and try it for free for seven days. That's something Blizzard doesn't
>> >> currently offer. So you can at least decide if you like the look and feel
>> >> of the game.
>> >>
>> >> A thousand threads have been spawned on this subject, but I'll break it down
>> >> like this:
>> >>
>> >> EQ is hard. Lots of grinding, lots of repetitiveness, a long, long haul to
>> >> get from level 1 to level 70. Maybe "hard" is the wrong word; "boring" is
>> >> perhaps the better description.
>> >
>> >EQ isn't that hard. And I wouldn't go with boring either. It certainly
>> >gives you all the tools to hang yourself with. (Falling into the Hole
>> >Dragons, Werewolves, and Giants in zones with much lower level content,
>> >seemingly random npc faction related aggro as you pass huts, or
>> >villages, npcs just standing by a tree... runners causing swarms of
>> >adds, etc...
>> >
>> >EQ will kill your character often with little warning or hope of escape
>> >until you've really learned the ropes.
>>
>> Use corpse summoner,death is meaningless in EQ.
>
>Where are you going with that? Nobody said it was the end of the world
>and you had to roll a new character. But death is not meaningless in EQ.
>As a newbie and a lowbie, death is *still* amaziningly inconvenient.
>
>Getting your corpse back, even via DoN, is still a pain. It still
>requires several zone hops to get back to where you were. And if you
>don't get a rez as part of the DoN summon package you could lose an hour
>of play or more (particularly irritating if soloing xp comes slow, or if
>farming greens with 0xp incoming, and taking a death do a random red
>popping on your ass...)
>
>Getting a rez in the guild lobby isn't that hard, but it can take time.

I wouldnt even have thinked about entering places like Howling Stones
without a group before corpse summoners.Now I dont have to care
any longer.

>
>> >EQ is also more tedious. It takes long camps to get drops. It requires
>> >long xp grinds to level up.
>>
>> And it requires long waits for groups to do the long xp grinds.
>
>Amend to some classes require long waits for groups and I'll go with it.
>Clerics never seem to have long waits unless they're really particular
>about where they want to go.

Mheldur 66 *Cleric*
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 11:53:36 AM

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

Faned wrote:

> Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing
> playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the
> something turned out to be EQ2). Why they never considered all the
> ramifications of that decision we may never know, but in the long run it
> probably led to *more* people leaving EQ *and* EQ2 for WoW than if they had
> just devoted themselves to their already-successful product, or at least
> worked the "new" angle on a game rather than directly tying it to their
> existing one.

That's an interesting point because I've been thinking about that
recently. I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't have been playing
WoW if it wasn't for EQ2. I was happy with EQ and wasn't looking at
replacing it in any way (I discovered it late and my highest character
was level 36 - I had lots left to do). Along came EQ2 and it looked
really cool - I don't think that it would have caught my attention if
it wasn't a sequel. I tried it and it didn't keep my attention long
but I didn't move back to EQ - I moved to WoW which I am still playing
and enjoying lots.

steve.kaye
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 12:00:16 PM

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

>> Instead, they got what they wanted - players who probably would have left
>> EQ went to EQ2 while players happy with EQ stayed there to support
>> eventual graphics upgrades, etc.

>I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard
>got what Sony wanted. =P

Yep, I think you find the correct chain of events is "players who
probably would have left EQ went to EQ2, decided that's not what they
wanted and left for WoW"
July 29, 2005 12:11:28 PM

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

"Faned" wrote

> EQ2 was a terrible concept from the start.

That's just silly.

> The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths:
>
> A) Create a *different* game.

They do have different games.

> B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine. Shutdown
> EQ
> and transfer everyone to EQ2, which *is* EQ, just with a complete
> overhaul.
> Market it as a brand new game, enjoy the benefits of a pre-existing
> userbase.

And have no one new play it because it *is* EQ, with all the same
flaws. Unless you're suggesting they move everyone to a new game
as brand new characters and lose all the players who don't move
simply because of the time invested in their characters.

> Instead they tried to create a sequel.

In a sense. What they really did was create a game which appealed
to a lot of players who *liked* EQ but hated what they saw as
flaws in EQ. It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ
going. I think SOE would have been shocked to see a huge,
permanent migration from EQ to EQ2. Instead, they got what
they wanted - players who probably would have left EQ went to
EQ2 while players happy with EQ stayed there to support eventual
graphics upgrades, etc.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:31:40 PM

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

<bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>
> "Faned" wrote
>
> > EQ2 was a terrible concept from the start.
>
> That's just silly.

