Classic EQ with modern graphics

[t0lkien]

If Classic EQ up to Velious was remade with a completely modern, cutting edge graphics engine, who would play it?

I'm talking precisely the same - same spawns, same mechanics, same feel, same dimensions, same build. It would basically just be a port, a cut and paste of layout with a new (but totally authentic) graphical and artistic update. No fiddling with things to improve them unless absolutely required by the move to new tech (collision differences etc.).

The things updated would be:


all world mesh (the current layouts pasted into Maya etc. and overlayed with new, much higher detailed treatments, but all dimensions kept where possible)
all character models and animations
all textures
all effects
all sound
all UI elements


I'm interested in hearing from those who would find such a game appealing, not in generating another thread of debate on the topic, just FYI ;)

I'd also love to hear any comment from the devs on p99 as to the viability of maintaining all or most of the underlying client and server code, and just changing out the graphics engine i.e. would it be mostly possible, or would it require a complete rewrite (from their experience with code base)?

[Cippofra]

I would play out of a desire to see how different things look, not really for the experience, which is what I'm here for now. Most people are here because they don't like what new MMO's offer, sometimes that include the graphics. Just look at the pretty widespread dislike towards the Luclin character models. I like the old models, because the cartoony feel of the game makes it more interesting. An ogre isn't supposed to look like some scary monster. They're meant to look fat and retarded.

[Folopak]

I wouldn't mind a graphics update I've tryed getting some friends to try p99 but the graphics just turned them off to the game

[Razdeline]

I would like a Graphic's update, and here is one in the works for P99:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28572&page=22

But a cutting edge engine that could "redesign" classic eq mechanics would be awesome. The game would have to FEEL the same.

[Arrisard]

I would play out of a desire to see how different things look, not really for the experience, which is what I'm here for now. Most people are here because they don't like what new MMO's offer, sometimes that include the graphics. Just look at the pretty widespread dislike towards the Luclin character models. I like the old models, because the cartoony feel of the game makes it more interesting. An ogre isn't supposed to look like some scary monster. They're meant to look fat and retarded.

I like EQ because it has an overall less overstated cartoon like direction. If I had to pick a modern day art direction that I think would most embody classic EQ, I'd pick Witcher 2. EQ was generic fantasy and the TW2 atmosphere, colors, proportions, and style would be perfect.

[t0lkien]

I would like a Graphic's update, and here is one in the works for P99:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28572&page=22

But a cutting edge engine that could "redesign" classic eq mechanics would be awesome. The game would have to FEEL the same.

Very cool texture work, although the problem with having high res textures on low res models is that it accentuates the low res nature of the rest of the artwork. Generations of tech generally belong together IMO.

And yes on the feel - that's the idea. There would be no point doing it otherwise. There is always a temptation to tweak and change things, and make little "improvements". The mandate would be a faithful reproduction of mechanics and style with a totally updated graphics engine.

[gotrocks]

^^ i just figured out your sig =P

Also, this would be cool to see, but i'm not sure that it would necessarily make a better game. I really think part of the EQ experience are the graphics, which honestly aren't that bad even 13 years later (i mean, they're bad, but its not like, doom bad).

And more importantly, the gaming community as a whole would probably not care :) Just us eq nerds.

[t0lkien]

^^ i just figured out your sig =P

There won't be a bard who doesn't get it ;)

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

I would play out of a desire to see how different things look, not really for the experience, which is what I'm here for now. Most people are here because they don't like what new MMO's offer, sometimes that include the graphics. Just look at the pretty widespread dislike towards the Luclin character models. I like the old models, because the cartoony feel of the game makes it more interesting. An ogre isn't supposed to look like some scary monster. They're meant to look fat and retarded.

Not understanding this simple fact about ogres, is when I first knew, everquest had lost its way.

Whoever designed the new and improved ogre, and eliminated the ass scratching, needs to be named. I want a name. And I want an explanation.

[t0lkien]

Not understanding this simple fact about ogres, is when I first knew, everquest had lost its way.

Whoever designed the new and improved ogre, and eliminated the ass scratching, needs to be named. I want a name. And I want an explanation.

