Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So beings the 'EverQuesting' of EQ2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 9:22:24 PM

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

From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:

"* The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it
grants upon death, including loot and experience.
* Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or healing
you.
* You will receive a reduced XP reward if your group contributes less than
50% of the damage needed to kill something."
<snip grouping points>
* In an upcoming update: If a group prefers to play by the old rules, they
may make their targetted encounter exclusively locked (thus preventing help
unless asked for)."

IIRC, SoE touted the locked encounter system of EQ2 way back when. But
drastic times call for drastic measures, and the talking heads can see the
numbers of both games so they know more than we do (or mmorpgchart.com does)
about they way the EQ2 numbers are in comparison to the numbers for
EverQuest. It's been almost a year now, and I'd be willing to wager that
the suits counted on there being more people playing EQ2 than EQ by now.
That's pretty obviously not the case.

Looks to me as if they've begun the gradual process of making the two games
as similar as possible.

At least they're having the decency to make the new changes optional so that
the folks who prefer the locked encounters can run their groups accordingly.
Otherwise the people who have dedicated themselves to the SOE "Vision" would
be bent over.

Next I would expect they'll introduce a new pulling system that will allow
you to split gouped mobs ... again reversing a much advertised design
direction to make EQ2 more like EverQuest.

As for me ... I'll keep on using Harmony of Nature to split the entrance
mobs in Vxed and continue tossing heals on someone who looks to be in a
tight spot. That's the reason I came back to EQ, and I don't have any real
desire to re-start EQ2 again ... no mateter how EQ-esque they make it.

Crash
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 9:29:13 PM

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

"Crash86" wrote:
> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>
> "* The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward
> it grants upon death, including loot and experience.
> * Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or
> healing you.
> * You will receive a reduced XP reward if your group contributes less than
> 50% of the damage needed to kill something."
> <snip grouping points>
> * In an upcoming update: If a group prefers to play by the old rules, they
> may make their targetted encounter exclusively locked (thus preventing
> help unless asked for)."

Sorry ... meant to include the link for the entire article.

Also, it should've been noted in my original post this is in the Producer's
Notes, so it hasn't gone live yet. I figured the discussion itself was
enough to warrant discussion. Found it perusing the board of my old EQ2
guild (stopping by to say "hi", as it were).

http://tinyurl.com/cj3mz

Crash
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 3:01:35 AM

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

"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
news:9wrPe.12637$ih4.9435@fe02.lga:

> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>
< word of SoE's crow with creme sauce snipped >

Too little too late. They're so pathetic.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Related resources
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:29:00 AM

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:01:35 GMT, Rumbledor
<Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:

>"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
>news:9wrPe.12637$ih4.9435@fe02.lga:
>
>> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>
>< word of SoE's crow with creme sauce snipped >
>
>Too little too late. They're so pathetic.

Yes,imagine they would have invested the money they took from
the EQ players to develop EQ2 to make EQ better,what about
countries outside the U.S.,marketing,merchandising,advertising etc.
for EQ is nonexistant in Europe.
Eq is so much deeper than WoW,the landscape is overwhelmingly
huge now,quests are endless,it even has become somewhat
newbie friendlly during the last year,most would like EQ Graphics
style better than WoW's.
If they would have done proper advertising,subscriber numbers
could have been much higher now.
They even managed to drive their hard core customers aways,
for the 1st time I wont buy the next expansion,because I am too
angry about SOE.
WoW is the number one selling game in Germany,and I am not
talking about online games only,while on the other hand I
never saw EQ or EQ2 in any sales chart in Germany.

Well,as you said,too little,too late.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:54:27 AM

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

>>> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>< word of SoE's crow with creme sauce snipped >
>>Too little too late. They're so pathetic.
>Yes,imagine they would have invested the money they took from
>the EQ players to develop EQ2 to make EQ better,what about
>countries outside the U.S.,marketing,merchandising,advertising etc.
>for EQ is nonexistant in Europe.

I'm sure the execs and SOE will say it all UbiSoft's fault. Since
they were responsible for the EU side and did such a bad job SOE
dropped them. I'm not saying I agree with SOE but that's their
view.

>Eq is so much deeper than WoW,the landscape is overwhelmingly
>huge now,quests are endless,it even has become somewhat
>newbie friendlly during the last year,most would like EQ Graphics
>style better than WoW's.

>If they would have done proper advertising,subscriber numbers
>could have been much higher now.

>They even managed to drive their hard core customers aways,
>for the 1st time I wont buy the next expansion,because I am too
>angry about SOE.

>WoW is the number one selling game in Germany,and I am not
>talking about online games only,while on the other hand I
>never saw EQ or EQ2 in any sales chart in Germany.

>Well,as you said,too little,too late.

Yep, the game failed to connect with customers at launch. Changing all
the things people didn't like isn't going to help it now. Making
EQ2 like every other mmog isn't the way to convince people to get it.
They need something unique (and then hope Blizzard doesn't copy it
and do it better!)
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 4:44:32 PM

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:22:24 -0500, "Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com>
wrote:

>From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>SNIP<

If the boardroom suits had invested more money in EQ1 to freshen up
EXISTING content, from the newbie zones on up, instead of desperately
bringing out expansions of questionable worth, they wouldn't have
wasted their money, time and effort on EQ2. How they could make a
cock-up of EQ2 when they had YEARS of experience in game design just
makes me boggle.

The efforts they HAVE made to freshen EQ1's existing content have been
risible - for instance, no-one really cares Firiona Vie changed hands
or that the Trolls supposedly took their old home city back - big
yawns all 'round. Now, if PLAYERS had the capacity to influence which
race owned which zone, by taking part in some sort of "Zone Wars"
events, that would make things a bit more exciting.

As it is, there's a bit of waffle to be heard in certain zones,
supposedly from gods or demigods squaring up to each other, a few new
NPC's about for a couple of days, then the "Big Change". Boring in
the extreme. In connection with that, does anyone bother reading the
Journal? I pity whoever has to waste their time writing it up,
because no-one I know (including myself) gives a toss.