Because the evidence shows how EQ2 left all its competitors in the dust...
oh, wait, that was a different game. =P

> > The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths:
> >
> > A) Create a *different* game.
>
> They do have different games.

They *are* different games. Ironic that you snip out the rest that
discusses marketing when the point was that the marketing was done
completely and utterly wrong.

> > B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine. Shutdown
> > EQ
> > and transfer everyone to EQ2, which *is* EQ, just with a complete
> > overhaul.
> > Market it as a brand new game, enjoy the benefits of a pre-existing
> > userbase.
>
> And have no one new play it because it *is* EQ, with all the same
> flaws. Unless you're suggesting they move everyone to a new game
> as brand new characters and lose all the players who don't move
> simply because of the time invested in their characters.

I've heard WoW compared to EQ more than EQ2 has been compared to EQ. Beyond
the amusement value, it illustrates just how wrong you are. All games have
flaws, EQ is no exception. WoW was a "re-thinking" of the concepts behind
EQ, with a *stated* purpose to make another EQ but eliminate all of EQ's
flaws (of course, they created a whole new set of flaws, which was to be
expected). But no, "no one new" plays WoW. =)

> > Instead they tried to create a sequel.
>
> In a sense. What they really did was create a game which appealed
> to a lot of players who *liked* EQ but hated what they saw as
> flaws in EQ.

That would be a helluva lot easier to sell if we weren't all aware that they
kept a lot of the flaws of EQ and created plenty of new ones too. It's the
game design mindset behind EQ that creates what most consider to be the
flaws in EQ. That mindset doesn't change with EQ2 (though to be fair, in
the face of considerable competition, that mindset has been forced to change
some in both games).


> It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ going. I think SOE would
> have been shocked to see a huge, permanent migration from EQ to EQ2.

Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing
playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the
something turned out to be EQ2). Why they never considered all the
ramifications of that decision we may never know, but in the long run it
probably led to *more* people leaving EQ *and* EQ2 for WoW than if they had
just devoted themselves to their already-successful product, or at least
worked the "new" angle on a game rather than directly tying it to their
existing one.

> Instead, they got what they wanted - players who probably would have left
> EQ went to EQ2 while players happy with EQ stayed there to support
> eventual graphics upgrades, etc.

I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard
got what Sony wanted. =P
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:13:36 PM

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

<nospam@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Faned wrote:
>
> > Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing
> > playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the
> > something turned out to be EQ2). Why they never considered all the
> > ramifications of that decision we may never know, but in the long run it
> > probably led to *more* people leaving EQ *and* EQ2 for WoW than if they had
> > just devoted themselves to their already-successful product, or at least
> > worked the "new" angle on a game rather than directly tying it to their
> > existing one.
>
> That's an interesting point because I've been thinking about that
> recently. I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't have been playing
> WoW if it wasn't for EQ2. I was happy with EQ and wasn't looking at
> replacing it in any way (I discovered it late and my highest character
> was level 36 - I had lots left to do). Along came EQ2 and it looked
> really cool - I don't think that it would have caught my attention if
> it wasn't a sequel. I tried it and it didn't keep my attention long
> but I didn't move back to EQ - I moved to WoW which I am still playing
> and enjoying lots.

I think that exact scenario was played out more than a few times.
July 29, 2005 8:20:30 PM

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

"Faned" wrote
> "Wolfie" wrote:
>> "Faned" wrote
>>
>> > EQ2 was a terrible concept from the start.
>>
>> That's just silly.
>
> Because the evidence shows how EQ2 left all its competitors in the dust...
> oh, wait, that was a different game. =P

No, the different game is WoW - which has the same "terrible
concept" as EQ2...

>> > The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths:
>> >
>> > A) Create a *different* game.
>>
>> They do have different games.
>
> They *are* different games. Ironic that you snip out the rest that
> discusses marketing when the point was that the marketing was done
> completely and utterly wrong.

How's that? EQ2 was marketed as different than EQ. It's just
set in the same overall theme, Norrath.

>> > B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine.
>> > Shutdown EQ
>> > and transfer everyone to EQ2, which *is* EQ, just with a complete
>> > overhaul. Market it as a brand new game, enjoy the benefits of a
>> > pre-existing userbase.
>>
>> And have no one new play it because it *is* EQ, with all the same
>> flaws. Unless you're suggesting they move everyone to a new game
>> as brand new characters and lose all the players who don't move
>> simply because of the time invested in their characters.
>
> I've heard WoW compared to EQ more than EQ2 has been compared to EQ.