Name and shame!

I'd also like to speak to the person who signed off on the new attack animations, particularly the Half Elf. This is assuming it wasn't some intern.... you know, a friend of the intern who actually did the animating.

[Gadwen]

I would definitely play it, but I think it would be a shame for a developer to just recreate classic EQ and stop there. I would love to see someone recreate EQ with a modern engine and then go on to continue to add new content that was in the spirit of the classic gameplay.

[myriverse]

If by "cutting edge" you mean the ultra-reallistic stuff that's in most modern games, then no. I prefer graphics that are more cartoony.

Luclin models were perfection. And ogres are supposed to look like monsters.

[Aabdel]

An ogre isn't supposed to look like some scary monster. They're meant to look fat and retarded.

Amen. I think it would be impossible to change the graphics without changing the feel of the game. Too much nostalgia is carried by the low res and blocky characters. Plus, I personally always loved the look of armor on pretty much every race with the old textures, especially plate. Went from being shiny and impressive to dull and boring. Anyone remember the luclin-era male halfling plate helmet graphics?

[Scior]

I would try it out, considering I just switched over to luclin graphics a couple weeks ago.

[t0lkien]

If by "cutting edge" you mean the ultra-reallistic stuff that's in most modern games, then no. I prefer graphics that are more cartoony.

Luclin models were perfection. And ogres are supposed to look like monsters.

Ultra-realistic is not necessarily cutting edge - the engine is not the art style. I wouldn't call EQ graphics cartoony at all, though I understand why you say that. They were the most detailed which could be rendered by the tech at the time. EQ was High Fantasy. That's the art style a modern version would have to work to stay true to.

A "modern" view of EQ graphics is already represented on the box art. For example:

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h162/t0lkien/eq_poster_1998-sms-03091_zps56ba2694.jpg

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h162/t0lkien/1783_zps3f5107e7.jpg

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h162/t0lkien/wallpaper_everquest_02_1600_zps697e22dc.jpg

[myriverse]

That box art is cartoony.

And the Luclin models were more in line with what the box and concept art showed.

[t0lkien]

I call the style semi-realistic High Fantasy (which draws from the D&D roots, which drew from Lord of the Rings and the Conan stories - check out all the fantasy artwork from early P&P days). It's detailed and infused with realism, but obviously art at the same time. WoW is cartoony. Zelda is cartoony.

But it's semantic really. The only problem I have with the term cartoony is what it includes and suggests, which in the case of EQ is not true. I do get why you guys say it though, and I like that aspect of the classic EQ look as well.

[Droog007]

I would play this game. I agree that the luclin modelers/animators just did not get it. I think they invested too much time stretching the limits of the engine when a very basic make-over could have been executed beautifully. I would have liked to have seen armor get some modest dimensions instead of just new textures (not bashing SoV skins though), and weapons stowed when not in combat... other than that just a few more polygons and some polish.

The real culprit was the addition of mounts, I believe. Trying to make each model look like they could believably mount and ride a horse drove a lot of artistic mistakes...

Blizzard made all the right moves here...

[TarukShmaruk]

Luclin models were perfection. And ogres are supposed to look like monsters.



Luclin models were perfection.



perfection.

what

A "modern" view of EQ graphics is already represented on the box art. For example:

No, this was just a rendition of a particular artist that they used and nothing more. This isn't/wasn't Blizzard where they had a unified art direction for the game.

The original in-game art direction of ogres/trolls was done that way for a reason - and it wasn't just because they were low poly. They had an animation for scratching their ass.

A huge chunk of people detest the Luclin models for a reason - they are devoid of personality. The trolls/ogres look ridiculous.

[t0lkien]

what



No, this was just a rendition of a particular artist that they used and nothing more. This isn't/wasn't Blizzard where they had a unified art direction for the game.

The original in-game art direction of ogres/trolls was done that way for a reason - and it wasn't just because they were low poly. They had an animation for scratching their ass.

A huge chunk of people detest the Luclin models for a reason - they are devoid of personality. The trolls/ogres look ridiculous.