Mind you, with PoK now the "Universal Metropolis" who really needs
home cities? For example, the only gripes aired when the froggies
were moved to Rathe Mountains was that people thought the Hill Giants
had gone for good and whined about it ad nauseum - I've not heard a
single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being kicked out, or
a single Troll gloat over having the old swamp back :D 



Palindrome
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 4:44:33 PM

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

Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
] On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:22:24 -0500, "Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com>
] wrote:
]
] >From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
] >SNIP<
]
] If the boardroom suits had invested more money in EQ1 to freshen up
] EXISTING content, from the newbie zones on up, instead of desperately
] bringing out expansions of questionable worth, they wouldn't have
] wasted their money, time and effort on EQ2. How they could make a
] cock-up of EQ2 when they had YEARS of experience in game design just
] makes me boggle.

I agree. It made little sense for them to do it that way.

] The efforts they HAVE made to freshen EQ1's existing content have been
] risible - for instance, no-one really cares Firiona Vie changed hands
] or that the Trolls supposedly took their old home city back - big

I got the impression this was their vague attempt at 'dynamic
content'. Which any first time DM, paper and pencil, could better
with less than 10 minutes thinking.

] the extreme. In connection with that, does anyone bother reading the
] Journal? I pity whoever has to waste their time writing it up,
] because no-one I know (including myself) gives a toss.

I glanced at some of the 'background story' items, but they just
didn't seem to be necessary. All we really needed was one page
total. 'The frogloks and the trolls don't like each other because in
25 words or less.' Not a 'mini-novel'. Yawn.

] had gone for good and whined about it ad nauseum - I've not heard a
] single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being kicked out, or
] a single Troll gloat over having the old swamp back :D 

I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
ignored... they stopped.

JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ August 21, 2005
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ July 31, 2005: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog March 12, 2005
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 4:44:33 PM

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

<damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I've not heard a single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being
> kicked out

Well sure, cause it's downright idiotic to roleplay in a channel named "out
of character". =P
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 6:20:38 PM

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

"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
news:9wrPe.12637$ih4.9435@fe02.lga:

> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>
> "* The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any
> reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.
> * Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or
> healing you.
> * You will receive a reduced XP reward if your group contributes less
> than 50% of the damage needed to kill something."
> <snip grouping points>
> * In an upcoming update: If a group prefers to play by the old rules,
> they may make their targetted encounter exclusively locked (thus
> preventing help unless asked for)."
>
> IIRC, SoE touted the locked encounter system of EQ2 way back when.
> But drastic times call for drastic measures, and the talking heads can
> see the numbers of both games so they know more than we do (or
> mmorpgchart.com does) about they way the EQ2 numbers are in comparison
> to the numbers for EverQuest. It's been almost a year now, and I'd be
> willing to wager that the suits counted on there being more people
> playing EQ2 than EQ by now. That's pretty obviously not the case.
>
> Looks to me as if they've begun the gradual process of making the two
> games as similar as possible.
>
> At least they're having the decency to make the new changes optional
> so that the folks who prefer the locked encounters can run their
> groups accordingly. Otherwise the people who have dedicated themselves
> to the SOE "Vision" would be bent over.
>
> Next I would expect they'll introduce a new pulling system that will
> allow you to split gouped mobs ... again reversing a much advertised
> design direction to make EQ2 more like EverQuest.
>
> As for me ... I'll keep on using Harmony of Nature to split the
> entrance mobs in Vxed and continue tossing heals on someone who looks
> to be in a tight spot. That's the reason I came back to EQ, and I
> don't have any real desire to re-start EQ2 again ... no mateter how
> EQ-esque they make it.
>

I was talking to a friend who plays EQ2 almost exclusively, and she told
me that major changes were upcoming for EQ2, I did not realize they were
that major. I knew that spells and abilities were being redone
significantly. Anyway, I am with you on this. EQ still holds a lot more
interest for me than EQ2, I gave it a pretty fair shot, and found it
lacking for me, largely due to the feeling of being coddled along and
protected from the evil other players who might interfere with what I am
doing.

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

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 6:31:59 PM

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

D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net> wrote in
news:ir8ug114tu25rp99bak9ct2hopoi8tpve7@4ax.com:

>
> Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>] had gone for good and whined about it ad nauseum - I've not heard a
>] single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being kicked out, or
>] a single Troll gloat over having the old swamp back :D 
>
> I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
> ignored... they stopped.
>

I remember all the hue and cry when the Frogloks took over the Troll city
though. Mind you, most of it was stupid hissy fit posts on boards, but, at
least a ruckus was raised.

--
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
August 26, 2005 7:39:11 PM

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

Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:vkutg1lib3743ihnaqesdpnq3mcqqfvddh@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:22:24 -0500, "Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>SNIP<
>
> If the boardroom suits had invested more money in EQ1 to freshen up
> EXISTING content, from the newbie zones on up, instead of desperately
> bringing out expansions of questionable worth, they wouldn't have
> wasted their money, time and effort on EQ2. How they could make a
> cock-up of EQ2 when they had YEARS of experience in game design just
> makes me boggle.

/agree. It's the goal of every business to milk as much money out of
their customers as possible. It's the successful ones that manage to do
it without making their customers feel like they're getting milked. SoE
lost their ability and/or desire to do this years ago.