Every fantasy MMORPG is compared to EQ. Again, if they'd just
recreated EQ - with the same flaws that make it EQ - they'd have
kept their userbase - and not gained very much.

>> > Instead they tried to create a sequel.
>>
>> In a sense. What they really did was create a game which appealed
>> to a lot of players who *liked* EQ but hated what they saw as
>> flaws in EQ.
>
> That would be a helluva lot easier to sell if we weren't all aware that
> they
> kept a lot of the flaws of EQ and created plenty of new ones too. It's
> the
> game design mindset behind EQ that creates what most consider to be the
> flaws in EQ. That mindset doesn't change with EQ2 (though to be fair, in
> the face of considerable competition, that mindset has been forced to
> change
> some in both games).

Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due
to mechanics changes.

>> It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ going. I think SOE would
>> have been shocked to see a huge, permanent migration from EQ to EQ2.
>
> Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing
> playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the
> something turned out to be EQ2).

They DID have to do something. The server consolidations speak for
themselves IMO.

> I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard
> got what Sony wanted. =P

Sure, but I doubt Sony could have done anything about that. IMO
an upgraded EQ - with all the same flaws - would have been an even
bigger disaster.

Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 8:20:31 PM

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

<bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>
> "Faned" wrote
> > "Wolfie" wrote:
> >> "Faned" wrote
> >>
> >> > EQ2 was a terrible concept from the start.
> >>
> >> That's just silly.
> >
> > Because the evidence shows how EQ2 left all its competitors in the dust...
> > oh, wait, that was a different game. =P
>
> No, the different game is WoW - which has the same "terrible
> concept" as EQ2...

If you think WoW is more like EQ2 than it is like EQ than you have either
never played WoW, never played EQ2, or never played EQ. Or perhaps you just
don't look at game mechanics and concepts in design and can't get past the
superficial race/class/mob names/zone names.

> >> > The right way to do that is to take one of two possible paths:
> >> >
> >> > A) Create a *different* game.
> >>
> >> They do have different games.
> >
> > They *are* different games. Ironic that you snip out the rest that
> > discusses marketing when the point was that the marketing was done
> > completely and utterly wrong.
>
> How's that? EQ2 was marketed as different than EQ. It's just
> set in the same overall theme, Norrath.

How was it marketed as different? How can a game called "Everquest 2"
possibly be marketed as the Next Big Thing when the world is all too
familiar with sequels? It's a metaphysical impossibility.

> >> > B) Re-create EQ. Make it the same game, completely new engine.
> >> > Shutdown EQ
> >> > and transfer everyone to EQ2, which *is* EQ, just with a complete
> >> > overhaul. Market it as a brand new game, enjoy the benefits of a
> >> > pre-existing userbase.
> >>
> >> And have no one new play it because it *is* EQ, with all the same
> >> flaws. Unless you're suggesting they move everyone to a new game
> >> as brand new characters and lose all the players who don't move
> >> simply because of the time invested in their characters.
> >
> > I've heard WoW compared to EQ more than EQ2 has been compared to EQ.
>
> Every fantasy MMORPG is compared to EQ. Again, if they'd just
> recreated EQ - with the same flaws that make it EQ - they'd have
> kept their userbase - and not gained very much.

Again, "compared to" refers to game mechanics and concepts in design. Many
games are compared in very general ways with EQ, purely because of EQ's
success, much like EQ was compared to UO. That is a different connotation,
a comparison of markets/demographics, as nobody claimed that UO followed the
same design concepts as EQ.

> >> > Instead they tried to create a sequel.
> >>
> >> In a sense. What they really did was create a game which appealed
> >> to a lot of players who *liked* EQ but hated what they saw as
> >> flaws in EQ.
> >
> > That would be a helluva lot easier to sell if we weren't all aware that
> > they
> > kept a lot of the flaws of EQ and created plenty of new ones too. It's
> > the
> > game design mindset behind EQ that creates what most consider to be the
> > flaws in EQ. That mindset doesn't change with EQ2 (though to be fair, in
> > the face of considerable competition, that mindset has been forced to
> > change
> > some in both games).
>
> Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due
> to mechanics changes.