I didn't like anything about Luclin art beyond the higher fidelity, including the models and animations. It was amateur (the attack animations were embarrassing), and without any feeling for what went before it. However, the box art on classic expansions represents a good example of what the game would have looked like had it been made on current/future tech. Nothing companies release artistically is "one person's rendition". Trust me on this. There would have been 5 different people sign off on those drawings, and there would have been several revisions of them at least before that point.

The box art is an example only. The main source is the game itself. I'm the last person you have to convince of the nastiness of what happened after Velious - both art and systems, which they broke beyond repair.

[Nulak]

Hi, if EQ wasnt own by SOE, some rich indie guy could just kickstarter this idea "hey EQ1 classic in HD" = 10 000 000 $ in a week...

[Treefall]

Hi, if EQ wasnt own by SOE, some rich indie guy could just kickstarter this idea "hey EQ1 classic in HD" = 10 000 000 $ in a week...

There are a ton of kickstarter remakes/spiritual successors to games.

There is nothing stopping someone from making a near perfect clone with a knock-off name.

[Khaleesi]

I would like a Graphic's update, and here is one in the works for P99:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28572&page=22

But a cutting edge engine that could "redesign" classic eq mechanics would be awesome. The game would have to FEEL the same.

And this as well :

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18950
Which leads to :
http://enbdev.com/enbseries/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1488&p=28556&sid=54f89f8d46097429dc92d75443498c0d#p28556

/sign the ENB thread!

[mtb tripper]

I prefer the pixel graphics honestly

[t0lkien]

You can't touch EQ without a deal with Sony. The EMU's exist because Sony doesn't seem to care much about classic EQ, but technically they could force them to all shut down if they wanted to. So there's no way to Kickstart this.

Also, to make a complete new game from the ground up which is pretty much a thinly disguised copy of EQ firstly wouldn't work I don't think, is a massive undertaking because you have to regenerate all the code underlying the game, but also risks litigation anyway.

The only real way is to get the licence from Sony, and with EQN coming out I doubt they will be interested in touching it (splits the player base). But.... you never know ;)

[mtb tripper]

Might as well run naked through a cotton patch

[Nogdar]

If it's done right and the epic feeling is still there, I'd love to see a modern-graphics EQ classic, I'd play foshor.

Wait for EQ Next reveal before you code it all tho bro.. just to make sure :D

[beentheredonethat]

I always liked the old models the most. I don't know why, but the new ogres and trolls just don't look as cool as old models. EQ messed that one up.

Maybe modern graphics would make it better, I think it's hard to keep the simple world feeling to it though. I remember they did upgrade graphics in some expansion and it just didn't make sense.

[Arclyte]

That box art is cartoony.

And the Luclin models were more in line with what the box and concept art showed.

no

[RevengeofGio]

I think the game would fail (sorry).

Too many classes are simply easy mechanically in the origial EQ. You'd have to update the lacking classes, remove penalities that don't make sense and buff certain classes.

Sorry anyone that would leave ranger as is and call it good game design is probably pretty high on the idiot meter.

"Lets make a class that really doesn't have a role!" .. Mediocre at a bunch of things and good at none.

[stormlord]

I think the game would fail (sorry).

Too many classes are simply easy mechanically in the origial EQ. You'd have to update the lacking classes, remove penalities that don't make sense and buff certain classes.

Sorry anyone that would leave ranger as is and call it good game design is probably pretty high on the idiot meter.

"Lets make a class that really doesn't have a role!" .. Mediocre at a bunch of things and good at none.
The druid was mediocre in groups. They had a lot of dots and dots don't work well in groups. Their heal wasn't on the level of a cleric. So were necromancers. They also had a lot of dots. But both these classes were really good at soloing. Rangers, by comparison, were (far) better than warriors at soloing, and while ok in groups, their dps and tanking ability falls short of the classes that focus on those things.