> The efforts they HAVE made to freshen EQ1's existing content have been
> risible - for instance, no-one really cares Firiona Vie changed hands
> or that the Trolls supposedly took their old home city back - big
> yawns all 'round. Now, if PLAYERS had the capacity to influence which
> race owned which zone, by taking part in some sort of "Zone Wars"
> events, that would make things a bit more exciting.
>
> As it is, there's a bit of waffle to be heard in certain zones,
> supposedly from gods or demigods squaring up to each other, a few new
> NPC's about for a couple of days, then the "Big Change". Boring in
> the extreme. In connection with that, does anyone bother reading the
> Journal? I pity whoever has to waste their time writing it up,
> because no-one I know (including myself) gives a toss.
>
> Mind you, with PoK now the "Universal Metropolis" who really needs
> home cities? For example, the only gripes aired when the froggies
> were moved to Rathe Mountains was that people thought the Hill Giants
> had gone for good and whined about it ad nauseum - I've not heard a
> single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being kicked out, or
> a single Troll gloat over having the old swamp back :D 

I disagree. I have no interest in any sort of zone wars, as I can't
imagine them being effective unless there were a PvP element to them,
and PvP doesn't appeal to me in the least. However, I do very much like
the idea of the landscape changing, even if just old world content.
True, they often over-simplified it, but it does keep the environment
from getting stale. If people choose to restrict themselves to PoK, the
moon and beyond, that's their choice, but there are still plenty of us
in it for the atmosphere as well.

Oh, and I'm with you on the journal. I never read it either. I'm paying
them money every month to show it to me, not make me read about it. :p 

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:48:59 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:18:18 -0500, D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net>
wrote:

>I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
>ignored... they stopped.

Sadly, for an online roleplaying game, actually striving to roleplay
in EQ1 serves zero practical purpose. Sony just aren't interested in
that aspect of the game.


Palindrome
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:49:00 PM

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

>D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net>
>>I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
>>ignored... they stopped.

Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Sadly, for an online roleplaying game, actually striving to roleplay
>in EQ1 serves zero practical purpose.

I get in groups occasionally where people are willing to roleplay a bit. The
fact is, for most players, it's more a computer game than a roleplaying game.
Of course RP serves "zero pratical purpose". It's fun, though :) 

>Sony just aren't interested in that aspect of the game.

I think you mean "most of Sony's customers" just aren't interested. Sony
doesn't do anything to discourage playing the character as much in role as
you like.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:49:46 PM

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

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Xns96BE54E0C6D23richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:

> "Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
> news:9wrPe.12637$ih4.9435@fe02.lga:
>
>> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>
>> "* The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any
>> reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.
>> * Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or
>> healing you.
>> * You will receive a reduced XP reward if your group contributes less
>> than 50% of the damage needed to kill something."
>> <snip grouping points>
>> * In an upcoming update: If a group prefers to play by the old rules,
>> they may make their targetted encounter exclusively locked (thus
>> preventing help unless asked for)."
>>
>> IIRC, SoE touted the locked encounter system of EQ2 way back when.
>> But drastic times call for drastic measures, and the talking heads
>> can see the numbers of both games so they know more than we do (or
>> mmorpgchart.com does) about they way the EQ2 numbers are in
>> comparison to the numbers for EverQuest. It's been almost a year
>> now, and I'd be willing to wager that the suits counted on there
>> being more people playing EQ2 than EQ by now. That's pretty obviously
>> not the case.
>>
>> Looks to me as if they've begun the gradual process of making the two
>> games as similar as possible.
>>
>> At least they're having the decency to make the new changes optional
>> so that the folks who prefer the locked encounters can run their
>> groups accordingly. Otherwise the people who have dedicated
>> themselves to the SOE "Vision" would be bent over.
>>
>> Next I would expect they'll introduce a new pulling system that will
>> allow you to split gouped mobs ... again reversing a much advertised
>> design direction to make EQ2 more like EverQuest.
>>
>> As for me ... I'll keep on using Harmony of Nature to split the
>> entrance mobs in Vxed and continue tossing heals on someone who looks
>> to be in a tight spot. That's the reason I came back to EQ, and I
>> don't have any real desire to re-start EQ2 again ... no mateter how
>> EQ-esque they make it.
>>
>
> I was talking to a friend who plays EQ2 almost exclusively, and she
> told me that major changes were upcoming for EQ2, I did not realize
> they were that major. I knew that spells and abilities were being
> redone significantly. Anyway, I am with you on this. EQ still holds
> a lot more interest for me than EQ2, I gave it a pretty fair shot, and
> found it lacking for me, largely due to the feeling of being coddled
> along and protected from the evil other players who might interfere
> with what I am doing.
>

I agree, though I felt it's biggest downside was the fact that it seemed
they were just unable to mask the fact that combat had been over-
simplified so as to allow them complete control over all encounters from
a balancing standpoint. Add to that the fact that there were really only
4 classes in the game (spare me the "all priests heal but they do it in
totally different ways" speech, people - that approach just didn't cut
it).

Oh yeah, and why does Antonia Bayle have to look like such a slut? Seems
to me they were shooting for the same demographic WoW hooked so well.
They just didn't put an honest effort into it.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:52:07 PM

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

On 26 Aug 2005 14:31:59 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net> wrote in
>news:ir8ug114tu25rp99bak9ct2hopoi8tpve7@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>] had gone for good and whined about it ad nauseum - I've not heard a
>>] single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being kicked out, or
>>] a single Troll gloat over having the old swamp back :D 
>>
>> I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
>> ignored... they stopped.
>>
>
>I remember all the hue and cry when the Frogloks took over the Troll city
>though. Mind you, most of it was stupid hissy fit posts on boards, but, at
>least a ruckus was raised.

Aye, I remember that, and thought it might be the start of something
interesting - I was thinking "well, they might actually start
character race MEAN something now! They could have stuck the Frogloks
anywhere at all, but they must have a plan in mind, kicking the Trolls
out for no real reason..." I might have known nothing would come of
it whatsoever.