Interesting. So far the flaws I've heard (and seen) in EQ2 are the same as
those that have been discussed for years with regard to EQ. Flagging,
separation of hardcore and casual players, gear/level dependance,
client/server stability, etc. The mindset of Sony, illustrated in pacing,
lockouts, flagging, etc., transcends the actual mechanics of the games.

> >> It wasn't ever aimed at the players who keep EQ going. I think SOE would
> >> have been shocked to see a huge, permanent migration from EQ to EQ2.
> >
> > Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing
> > playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do something (the
> > something turned out to be EQ2).
>
> They DID have to do something. The server consolidations speak for
> themselves IMO.

I can't tell whether you're one of those that will be purposefully obtuse in
a lame attempt to try to appear right in the face of the realization that
you aren't, or whether you're simply stupid.

If you really feel that an after-the-fact (re)action was the full extent of
Sony's planning, then you either have no concept of how corporations (and
the whole rest of the world) work or you really think Sony is the worst
run company ever.

> > I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think Blizzard
> > got what Sony wanted. =P
>
> Sure, but I doubt Sony could have done anything about that. IMO
> an upgraded EQ - with all the same flaws - would have been an even
> bigger disaster.
>
> Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't.

WoW is *so* much like EQ, with the world balanced and the pacing tuned for
the "casual" player, that I, and a lot of others that I regularly talk to,
got bored with it quickly. It's along the same lines of when I found god
mode in Doom, and never played single-player Doom again because the
challenge level just couldn't keep my interest in spite of the game itself
still being brilliant.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 8:44:00 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
news:iHsGe.43026$t43.8971@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> "Faned" wrote
>> I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think
>> Blizzard got what Sony wanted. =P
>
> Sure, but I doubt Sony could have done anything about that. IMO
> an upgraded EQ - with all the same flaws - would have been an even
> bigger disaster.
>
> Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't.
>

That is my hope. I am one of those weird people who actually preferred EQ
when it still had "the vision". Back when travelling took time, faction
mattered, death mattered, and a corpse run was not a minor inconvenience.
Guess that just makes me a masochist.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 10:44:32 PM

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

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Xns96A26D30AE07richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:

> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
> news:iHsGe.43026$t43.8971@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> "Faned" wrote
>>> I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think
>>> Blizzard got what Sony wanted. =P
>>
>> Sure, but I doubt Sony could have done anything about that. IMO
>> an upgraded EQ - with all the same flaws - would have been an even
>> bigger disaster.
>>
>> Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't.
>>
>
> That is my hope. I am one of those weird people who actually
> preferred EQ when it still had "the vision". Back when travelling
> took time, faction mattered, death mattered, and a corpse run was not
> a minor inconvenience. Guess that just makes me a masochist.
>

I'm of the same opinion - about the vision, not your being a masochist. :p 

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
July 29, 2005 10:46:35 PM

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

Faned wrote:

> If you think WoW is more like EQ2 than it is like EQ than you have
> either never played WoW, never played EQ2, or never played EQ.

I've never been interested in playing WoW but I've certainly
played the other two. At least from what I've read here and
on their forums WoW seems to resemble EQ2 a lot more
than EQ but, no, I'm not positive. Just my impression...

> How was it marketed as different? How can a game called "Everquest 2"
> possibly be marketed as the Next Big Thing when the world is all too
> familiar with sequels? It's a metaphysical impossibility.

That's a difference in outlook - I saw marketing for EQ2 as very
different than EQ's. I certainly didn't expect another EQ when I
bought the game.

> > Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due
> > to mechanics changes.
>
> Interesting. So far the flaws I've heard (and seen) in EQ2 are the
> same as those that have been discussed for years with regard to EQ.
> Flagging, separation of hardcore and casual players, gear/level
> dependance, client/server stability, etc. The mindset of Sony,
> illustrated in pacing, lockouts, flagging, etc., transcends the
> actual mechanics of the games.

Strange -- I've seen none of that in 50 levels of EQ2 (and all the heritage
quests) that comes even close to the same issues in EQ. The flaws I
was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and buff bots),
killstealing, etc. They simply don't exist in EQ2.

Flagging? Restricted to quest zones (ie, part of the quest even if
given a different name and shared among several quests) or raid
zones. They DID have level restrictions on certain XP zones you
could bypass at an earlier level by a group quest -- but you did
get in simply by leveling and all the mobs would still be yellow
or better at that level.