I still feel to this day that there was something in the code that genuinely made rangers overpowered. That's why they added the exp penalty. Unfortunately, it's missed on the vast majority of us. My guess is it was an argument made on loose logic and in the long run failed. Maybe, for example, they thought root or snare was too powerful. However, it turned out that dps and tanking were more important for the ranger in a group and the ranger wasn't good enough at those things. Clearly, the classes that focused on something were more popular and made it to the higher levels at a greater rate.

Maybe they did make a bad build, kind of like how players do that in skill-based games.

Go here to see how the class popularity fared on project 1999:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=768007&postcount=48

You can see the paladins and shadowknights had worse (lasting) popularity than rangers. In fact, rangers did better than druids at translating popularity in -all- previous level tiers to max level.

Of course, the popularity of rangers, like paladins and shadowknights, never exceeded about 9% of the class population share, and at max level, never exceeded 2%. (note: on this particular chart)

Btw, I played a ranger starting in Mar 99. I didn't even know back then that they had an exp penalty. I liked to be able to do lots of different things, whether on my own or in a group. Another reason I liked them was their connection to the forest and their ability to wield weapons effectively - I'm not a pure caster. I later created another ranger in 2001 (i think) on a different server and played him for several years after.

[Messianic]

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

[Droog007]

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

Classic EQ deserved / deserves a graphics makeover that didn't / doesn't utterly suck... I think that's really all the OP is driving at.

I like the old-school graphics as much as anyone, but I won't say they are flawless. Proportions an animations should be untouched, essentially... Rounder boobs, hookpoints for weapons when out of combat... that sort of thing, could be awesome.

Enough to make it mass-marketable again? Probably not.

[fadetree]

Rangers were originally too powerful in beta; they were the equivalent of the classic OP tank/mage archetype. So, they got whacked. Too hard imo, but oh well.

Thats not where the hybrid penalty came form tho, I don't think, I think it was from a general idea found in DD games about multiclassing.

[TarukShmaruk]

I didn't like anything about Luclin art beyond the higher fidelity, including the models and animations. It was amateur (the attack animations were embarrassing), and without any feeling for what went before it. However, the box art on classic expansions represents a good example of what the game would have looked like had it been made on current/future tech. Nothing companies release artistically is "one person's rendition". Trust me on this. There would have been 5 different people sign off on those drawings, and there would have been several revisions of them at least before that point.

The box art is an example only. The main source is the game itself. I'm the last person you have to convince of the nastiness of what happened after Velious - both art and systems, which they broke beyond repair.

You're looking at how things are now, not how things were then.

Have you watched the documentary about EQ and how it was made? This was all experimental for them. Hell back in '97-'98 when this was in development games didn't have the massive studios that they do now.

It was literally a couple of dudes that got in touch with an artist and said "yeah that looks great" - and to be fair the box art was pretty good except for the ogres and trolls.

There is literally nothing in common with the art direction on the box for those two races and their implementation in the game - it wasn't just a technological limitation, there was a clear effort to make the trolls and ogres look goofy and cute, which doesn't match up with the box art at all.

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

This is a really silly point of view that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I'm sure someone said that about the original XCOM - and then firaxis came along and made XCOM:EU and it was fucking awesome.

That's the great thing about the medium of video games - remakes and sequels can improve so much on the original, yet maintain the fiber of what the original was all about.

Lastly, one thing EQ has gotten right that few MMOs do is how fluid the game feels. EQ plays very well and is very responsive - you'll notice the difference in the engine here with other MMOs like DAOC or SWTOR etc.

[RevengeofGio]

The druid was mediocre in groups. They had a lot of dots and dots don't work well in groups. Their heal wasn't on the level of a cleric. So were necromancers. They also had a lot of dots. But both these classes were really good at soloing. Rangers, by comparison, were better than average at soloing, and while ok in groups, their dps and tanking ability falls short of the classes that focus on those things.

I still feel to this day that there was something in the code that genuinely made rangers overpowered. That's why they added the exp penalty. Unfortunately, it's missed on the vast majority of us. My guess is it was an argument made on loose logic and in the long run failed. Maybe, for example, they thought root or snare was too powerful. However, it turned out that dps and tanking were more important for the ranger in a group and the ranger wasn't good enough at those things. Clearly, the classes that focused on something were more popular and made it to the higher levels at a greater rate.