Palindrome
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:53:49 PM

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

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Xns96BE56CD9A9D8richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:

> D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net> wrote in
> news:ir8ug114tu25rp99bak9ct2hopoi8tpve7@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>] had gone for good and whined about it ad nauseum - I've not heard a
>>] single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being kicked out,
>>] or a single Troll gloat over having the old swamp back :D 
>>
>> I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
>> ignored... they stopped.
>>
>
> I remember all the hue and cry when the Frogloks took over the Troll
> city though. Mind you, most of it was stupid hissy fit posts on
> boards, but, at least a ruckus was raised.
>

IMO, the Froglok is merely a novelty race. I think little was heard about
the Trolls re-taking the city because no one cares. Not because of some
sort of general apathy, but because even many of those who play Frogs don't
really take the race seriously. I never much cared for Frogloks as a
playable race, myself. /shrug

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:54:42 PM

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

On 26 Aug 2005 14:20:38 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>EQ still holds a lot more interest for me than EQ2, I gave it a pretty
>fair shot, and found it lacking for me, largely due to the feeling of being
>coddled along and protected from the evil other players who might
>interfere with what I am doing.

That put me off completely too. They may as well have gone the whole
hog and made a playable race called the 'Carebears' :) 



Palindrome
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:00:42 PM

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

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrndgudrl.766.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I've not heard a single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over
>> being kicked out
>
> Well sure, cause it's downright idiotic to roleplay in a channel named
> "out of character". =P
>

....and of course shouting is oddly enough out of the question.

(couldn't help myself)

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:40:57 PM

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

In article <Xns96BE6EDB9EDC5Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>I never much cared for Frogloks as a playable race, myself. /shrug
>

I've heard that if you group with them you get warts.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:01:08 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:38:25 -0500, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:

><damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I've not heard a single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being
>> kicked out
>
>Well sure, cause it's downright idiotic to roleplay in a channel named "out
>of character". =P

Heh, true - it's odd how so many people use /ooc instead of /shout,
though :) 


Palindrome
August 26, 2005 11:29:16 PM

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

In article <akiug1l8q1lsgkl4bg9nh57fkfqfvu4r8c@4ax.com>, damon-
nomad@tiscali.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:38:25 -0500, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
> ><damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've not heard a single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being
> >> kicked out
> >
> >Well sure, cause it's downright idiotic to roleplay in a channel named "out
> >of character". =P
>
> Heh, true - it's odd how so many people use /ooc instead of /shout,
> though :) 

Not really. At least not to me.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 11:34:35 PM

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

Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
] On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:18:18 -0500, D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net>
] wrote:
]
] >I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
] >ignored... they stopped.
]
] Sadly, for an online roleplaying game, actually striving to roleplay
] in EQ1 serves zero practical purpose. Sony just aren't interested in
] that aspect of the game.

I've noticed that some RPers online go for the fake Elizabethian
accent... and some actually know what role-playing their toons
means.

JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ August 21, 2005
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ July 31, 2005: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog March 12, 2005
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:28:46 AM

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

Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96BE6C60086A5Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16:

> Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> news:vkutg1lib3743ihnaqesdpnq3mcqqfvddh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:22:24 -0500, "Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>>SNIP<
>>
>> If the boardroom suits had invested more money in EQ1 to freshen up
>> EXISTING content, from the newbie zones on up, instead of desperately
>> bringing out expansions of questionable worth, they wouldn't have
>> wasted their money, time and effort on EQ2. How they could make a
>> cock-up of EQ2 when they had YEARS of experience in game design just
>> makes me boggle.
>
> /agree. It's the goal of every business to milk as much money out of
> their customers as possible. It's the successful ones that manage to do
> it without making their customers feel like they're getting milked. SoE
> lost their ability and/or desire to do this years ago.
>
>> The efforts they HAVE made to freshen EQ1's existing content have been
>> risible - for instance, no-one really cares Firiona Vie changed hands
>> or that the Trolls supposedly took their old home city back - big
>> yawns all 'round. Now, if PLAYERS had the capacity to influence which
>> race owned which zone, by taking part in some sort of "Zone Wars"
>> events, that would make things a bit more exciting.
>>
>> As it is, there's a bit of waffle to be heard in certain zones,
>> supposedly from gods or demigods squaring up to each other, a few new
>> NPC's about for a couple of days, then the "Big Change". Boring in
>> the extreme. In connection with that, does anyone bother reading the
>> Journal? I pity whoever has to waste their time writing it up,
>> because no-one I know (including myself) gives a toss.
>>
>> Mind you, with PoK now the "Universal Metropolis" who really needs
>> home cities? For example, the only gripes aired when the froggies
>> were moved to Rathe Mountains was that people thought the Hill Giants
>> had gone for good and whined about it ad nauseum - I've not heard a
>> single Froglok in /ooc say they are annoyed over being kicked out, or
>> a single Troll gloat over having the old swamp back :D 
>
> I disagree. I have no interest in any sort of zone wars, as I can't
> imagine them being effective unless there were a PvP element to them,
> and PvP doesn't appeal to me in the least. However, I do very much like
> the idea of the landscape changing, even if just old world content.
> True, they often over-simplified it, but it does keep the environment
> from getting stale. If people choose to restrict themselves to PoK, the
> moon and beyond, that's their choice, but there are still plenty of us
> in it for the atmosphere as well.
>
> Oh, and I'm with you on the journal. I never read it either. I'm paying
> them money every month to show it to me, not make me read about it. :p 
>

They did actually allow player actions to affect some zones in the game.
Sleepers tomb, whereby awakening the sleeper forever changes that zone
for everyone, and causes the sleeper to go on a killing spree in varuious
zones. Great Divide where failing a 10th ring war causes Thurgadin to
change for a few days. The Luclin zone, the name of which escapes me at
the moment, where you can influence which of 3 competing factions control
3 camps in the zone.

There is no reason they could not make more places like that, and have
the effects of actions be more or less permanent, and affect one or more
zones.

--
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
August 27, 2005 12:28:47 AM

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

"Graeme Faelban" wrote:

<snip>

>
> They did actually allow player actions to affect some zones in the game.
> Sleepers tomb, whereby awakening the sleeper forever changes that zone
> for everyone, and causes the sleeper to go on a killing spree in varuious
> zones. Great Divide where failing a 10th ring war causes Thurgadin to
> change for a few days. The Luclin zone, the name of which escapes me at
> the moment, where you can influence which of 3 competing factions control
> 3 camps in the zone.