Gear/level dependance? I'm not sure what you mean. A grouping
player can kill everything a raiding player can *for XP* wearing
nothing he didn't loot/craft himself. A group of raiders would be
a bit faster - but not enough to make a difference that matters.
You don't see anything like the issues being discussed here with
groups asking HP/gear questions - even if you're grouping with
players from raiding guilds. Just as an example: the leading
cleric on my server (guildleader of the top raiding guild) has
different gear in *five* slots than a cleric I group with often - and
the cleric I group with duos 95% of the time...

Client/server stability? Not sure what you're addressing. They've
had a couple of bad patches - which wouldn't have changed if
they'd did a different game or "EQ right" or whatever. That's a
SOE problem, not a game problem.

> I can't tell whether you're one of those that will be purposefully
> obtuse in a lame attempt to try to appear right in the face of the
> realization that you aren't, or whether you're simply stupid.

Yes, and ad hominem attacks make you look so smart in
comparison. Are you seriously of the opinion SOE didn't
need to do *something* in the face of competion?

> If you really feel that an after-the-fact (re)action was the full
> extent of Sony's planning, then you either have no concept of how
> corporations (and the whole rest of the world) work or you really
> think Sony is the worst run company ever.

I think anyone who didn't see server consolidations coming
after the release of EQ2/WoW had their head in the sand.
EQ won't die as long as SOE wants to spend money on it
but it's not the rising star it once was. It's an *old* game
and was before EQ2/WoW became viable projects. SOE
*did* have to do *something* besides channel money into
an old title.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 11:12:57 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
news:fQuGe.43332$t43.40474@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> Faned wrote:
>> > Actually what I considered flaws in EQ are NOT present in EQ2 due
>> > to mechanics changes.
>>
>> Interesting. So far the flaws I've heard (and seen) in EQ2 are the
>> same as those that have been discussed for years with regard to EQ.
>> Flagging, separation of hardcore and casual players, gear/level
>> dependance, client/server stability, etc. The mindset of Sony,
>> illustrated in pacing, lockouts, flagging, etc., transcends the
>> actual mechanics of the games.
>
> Strange -- I've seen none of that in 50 levels of EQ2 (and all the
> heritage quests) that comes even close to the same issues in EQ. The
> flaws I was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and
> buff bots), killstealing, etc. They simply don't exist in EQ2.
>
> Flagging? Restricted to quest zones (ie, part of the quest even if
> given a different name and shared among several quests) or raid
> zones. They DID have level restrictions on certain XP zones you
> could bypass at an earlier level by a group quest -- but you did
> get in simply by leveling and all the mobs would still be yellow
> or better at that level.

Not as bad as EQ, but bad enough from personal experience.

>
> Gear/level dependance? I'm not sure what you mean. A grouping
> player can kill everything a raiding player can *for XP* wearing
> nothing he didn't loot/craft himself. A group of raiders would be
> a bit faster - but not enough to make a difference that matters.
> You don't see anything like the issues being discussed here with
> groups asking HP/gear questions - even if you're grouping with
> players from raiding guilds. Just as an example: the leading
> cleric on my server (guildleader of the top raiding guild) has
> different gear in *five* slots than a cleric I group with often - and
> the cleric I group with duos 95% of the time...

Agreed on gear dependence, it is worlds different in EQ2 than in EQ.
Level does matter possibly even more in EQ2 than in EQ. I know that I
saw huge changes in what I could solo just by gaining one level.

>
> Client/server stability? Not sure what you're addressing. They've
> had a couple of bad patches - which wouldn't have changed if
> they'd did a different game or "EQ right" or whatever. That's a
> SOE problem, not a game problem.

I'd have to say I personally have seen less issues with this in EQ2 than
in EQ, but have heard of others having much more trouble.

My personal problem with EQ2 is that they went to the extreme in making
it easy to play compared to what EQ used to be like, EQ has also become
much easier to play than it once was. From everything I have heard WoW
is not the answer to that issue that I have.

EQ2 is much more friendly to the casual player than EQ, and I understand
that WoW is as well.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
July 30, 2005 12:45:35 AM

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

"Faned" wrote

> "Wolfie" wrote

>> The flaws I
>> was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and buff bots),
>> killstealing, etc. They simply don't exist in EQ2.
>
> Those aren't game design flaws, those are social flaws.

Maybe, but they're still reasons why people quit the game.