Go here to see how the class popularity fared on project 1999:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=768007&postcount=48

You can see the paladins and shadowknights had worse (lasting) popularity than rangers. In fact, rangers did better than druids at translating popularity in -all- previous level tiers to max level.

Of course, the popularity of rangers, like paladins and shadowknights, never exceeded about 9% of the class population share, and at max level, never exceeded 2%. (note: on this particular chart)

Btw, I played a ranger starting in Mar 99. I didn't even know back then that they had an exp penalty.

I played a ranger back in 99 also.

Here's the thing... you're just wrong. Who solos worse than rangers? Rogues, warriors, clerics and *maybe* paladins (they can fight undead pretty well).

So how can that be better than average? Its actually mediocre or worse.

They were one of the least desirable in groups also... even druids got more groups and they were much better in other areas.

I loved my ranger, but mainly because of the idea of the class; not because of actual gameplay value. The ONLY thing rangers did well was track in classic EQ... that's it. You can insinuate that people don't get it, but they do.... the class blows.

Give something that the ranger does better than the majority of other classes besides track?

[TarukShmaruk]

^^

I'm not sure who you are arguing against here. SOE themselves acknowledged this as they started giving rangers/sks/paladins their own stuff in later expansions, instead of just shitty warrior skills and low level druid/necro/cleric spells.

[RevengeofGio]

^^

I'm not sure who you are arguing against here. SOE themselves acknowledged this as they started giving rangers/sks/paladins their own stuff in later expansions, instead of just shitty warrior skills and low level druid/necro/cleric spells.

The guy I quoted.

[t0lkien]

You're looking at how things are now, not how things were then.

Have you watched the documentary about EQ and how it was made? This was all experimental for them. Hell back in '97-'98 when this was in development games didn't have the massive studios that they do now.

No but I'd love to! Do you have a link?

It was literally a couple of dudes that got in touch with an artist and said "yeah that looks great" - and to be fair the box art was pretty good except for the ogres and trolls.

Everyone seems a little stuck on the ogres and trolls. I'm only referencing the box art as a style (because I was answering something someone said). I agree about the ogres and trolls, and the only way to do them would be to remain true to the pre-Luclin ingame versions. That's a given. Any modern revamp of graphics would have to look like the game now only with the detail suddenly dialed in. To do less would be a failure.

Lastly, one thing EQ has gotten right that few MMOs do is how fluid the game feels. EQ plays very well and is very responsive - you'll notice the difference in the engine here with other MMOs like DAOC or SWTOR etc.

I'm actually happy someone else has noticed this. It's one of my "tent pegs" about EQ and what has happened to the genre since. People have raved about WoW's fluidity, and really top class animations aside, it feels slow and unresponsive compared to EQ. That has a lot to do with movement speed too. WoW's movement speed was always slow by design, and was the thing I disliked about it most (even when I was loving beta and vanilla). WoW set a lot of precedents that have been negative actually, and devs are still putting the tracing paper over it when they build a new game, even today.
__________________

[Khaleesi]

Rangers were originally too powerful in beta; they were the equivalent of the classic OP tank/mage archetype. So, they got whacked. Too hard imo, but oh well.

Thats not where the hybrid penalty came form tho, I don't think, I think it was from a general idea found in DD games about multiclassing.

Fadetree, are you past 40 yet!??!
I hope you've left High Keep.

[Rhambuk]

I would play, only hoping that the enhanced graphics would bring a lot of people to the server, preferably 2k+ during peak hours.

other than that graphics mean nothing to me...

*edit*

okay thats a lie, graphics do matter. I nearly quit after luclin, not only the new player models but the world didnt even remotely look like everquest, yes the moon but it made me feel like i was playing my everquest character on wow...

[stormlord]

Rangers were originally too powerful in beta; they were the equivalent of the classic OP tank/mage archetype. So, they got whacked. Too hard imo, but oh well.