That's Hollowshade Moor. Owlbears, Sonic Wolves, and Grimlings, IIRC.

Crash
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:04:22 AM

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

"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
news:ljLPe.3281$Yh6.371@fe04.lga:

> "Graeme Faelban" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> They did actually allow player actions to affect some zones in the
>> game. Sleepers tomb, whereby awakening the sleeper forever changes
>> that zone for everyone, and causes the sleeper to go on a killing
>> spree in varuious zones. Great Divide where failing a 10th ring war
>> causes Thurgadin to change for a few days. The Luclin zone, the name
>> of which escapes me at the moment, where you can influence which of 3
>> competing factions control 3 camps in the zone.
>
> That's Hollowshade Moor. Owlbears, Sonic Wolves, and Grimlings, IIRC.
>

Yep, that's the one.

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

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:18:15 AM

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

Trust me, Ubisoft was REALLY REALLY bad. I am in a european guild on Stromm,
of which about 80% of the 100+ members are in the countries supposedly
served by UBIsoft. Every single one of them, with one or two exceptions,
signed up with the US based SOE. And this was long before SOE took over UBI
servers.

UBI was infamous for bad service, server downtimes, slow updates (often as
much as 4 months behind the US servers), over charges and numerous other
glitches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125053667.689361.271240@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I'm sure the execs and SOE will say it all UbiSoft's fault. Since
> they were responsible for the EU side and did such a bad job SOE
> dropped them. I'm not saying I agree with SOE but that's their
> view.
>
August 27, 2005 4:39:58 AM

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

In article <57dvg1djq2as8lc4ukd4rbv36cega4n8sv@4ax.com>, jolly73
@boingcableone.net says...
>
> Palindrome <damon-nomad@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> ] On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:18:18 -0500, D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net>
> ] wrote:
> ]
> ] >I have noticed one troll toon, roleplaying it, but after being
> ] >ignored... they stopped.
> ]
> ] Sadly, for an online roleplaying game, actually striving to roleplay
> ] in EQ1 serves zero practical purpose. Sony just aren't interested in
> ] that aspect of the game.
>
> I've noticed that some RPers online go for the fake Elizabethian
> accent... and some actually know what role-playing their toons
> means.

And some do both. Just because they've decided to sound like shakespeare
doesn't mean they aren't roleplaying.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:39:59 AM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
] In article <57dvg1djq2as8lc4ukd4rbv36cega4n8sv@4ax.com>, jolly73
] @boingcableone.net says...
] > I've noticed that some RPers online go for the fake Elizabethian
] > accent... and some actually know what role-playing their toons
] > means.
]
] And some do both. Just because they've decided to sound like shakespeare
] doesn't mean they aren't roleplaying.

I'm sure they do, I have been to a few pnp gamer conventions, and I
have seen and heard it done right.

Of course, the funniest thing in a Shakespear play I ever saw and
heard, was some folks using very obvious Texas drawls speaking their
lines. 'Much Ado About Nothing' will never be the same for me.

Jim
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ August 21, 2005
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ July 31, 2005: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog March 12, 2005
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 6:25:40 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:29:00 +0200, Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:01:35 GMT, Rumbledor
><Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:9wrPe.12637$ih4.9435@fe02.lga:
>>
>>> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>>
>>< word of SoE's crow with creme sauce snipped >
>>
>>Too little too late. They're so pathetic.
>
>Yes,imagine they would have invested the money they took from
>the EQ players to develop EQ2 to make EQ better,what about
>countries outside the U.S.,marketing,merchandising,advertising etc.
>for EQ is nonexistant in Europe.
>Eq is so much deeper than WoW,the landscape is overwhelmingly
>huge now,quests are endless

I would hardly call questing a win for EQ over WoW. In WoW you can
actually go in, talk to the quest giver, and do the quest. I suspect
that *very* few people in EQ have done any but the most newbie of
quests without getting some kind of walkthru. I almost never did
quests in EQ. In WoW, it's the reverse: I'm almost always doing a
quest.

>,it even has become somewhat
>newbie friendlly during the last year,most would like EQ Graphics
>style better than WoW's.

I played EQ for years. Switched to WoW when it came out, and recently
tried EQ again when the "come back to EQ" free trials came out. My
personal opinion is that WoW graphics are *far* superior to EQ1. I've
got a new, top of the line box and the WoW graphics look vivid... the
EQ1 graphics look grainy and misty. In fact, I'd have to say that I
preferred the EQ1 graphics years ago. It seems like they've tried to
add more "atmosphere" to the graphics and the result is that I feel
like I'm always moving thru a fog.

>If they would have done proper advertising,subscriber numbers
>could have been much higher now.
>They even managed to drive their hard core customers aways,
>for the 1st time I wont buy the next expansion,because I am too
>angry about SOE.
>WoW is the number one selling game in Germany,and I am not
>talking about online games only,while on the other hand I
>never saw EQ or EQ2 in any sales chart in Germany.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 10:13:39 AM

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

"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ljLPe.3281$Yh6.371@fe04.lga...
> "Graeme Faelban" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> They did actually allow player actions to affect some zones in the game.
>> Sleepers tomb, whereby awakening the sleeper forever changes that zone
>> for everyone, and causes the sleeper to go on a killing spree in varuious
>> zones. Great Divide where failing a 10th ring war causes Thurgadin to
>> change for a few days. The Luclin zone, the name of which escapes me at
>> the moment, where you can influence which of 3 competing factions control
>> 3 camps in the zone.
>
> That's Hollowshade Moor. Owlbears, Sonic Wolves, and Grimlings, IIRC.
>
> Crash
>

Dawnshroud peaks has similar with the cave.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:20:07 PM

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

"Mark Rafn" <dagon@dagon.net> wrote in message
news:jfd4u2-pv2.ln1@hydra.dagon.net...