> I have,uncoincidentally, seen plenty of complaints about the fact that
> Sony tried
> to deal with social flaws through game design and the resulting
> immersion-killing heavy handed "solutions" they implemented.

Of course - some people will whine about anything.

> The sheer volume of comments regarding the recent change to this suggests
> that it was considered a "big problem" by a sizeable portion of the
> players.

See answer above. It wasn't a "big problem" - it was a limitation.
People don't like limitations.

> Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate.

Which is why I asked what you meant - and you didn't answer. Do
you have to have gear? Well, yeah. Do you have to raid for it?
No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful
than a level 20? Well, yeah. Can the level 50 kill a level 22 mob
that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but
the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't. Levels and gear
matter in EQ2 - but only as rewards for investment in the game.
They're not critical the same way they are in EQ. So, again, I'm
not sure of the point here.

> Ok, purposefully obtuse. Thanks for clearing that up. At least you
> snipped
> out the "EQ2 was it" part this time so that your response wouldn't look
> totally vapid. =)

Well, let's follow the thread:

You: Sony had the truly idiotic idea that to avoid losing their existing
playerbase to WoW (among other competitors) they had to do
something (the something turned out to be EQ2).

Me: They DID have to do something.

I'll stick by that statement: SOE would have been insane not to do
SOMETHING to respond to threats by WoW (and Vanguard and
anyone else developing competing products. The EQ product is an
old product and was losing subscribers *prior* to WoW's release.
I can't see how a fantasy offering not in Norrath would have been
better nor how a team with SWG's success could have done another
genre any better. Just upgrading EQ wasn't the solution - EQ would
have it's own baggage to defeat.

Frankly I find the idea that someone with a product as successful as
EQ shouldn't leverage off that success on a new offering boggling...
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:45:36 AM

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

<bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>
> "Faned" wrote
>
> > "Wolfie" wrote
>
> >> The flaws I
> >> was talking about was training (griefing), buff beggers (and buff bots),
> >> killstealing, etc. They simply don't exist in EQ2.
> >
> > Those aren't game design flaws, those are social flaws.
>
> Maybe, but they're still reasons why people quit the game.

Agreed, but they are reasons why people will quit any game. It won't take
you long to find someone posting somewhere that they are quitting WoW
because of all the "b.Net kiddies".

> > I have,uncoincidentally, seen plenty of complaints about the fact that
> > Sony tried
> > to deal with social flaws through game design and the resulting
> > immersion-killing heavy handed "solutions" they implemented.
>
> Of course - some people will whine about anything.

Of course you can compare game populations with world populations and make
anything insignificant. I think we both realize that is pointless. Though
I'm not sure you will realize how apt the analogy is.

> > The sheer volume of comments regarding the recent change to this suggests
> > that it was considered a "big problem" by a sizeable portion of the
> > players.
>
> See answer above. It wasn't a "big problem" - it was a limitation.
> People don't like limitations.

So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big
problem"? 20%? 50%? 75%? 2%? Hell, I might agree with you that Sony
should ignore minorities in games, as it definitely follows my logic in
another recent thread...


> > Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate.
>
> Which is why I asked what you meant - and you didn't answer. Do
> you have to have gear? Well, yeah. Do you have to raid for it?
> No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful
> than a level 20? Well, yeah. Can the level 50 kill a level 22 mob
> that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but
> the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't.

Why won't the level 50 get the drop? Is he being punished for having
accomplished something?

See above about immersion killing solutions to social issues. =P


> Levels and gear matter in EQ2 - but only as rewards for investment in the
> game. They're not critical the same way they are in EQ. So, again, I'm
> not sure of the point here.

Levels are no more and no less critical in EQ2 as in EQ. They are both
level based games and make no attempt to hide it.

> Well, let's follow the thread:

Impossible since you snipped out pertinent parts. Snipping the rest of it
as meaningless to the original thread.

> Frankly I find the idea that someone with a product as successful as
> EQ shouldn't leverage off that success on a new offering boggling...

I rather find the fact that they anyone would think they *could* leverage
off the success to such a degree (i.e., creating a sequel) without killing
off the original completely was possible. As has become obvious by EQ's
continued dominance of EQ2's population, it wasn't possible, at least not by
Sony.
July 30, 2005 4:16:52 AM

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

In article <slrndelbg7.76m.faned@wyld.qx.net>, faned@wyld.qx.net says...
> So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big
> problem"? 20%? 50%? 75%? 2%? Hell, I might agree with you that Sony
> should ignore minorities in games, as it definitely follows my logic in
> another recent thread...
>

Your logic: yes. Your logic was consistent.

