Thott on Kunark - Page 2

Slave · #11 03-22-2011, 05:45 PM

"It takes from 35 to 50 days /played to get from 51 to 60."

If you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really SUCK, and most of that time is spent chatting with people. When you don't chat, you are raising your swimming or begging skill.

This whole article is beyond out of whack with that as a premise, sorry. lol

Messianic · #12 03-22-2011, 06:09 PM

I think I had 25-30 days played - total - when I hit 60.

UrsusMajor · #13 03-22-2011, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fugazi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't forget that EQ back then didn't have any kind of competition. Nowadays, the attention-span of a game is radically shorter and you need to pack a punch in the time you're given to make a lasting impression. If EQ was released now, with newer graphics but the gameplay of 1999, we'd laugh at it and call it utter shit. The time invested does not warrant the rewards (xp/loot), that's why EQlive steered away from the original.

Don't forget that McQuaid based EQ pretty much on AD&D. There you level once every so many sessions, while a computer has to reward you each time you play. In 1999 they had the luxury to succeed with this approach, in 2011 such an approach is destined to fail.

How do you KNOW it's destined to fail? Nobody has even tried something like it since DAoC? When WoW first came out it took much longer to actually level than it does now and I don't remember people complaining. You have a large number of people playing on P99, you have an even larger number of people playing on the two EQ Live timelocked progression servers.

Do I think a game with a long leveling process would draw the millions that WoW has, no, but I don't think any game can actually do that. Do I think a game with a long leveling curve could actually be successful today, yes I do.

Grizlor · #14 03-22-2011, 07:43 PM

I had like 94 days /played when I hit 60. God I sucked.

mwatt · #15 03-22-2011, 07:50 PM

I think that whether one will agree or disagree with the main premise of this article is based upon one's basic approach to this type of game. There are two basic "types" of people in the MMO world:

A) People who don't consider that they have "won" the game until max level. They want to reach max level so the "real" game can begin, which is more or less "raiding", or in some scenarios, "PVP".

B) People who "win" every level because they appreciate the game for the journey, as much or more than they appreciate it for the end game.

Most gamers, at least these days, probably belong to camp "A". So for correctness based upon sheer numbers, the article probably espouses a real truth of sorts. I belong to camp "B". I suspect that simply by virtue of being here, so do many of the other players in Project 1999. It is a sadness to me that there are so many players in the world who would fit into camp "A".

Felizcat · #16 03-22-2011, 10:22 PM

For the pvp crowd, leveling is just a race. First to max level is king of the hill for a while and can grief lower levels and probably has access to better pvp-gear faster. How often have you heard in betas, early-access time or the first week: What's the endgame going to be like? Crazy.

The other fast leveling crowd are of course the raiders, who have to be the first to kill the T1/2 bosses first on their servers. Nothing less will do. All energy is put into leveling and gearing up. However, I've seen a couple of times where the top raiders are actually fully immersed in the game, lore and tradeskills, not just the raid. They just have so much more time on their hands to get there. Some Ambition helps as well.

gnomishfirework · #17 03-23-2011, 12:40 AM

Seriously, I felt like 59-60 alone took longer than 60-65.

It took me over a year to get my first char to 60.

My next 60 took a great deal less time, but this was on stromm with pop already out. I'd say it will take me two to three months to go from 50-60.

The thing about eq, though, is you can raid before 60. I raided a shit ton of content on my enchanter and got epic and never got 60.

I don't think grinding like EQ is the ideal way to progress, but I enjoy it a million times more than the quest based leveling systems. I play an MMO to play with people. Not myself.

Rael · #18 03-23-2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrsusMajor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How do you KNOW it's destined to fail? Nobody has even tried something like it since DAoC?

Vanguard, but that failed due to a rushed release/bugs more than anything.

yorumi · #19 03-23-2011, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Vanguard, but that failed due to a rushed release/bugs more than anything.

Vanguard really wasn't a classic eq style game when it launched. They said that is what they were making but it's not what they ended up making. By the time the game was release it was largely a WoW clone.

More than anything vanguard is an example that a classic eq style game would work. Think about all the buzz that was generated when it was thought it was a going to be like classic eq made by the creator of eq. Then when they utterly failed to deliver anything remotely like that it was a commercial disaster.

fugazi · #20 03-23-2011, 08:45 AM

A classic EQ 'style' game, sure. But Classic EQ? Where you lose 20-40 minutes of your play-time every time you die? Where you can spend 2-4 hours looking for a group as a warrior while soloing for pitiful xp? That shit don't fly no more [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]