>
> >Sony just aren't interested in that aspect of the game.
>
> I think you mean "most of Sony's customers" just aren't interested. Sony
> doesn't do anything to discourage playing the character as much in role as
> you like.

I think I'd actually have to disagree with that, at least in part. While you
are correct that most of the customers wouldn't roleplay even if the option
presented itself, there are several Sony created impediments to roleplaying.

Raid targets are a big one. For the evil characters, theres not a whole lot
out there to kill, unless you go after your own Gods. Especially in PoP
progression. For the good characters, it's impossible to progress beyond
Tier 3 PoP without slaying Lord Mithaniel Marr. (Or at least it was until
they added the "raid into Elementals / Time, loot an item to permanently
bypass the flag.)

Regardless of which Velious faction your character would have preferred, there
was a clear progression through those raids for guilds. Dwarf faction >
Dragon faction > Giant faction. Then after maxing out Giant faction by
farming NToV, Sleeper's Tomb (and keys to the zone), you're finally able to
fight back into Kael and take on the Avatar of War, destroying your Giant
faction again.

GoD and OoW, you're essentially locked into being an enemy of Lord Muram
Mutam, or whatever his name is. Where are the options to join with the
invaders and oppress the poor elveses?

Even beyond that, I would argue that the general game design in itself
discourages roleplaying. The game design itself vastly encourages camping
over dungeon crawls. It's got to be somewhat hard to roleplay that "Oh no!
Shaman Garubish survived our deadly attack again last time (despite us looting
his dead body)... let us smite him for the seventh time!"

Repeatable quests, same deal. After the 15'th warrior epic, you really have
to start to wonder what those dwarves are doing with all those Hands of the
Maestro...

--
Davian / Dearic (Bloodhoof)

"We need a new Mario game, where you rescue the princess in the first ten
minutes, and for the rest of the game you try and push down that sick feeling
in your stomach that she's "damaged goods"... When Peach asks you, in the
quiet of her mushroom castle bedroom "do you still love me?" you pretend to be
asleep. You press the A button rhythmically, to control your breath, keep it
even." - Joey Comeau on increased realism in gaming.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:22:06 PM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:17:07 -0700, dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote:

>>D.J. <jolly73@boingcableone.net>

>I think you mean "most of Sony's customers" just aren't interested. Sony
>doesn't do anything to discourage playing the character as much in role as
>you like.

Lack of discouragement does not equate with encouragement, and Sony's
customers aren't interested because there is no practical point
whatsoever to roleplaying. Sony gives the game various fantasy
religions and diverse fantasy races, but it is mere lip service
towards role-playing. It's a waste of time, because anyone gets to
group with anyone without any penalties - Dark Elf Necro with Elf
Paladin, hey no problem with that! I have long thought of EQ as a
first-person "hack-and-slash" that has chat facilities: it has never,
ever been a role-playing game, despite supposedly being one.


Palindrome
August 27, 2005 8:05:44 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:e7rsg190h30avgn60sm2kfqr3ig5she0sr@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:01:35 GMT, Rumbledor
> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:9wrPe.12637$ih4.9435@fe02.lga:
>>
>>> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>>
>>< word of SoE's crow with creme sauce snipped >
>>
>>Too little too late. They're so pathetic.
>
> Yes,imagine they would have invested the money they took from
> the EQ players to develop EQ2 to make EQ better,what about
> countries outside the U.S.,marketing,merchandising,advertising etc.
> for EQ is nonexistant in Europe.
> Eq is so much deeper than WoW,the landscape is overwhelmingly
> huge now,quests are endless,it even has become somewhat
> newbie friendlly during the last year,most would like EQ Graphics
> style better than WoW's.
> If they would have done proper advertising,subscriber numbers
> could have been much higher now.
> They even managed to drive their hard core customers aways,
> for the 1st time I wont buy the next expansion,because I am too
> angry about SOE.
> WoW is the number one selling game in Germany,and I am not
> talking about online games only,while on the other hand I
> never saw EQ or EQ2 in any sales chart in Germany.
>
> Well,as you said,too little,too late.
>
> Meldur
>

I played EQ for years and in the end the direction they took EQ in of
raiding (like having a freakin second job) and the evolving attitude of
them stooping to take my soloing slacker money was why I left when WoW
opened. Somehow SOE just couldn't understand that someone might want to
go around, explore, fight monsters, casually interact with friends, and
occasionally drop buffs on and save other people who had bit off more
than they could chew. Blizzard (WoW) seems to hve gotten that. I play a
pally who actually "gasp" hold his own in a fight and rescue people in
trouble.

By the way, for the earlier thread on numbers, mmorpgcharts.com hasn't
been updated yet reflect the china launch of WoW. The subscription
numbers are now in the 3.5 million range.