Your assertion that raiders, the group you are in, actually make up the
majority of the playerbase, seems to defy reality though. Even generous
estimates of active raiders to active casual accounts leaves you
outnumbered 2 to 1.

But that's another thread...literally. :) 

> > > Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate.
> >
> > Which is why I asked what you meant - and you didn't answer. Do
> > you have to have gear? Well, yeah. Do you have to raid for it?
> > No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful
> > than a level 20? Well, yeah. Can the level 50 kill a level 22 mob
> > that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but
> > the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't.
>
> Why won't the level 50 get the drop? Is he being punished for having
> accomplished something?
>
> See above about immersion killing solutions to social issues. =P

To the OP: No he's simply not being rewarded for accomplishing NOTHING
worth rewarding.

Oooooh you a beat 20th level challenge at 50th level...

No prize for you! Get over it.

In a similiar vein: I make a big deal out of it when my daughter "goes
potty" on her own, and even give her treats. My wife on the other hand
gets nothing for her efforts in that regard. You apparently call that,
in your own words: "punishing her for having accomplished something"?

(lmao... just the idea is cracking me up... )
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:08:06 PM

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

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <slrndelbg7.76m.faned@wyld.qx.net>, faned@wyld.qx.net says...
> > So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big
> > problem"? 20%? 50%? 75%? 2%? Hell, I might agree with you that Sony
> > should ignore minorities in games, as it definitely follows my logic in
> > another recent thread...
> >
>
> Your logic: yes. Your logic was consistent.
>
> Your assertion that raiders, the group you are in, actually make up the
> majority of the playerbase, seems to defy reality though. Even generous
> estimates of active raiders to active casual accounts leaves you
> outnumbered 2 to 1.
>
> But that's another thread...literally. :) 
>
> > > > Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate.
> > >
> > > Which is why I asked what you meant - and you didn't answer. Do
> > > you have to have gear? Well, yeah. Do you have to raid for it?
> > > No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful
> > > than a level 20? Well, yeah. Can the level 50 kill a level 22 mob
> > > that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but
> > > the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't.
> >
> > Why won't the level 50 get the drop? Is he being punished for having
> > accomplished something?
> >
> > See above about immersion killing solutions to social issues. =P
>
> To the OP: No he's simply not being rewarded for accomplishing NOTHING
> worth rewarding.
>
> Oooooh you a beat 20th level challenge at 50th level...
>
> No prize for you! Get over it.
>
> In a similiar vein: I make a big deal out of it when my daughter "goes
> potty" on her own, and even give her treats. My wife on the other hand
> gets nothing for her efforts in that regard. You apparently call that,
> in your own words: "punishing her for having accomplished something"?
>
> (lmao... just the idea is cracking me up... )

EQ is a "world". Thus why I used the word immersion. Nobody gets rewarded
for going to the bathroom in EQ. Even if you are a big game hunter in the
real world, if you kill a squirrel you can still get some meat.
July 30, 2005 10:55:17 PM

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

In article <slrnden5vj.76m.faned@wyld.qx.net>, faned@wyld.qx.net says...
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrndelbg7.76m.faned@wyld.qx.net>, faned@wyld.qx.net says...
> > > So if 10% of your userbase doesn't like the limitation, is it a "big
> > > problem"? 20%? 50%? 75%? 2%? Hell, I might agree with you that Sony
> > > should ignore minorities in games, as it definitely follows my logic in
> > > another recent thread...
> > >
> >
> > Your logic: yes. Your logic was consistent.
> >
> > Your assertion that raiders, the group you are in, actually make up the
> > majority of the playerbase, seems to defy reality though. Even generous
> > estimates of active raiders to active casual accounts leaves you
> > outnumbered 2 to 1.
> >
> > But that's another thread...literally. :) 
> >
> > > > > Notice, the term was "dependance", not some casual vs. raider debate.
> > > >
> > > > Which is why I asked what you meant - and you didn't answer. Do
> > > > you have to have gear? Well, yeah. Do you have to raid for it?
> > > > No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful
> > > > than a level 20? Well, yeah. Can the level 50 kill a level 22 mob
> > > > that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but
> > > > the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't.
> > >
> > > Why won't the level 50 get the drop? Is he being punished for having
> > > accomplished something?
> > >
> > > See above about immersion killing solutions to social issues. =P
> >
> > To the OP: No he's simply not being rewarded for accomplishing NOTHING
> > worth rewarding.
> >
> > Oooooh you a beat 20th level challenge at 50th level...
> >
> > No prize for you! Get over it.
> >
> > In a similiar vein: I make a big deal out of it when my daughter "goes
> > potty" on her own, and even give her treats. My wife on the other hand
> > gets nothing for her efforts in that regard. You apparently call that,
> > in your own words: "punishing her for having accomplished something"?
> >
> > (lmao... just the idea is cracking me up... )
>
> EQ is a "world". Thus why I used the word immersion. Nobody gets rewarded
> for going to the bathroom in EQ. Even if you are a big game hunter in the
> real world, if you kill a squirrel you can still get some meat.