Thats not where the hybrid penalty came form tho, I don't think, I think it was from a general idea found in DD games about multiclassing.
I refer you here:
.........
When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors. Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level. We could not let any one race or class be immensely more powerful than another at that final point, as it would essentially put parts of the game off limits to those who chose the less powerful classes...
...In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other.
..........
- Gordon Wrinn
In the low levels, rangers are very powerful compared to warriors. If there were no penalty or shortcoming to compensate for it, they'd be a clear winner. But as they level up towards 50, you start to see big plusses in the ability of hte warrior to tank better. Not only are they able to afford plate armor at higher levels, but the defense tables and some other factors were also updated over time to beef them up.

Take a lvl 17 warrior and a level 17 ranger. They're both wearing approx equivalent gear - leather or banded, more than likely. The warrior might have 50-60 more hp and a critical chance at low health, but not much beyond that. Whereas, the ranger can root and snare the enemy and compliment with other spells and finish it off from a distance and increase survivability greatly.

Many of hte classes are doing similar things in the low levels. They're meleeing, first and foremost. Some of the casters might even melee until level 20. But after that their class overpowers their own desires.

Take a lvl 50 warrior and a level 50 ranger and you'll see the warrior benefiting more from their tanking abilities. And this is really how EQ was designed in its first year and how it followed after. Players learned over time that warriors did the best tanking and rogues and wizards were best at dps and so on.

The game was made so that at the higher levels the classes would be roughly equal. This differed from the early design stage where they made the hybrids too strong. This is why they removed the exp penalties.

Compare this to the racial advantages/penalties. Other than slam and stun immunity for the ogre, you can see that as the game progressed the intial racial stats became insignificant. And when AA's were added, players could even acquire innate slam and some stun immunity. They removed the night blindness too. This continued until there was very little difference between the races at all. Finally, in September 19 2006, they removed racial exp penalties. Here's the link for it: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/history/patches-2006-2.html
- Race based experience penalties have been removed.

[stormlord]

I played a ranger back in 99 also.

Here's the thing... you're just wrong. Who solos worse than rangers? Rogues, warriors, clerics and *maybe* paladins (they can fight undead pretty well).

So how can that be better than average? Its actually mediocre or worse.

They were one of the least desirable in groups also... even druids got more groups and they were much better in other areas.

I loved my ranger, but mainly because of the idea of the class; not because of actual gameplay value. The ONLY thing rangers did well was track in classic EQ... that's it. You can insinuate that people don't get it, but they do.... the class blows.

Give something that the ranger does better than the majority of other classes besides track?
The focus of the ranger isn't to do better at something specific, it's to do lots of different things; a jack of all trades, like a bard. This makes them more solo-oriented. When I was in groups, I always relished passing a buff or doing a root or snare or casting a heal. I know those things weren't a great help, but I loved it. Same feeling would come over me if I could whip out earthcaller and slow something for the group.

I would rather have had better CC than higher dps or tanking abilitiy, honestly. I know that rangers have some roots/snares, but it seems that on live the ranger class was more focused on dps. I love dps too, but it's too linear. CC adds a dynamic to the game that is more interesting.

I'm not saying rangers are worth much in groups, but I enjoyed playing them, whether or not you think they're worth 1 copper. I of course defend the class I played so much (and enjoyed).

Ultimately, the idea of an exp penalty is stupid because a jack of all trades doesn't need a penalty. And whether or not jack of all trades are effective isn't the point. The point is they're fun.

[t0lkien]

.........
When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors. Later, it came to light that the concept of being "more powerful" began to break down at the upper levels, given that everyone capped at the same level. We could not let any one race or class be immensely more powerful than another at that final point, as it would essentially put parts of the game off limits to those who chose the less powerful classes...
...In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other.
..........
- Gordon Wrinn

That's a great quote, and you know, I actually fundamentally disagree with it. One of the problems with modern MMOs is that they are homogenizing everything to be "equal". That is not, and was never the point of the classes from the beginning. To not understand that is to not understand what makes RPGs what they are.

[Nulak]

I would like to see Grinding Gear Games (the guy behind path of exile) do an "hardcore mmo" ala EQ.