WoW is shallower than EQ right now but Blizzard is expanding the PvP
areas and has made improvements to the UI without charging us for an
expanison. I'm sure when they do release the expansion it will once
again set the new industry standard.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 7:19:38 AM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:05:44 GMT, Oberon <Flintstone@bedrock.com>
wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:e7rsg190h30avgn60sm2kfqr3ig5she0sr@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:01:35 GMT, Rumbledor
>> <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Crash86" <crash86@shotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:9wrPe.12637$ih4.9435@fe02.lga:
>>>
>>>> From the EQ2 Producer's Notes:
>>>>
>>>< word of SoE's crow with creme sauce snipped >
>>>
>>>Too little too late. They're so pathetic.
>>
>> Yes,imagine they would have invested the money they took from
>> the EQ players to develop EQ2 to make EQ better,what about
>> countries outside the U.S.,marketing,merchandising,advertising etc.
>> for EQ is nonexistant in Europe.
>> Eq is so much deeper than WoW,the landscape is overwhelmingly
>> huge now,quests are endless,it even has become somewhat
>> newbie friendlly during the last year,most would like EQ Graphics
>> style better than WoW's.
>> If they would have done proper advertising,subscriber numbers
>> could have been much higher now.
>> They even managed to drive their hard core customers aways,
>> for the 1st time I wont buy the next expansion,because I am too
>> angry about SOE.
>> WoW is the number one selling game in Germany,and I am not
>> talking about online games only,while on the other hand I
>> never saw EQ or EQ2 in any sales chart in Germany.
>>
>> Well,as you said,too little,too late.
>>
>> Meldur
>>
>
>I played EQ for years and in the end the direction they took EQ in of
>raiding (like having a freakin second job) and the evolving attitude of
>them stooping to take my soloing slacker money was why I left when WoW
>opened. Somehow SOE just couldn't understand that someone might want to
>go around, explore, fight monsters, casually interact with friends, and
>occasionally drop buffs on and save other people who had bit off more
>than they could chew. Blizzard (WoW) seems to hve gotten that. I play a
>pally who actually "gasp" hold his own in a fight and rescue people in
>trouble.

I doubt that the average playing time of aWoW player is less than that
of a EQ player,seeing rushing people to 60 in WoW in some weeks.
And I dont get your "hold his own in a fight" comment,its an online
game,fun comes from interacing with other players.
Its not that the game itself is worse than WoW,as mentioned it has
something to do how it is distributed and advertised for.Certainly
it was not very smart from SOE to mark EQ as outdated by releasing a
game called EQ2.
And oh my god WoW was published in China *gasp*,I think its beyond
the horizon of SOE,that its even possible to make some money in China.
SOE managment is simply bad and shortsighted.

Meldur
August 28, 2005 11:14:37 AM

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

In article <2j32h1lqtncuf4rp5ja4t1lgj09djigsko@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> >I played EQ for years and in the end the direction they took EQ in of
> >raiding (like having a freakin second job) and the evolving attitude of
> >them stooping to take my soloing slacker money was why I left when WoW
> >opened. Somehow SOE just couldn't understand that someone might want to
> >go around, explore, fight monsters, casually interact with friends, and
> >occasionally drop buffs on and save other people who had bit off more
> >than they could chew. Blizzard (WoW) seems to hve gotten that. I play a
> >pally who actually "gasp" hold his own in a fight and rescue people in
> >trouble.
>
> I doubt that the average playing time of aWoW player is less than that
> of a EQ player,seeing rushing people to 60 in WoW in some weeks.

Hard to say whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. For a large
number of players knowing that they aren't looking at 30 days /played to
get anywhere is a good thing. Not everyone has 1000s of hours to throw
at a single video game... in WoW the people that do finish quickly, but
at least the people who don't can also see a good chunk of the game.

> And I dont get your "hold his own in a fight" comment,its an online
> game,fun comes from interacing with other players.

Pretty arrogant for you to decide how other people have fun.

Interacting can take more than one form, making little "adventure
groups" is not the only way to "interact" in an online game, especially
one that is trying to be an 'open ended virtual world'.

> Its not that the game itself is worse than WoW,as mentioned it has
> something to do how it is distributed and advertised for.Certainly
> it was not very smart from SOE to mark EQ as outdated by releasing a
> game called EQ2.
> And oh my god WoW was published in China *gasp*,I think its beyond
> the horizon of SOE,that its even possible to make some money in China.
> SOE managment is simply bad and shortsighted.

Ok... on that we agree. :) 
August 28, 2005 8:02:18 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:2j32h1lqtncuf4rp5ja4t1lgj09djigsko@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:05:44 GMT, Oberon <Flintstone@bedrock.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Meldur
>>>
>>
>>I played EQ for years and in the end the direction they took EQ in of
>>raiding (like having a freakin second job) and the evolving attitude
>>of them stooping to take my soloing slacker money was why I left when
>>WoW opened. Somehow SOE just couldn't understand that someone might
>>want to go around, explore, fight monsters, casually interact with
>>friends, and occasionally drop buffs on and save other people who had
>>bit off more than they could chew. Blizzard (WoW) seems to hve gotten
>>that. I play a pally who actually "gasp" hold his own in a fight and
>>rescue people in trouble.
>
> I doubt that the average playing time of aWoW player is less than that
> of a EQ player,seeing rushing people to 60 in WoW in some weeks.

Kind of out of the blue there guy.

But to address what you say here. Since I have a level 60 pally in WoW and
had leveled a druid to 60 in EQ I assure you that I had an order of
magnitude less time playing time in WoW than in Everquest to level to 60.
Even with the new expansions, which would significantly cut down the time
to level in EQ, the time to make 60 is substantially less. Probably just a
consequence of the focus of WoW, which is to make it so you can do the PvP
on the PvP servers and still make progress. As a result the level on the
PvE servers, which have voluntary PvP that most people do at least some of,
is very fast indeed. Don't know if that is better or worse, its just the
way it is.

> And I dont get your "hold his own in a fight" comment,its an online
> game,fun comes from interacing with other players.

Amazing arrogance, telling me what is fun in a game in a manner that looks
like the pope speaking ex cathedra. And you folks thought that the Sony
people didn't post here.

Not to mention that, even accepting your pronouncement on what is and isn't
fun (which I don't) you completely ignore the second half of the sentence I
wrote "and rescue people in trouble" which I assure you is interacting with
them. And ignore the previous paragraph. Just out of curiosity are you
saying that not holding your own in a fight (dieing) is what you find to be
fun or is it the "casual" part of interacting that you object to?

> Its not that the game itself is worse than WoW, as mentioned it has
> something to do how it is distributed and advertised for.Certainly
> it was not very smart from SOE to mark EQ as outdated by releasing a
> game called EQ2.