EQ is and always will be at least as much a game as it is a world. The
trolls watched with relative disinterest as the frogloks occupied their
homeland. The good folk of Norrath as much as the evil *enjoyed* the
march of evil into Firiona Vie.

And nobody has raided the Overlord Mata Muram because of his immoral
enslavement of other beings... it was always and only for the joy of
defeating a challenge, and his shiny trinkets. Most people don't even
know or bother with the backstory that supposedly provides them
motivation. The don't need it... its enough to know they haven't killed
it yet, and that it has neat toys if they do.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 2:08:10 AM

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

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnden5vj.76m.faned@wyld.qx.net>, faned@wyld.qx.net says...
> > <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > > No. Do you have to group for it? No. Is a level 50 more powerful
> > > > > than a level 20? Well, yeah. Can the level 50 kill a level 22 mob
> > > > > that drops the Item of Uberness easier than a level 20? Sure - but
> > > > > the level 20 will get the drop, the level 50 won't.
> > > >
> > > > Why won't the level 50 get the drop? Is he being punished for having
> > > > accomplished something?
> > > >
> > > > See above about immersion killing solutions to social issues. =P
> > >
> > > To the OP: No he's simply not being rewarded for accomplishing NOTHING
> > > worth rewarding.
> > >
> > > Oooooh you a beat 20th level challenge at 50th level...
> > >
> > > No prize for you! Get over it.
> > >
> > > In a similiar vein: I make a big deal out of it when my daughter "goes
> > > potty" on her own, and even give her treats. My wife on the other hand
> > > gets nothing for her efforts in that regard. You apparently call that,
> > > in your own words: "punishing her for having accomplished something"?
> > >
> > > (lmao... just the idea is cracking me up... )
> >
> > EQ is a "world". Thus why I used the word immersion. Nobody gets rewarded
> > for going to the bathroom in EQ. Even if you are a big game hunter in the
> > real world, if you kill a squirrel you can still get some meat.
>
> EQ is and always will be at least as much a game as it is a world. The
> trolls watched with relative disinterest as the frogloks occupied their
> homeland. The good folk of Norrath as much as the evil *enjoyed* the
> march of evil into Firiona Vie.
>
> And nobody has raided the Overlord Mata Muram because of his immoral
> enslavement of other beings... it was always and only for the joy of
> defeating a challenge, and his shiny trinkets. Most people don't even
> know or bother with the backstory that supposedly provides them
> motivation. The don't need it... its enough to know they haven't killed
> it yet, and that it has neat toys if they do.

Man, I'm not any sort of roleplayer at all, and even I'm not that cynical.
=)
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 4:48:51 AM

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

Rumbledor wrote:
> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:Xns96A26D30AE07richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:
>
>
>>"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
>>news:iHsGe.43026$t43.8971@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>>>"Faned" wrote
>>>
>>>>I'm about 99.999% sure they didn't get what they wanted. I think
>>>>Blizzard got what Sony wanted. =P
>>>
>>>Sure, but I doubt Sony could have done anything about that. IMO
>>>an upgraded EQ - with all the same flaws - would have been an even
>>>bigger disaster.
>>>
>>>Vanguard *might* be EQ w/o being EQ - but WoW certainly isn't.
>>>
>>
>>That is my hope. I am one of those weird people who actually
>>preferred EQ when it still had "the vision". Back when travelling
>>took time, faction mattered, death mattered, and a corpse run was not
>>a minor inconvenience. Guess that just makes me a masochist.
>
> I'm of the same opinion - about the vision, not your being a masochist. :p 
>

I can't understand anyone who thinks the other way.
!