Agreed

> And oh my god WoW was published in China *gasp*,I think its beyond
> the horizon of SOE,that its even possible to make some money in China.
> SOE managment is simply bad and shortsighted.

Really agree

>
> Meldur
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:11:34 AM

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

"Oberon" <Flintstone@bedrock.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96C07A75F7336Flintstonebedrock@68.1.17.6...
> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
> news:2j32h1lqtncuf4rp5ja4t1lgj09djigsko@4ax.com:
>

> >
> > I doubt that the average playing time of aWoW player is less than that
> > of a EQ player,seeing rushing people to 60 in WoW in some weeks.
>
> Kind of out of the blue there guy.
>
> But to address what you say here. Since I have a level 60 pally in WoW and
> had leveled a druid to 60 in EQ I assure you that I had an order of
> magnitude less time playing time in WoW than in Everquest to level to 60.
> Even with the new expansions, which would significantly cut down the time
> to level in EQ, the time to make 60 is substantially less.

I don't think anyone is disputing that WoW has a much shorter advancement
grind. Less time played to reach max level. I think the question is if that
shorter grind translates directly into less hours played per week.

Certainly the game can be played more casually... but are most people actually
playing it that way?

(Yes, that is not a rethorical question. I can see arguments each way.
Curious about what others have seen.)

--
Davian / Dearic (Bloodhoof)

"We need a new Mario game, where you rescue the princess in the first ten
minutes, and for the rest of the game you try and push down that sick feeling
in your stomach that she's "damaged goods"... When Peach asks you, in the
quiet of her mushroom castle bedroom "do you still love me?" you pretend to be
asleep. You press the A button rhythmically, to control your breath, keep it
even." - Joey Comeau on increased realism in gaming.
August 30, 2005 4:16:26 AM

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

"Davian" <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote in
news:SPidnWNSgYcS84_eRVn-2Q@adelphia.com:

>
>
> "Oberon" <Flintstone@bedrock.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96C07A75F7336Flintstonebedrock@68.1.17.6...
>> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>> news:2j32h1lqtncuf4rp5ja4t1lgj09djigsko@4ax.com:
>>
>
>> >
>> > I doubt that the average playing time of aWoW player is less than
>> > that of a EQ player,seeing rushing people to 60 in WoW in some
>> > weeks.
>>
>> Kind of out of the blue there guy.
>>
>> But to address what you say here. Since I have a level 60 pally in
>> WoW and had leveled a druid to 60 in EQ I assure you that I had an
>> order of magnitude less time playing time in WoW than in Everquest to
>> level to 60. Even with the new expansions, which would significantly
>> cut down the time to level in EQ, the time to make 60 is
>> substantially less.
>
> I don't think anyone is disputing that WoW has a much shorter
> advancement grind. Less time played to reach max level. I think the
> question is if that shorter grind translates directly into less hours
> played per week.
>
> Certainly the game can be played more casually... but are most people
> actually playing it that way?
>
> (Yes, that is not a rethorical question. I can see arguments each
> way. Curious about what others have seen.)
>

Playing styles range all over. As would be expected the PvP server
players spend much more time in PvP but even on the PvE servers some
people spend substantial amounts of time in PvE, and some spend none.
The amount played ranges from very casual, a couple of hours on the
weekend (many of the quests can be done in under 2 hours), to full blown
living on the server (commoner on the PvP servers) I would have to say
that most people are more casual than you would have seen in EQ at the
same stage of development. The shear number of players, just passed 4
million, http://www.blizzard.com/press/050829-wow.shtml , and the limited
number of hard core gamers makes that hard to avoid.

Blizzard is scurrying to provide more top end encounters in instances. I
don't think they were prepared for the shear number of players and the
rate at which some of their player base would level. But they are
steadily adding new content while constantly fighting with the server
loads. They are in the same predicament as the red queen; they're going
to have to run to stay in place.

And to get anywhere they're going to have to run twice as hard. ;-)
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 7:52:34 PM

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

Rumbledor wrote:
>>
>>I was talking to a friend who plays EQ2 almost exclusively, and she
>>told me that major changes were upcoming for EQ2, I did not realize
>>they were that major. I knew that spells and abilities were being
>>redone significantly. Anyway, I am with you on this. EQ still holds
>>a lot more interest for me than EQ2, I gave it a pretty fair shot, and
>>found it lacking for me, largely due to the feeling of being coddled
>>along and protected from the evil other players who might interfere
>>with what I am doing.
>>
>
>
> I agree, though I felt it's biggest downside was the fact that it seemed
> they were just unable to mask the fact that combat had been over-
> simplified so as to allow them complete control over all encounters from
> a balancing standpoint. Add to that the fact that there were really only
> 4 classes in the game (spare me the "all priests heal but they do it in
> totally different ways" speech, people - that approach just didn't cut
> it).
>

I agree with both of those criticisms. EQ2 has enough positives to
have kept me as a regular player but I've been wavering recently
for just those reasons.

Now it appears that EQ2 is getting something close to a complete
overhaul. I've just read a whole bunch of official posts about it
in the SOE forums, it's a dizzying list of changes. Literally
every class's spells/abilities list is being redone from top to
bottom, and a variety of game-wide changes are being made even
before factoring in the upcoming major expansion. The key overall
objectives seem to be:

-- undo EQ2's "locked" combat system, but without opening the door
completely for kill-stealing;
-- make the difference in difficulty between normal mobs and
"epics" more stark so that the latter are really truly difficult
for a single group to take down and really require 2 or 3 groups,
but without requiring EQ1-scale raiding to achieve top-end content;
-- sharply increase the functional diffrentiation between sub-classes.

There are also a variety of lesser adjustments, and the expansion
has some interesting-looking stuff too, but those are the critical
points. I dunno if they can pull all that off in one fell swoop
without a whole bunch of gamebalance chaos, but they are running a
full beta of the changes plus the expansion and are doing a good
job of communicating about the changes as they work on them. So
I'm cautiously optimistic.
!