Raising the lvl cap past 50+ is what ruined EQ

[senna]

1-50 is a glorious ride, doesn't even feel like grinding. Getting to 50 was fun but going from 50-60 is terrible.

I dont know how they could have done things better, I'm not creative just calling it like it is- shit. And its a shame that they turned EQ into such a level grindfest.

I wish there was a vanilla only server. 1-50.

[Spitty]

I'm not creative

I'll say, if putting your butthurt on display in this post is the best thing you can find to do on a Friday afternoon.

[senna]

I'll say, if putting your butthurt on display in this post is the best thing you can find to do on a Friday afternoon.

;)

[Acrux Bcrux]

guess you didnt get to the point where you grided 5000 AAs, most of which didnt really do anything. 15 AAs to +1 point to charisma, mad fun.

[Spitty]

AA grinding in Luclin was definitely a "fuck this" moment in my life.

Perhaps I don't see why 50-60 is awful because when you're sitting in FG killing non-loot mushrooms for for hours for a single fucking AA point, the 50 to 60 grind looks downright heavenly.

[senna]

guess you didnt get to the point where you grided 5000 AAs, most of which didnt really do anything. 15 AAs to +1 point to charisma, mad fun.

Actually I didnt mind AA's. It actually felt like you were specializing your character a bit. It also turned some classes from mediocre to great. Grinding them did suck though till the mega exp spots came around

[Issues]

1-50 is a glorious ride, doesn't even feel like grinding. Getting to 50 was fun but going from 50-60 is terrible.

I dont know how they could have done things better, I'm not creative just calling it like it is- shit. And its a shame that they turned EQ into such a level grindfest.

I wish there was a vanilla only server. 1-50.

There are many many ways to make 51-60 less of grind.

1. do more challenging content with fewer ppl. exciting and more rewarding
2. form balanced groups
3. change locations and content frequently

If you simply join random 6man groups doing w/e yea its slow and boring.

[Spitty]

You get spells every level.

Every level!

And disciplines.

What is there not to like about either of those?

[Flank]

If they had kept level max at 50, Everquest would've died in 2000. No new content would cause the game to be boring pretty quick. I don't know what the max level got to in live, I got a Paladin to 85 and though they went a little overboard with expansions, you have to have new content to please people, and that includes raising level caps.

[senna]

isnt it up to 100? :rolleyes:

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/048/932/high-expectations-asian-father-YOU-NOT-READY-NOT-YET.jpg

lvl 60 too much already. your brother stay 50.

[Grixxitt]

Personally speaking, power creep via gear is what put me off.
Well that, and other MMOs coming out with an emphasis on PvP =)


There was still so much content to explore, yet the devs kept bringing us to new places to experience it.

IMO if they would have added levels/content for the 50+ crowd in Antonica while leaving gear for lower levels alone I would still be playing to this day.

[Tasslehofp99]

1-50 is a glorious ride, doesn't even feel like grinding. Getting to 50 was fun but going from 50-60 is terrible.

I dont know how they could have done things better, I'm not creative just calling it like it is- shit. And its a shame that they turned EQ into such a level grindfest.

I wish there was a vanilla only server. 1-50.

Leveling 50-60 is a lot harder than 1-50, I'll give you that. The main problem most people have is that they simply don't know how to level quickly.

For instance, if you're in a full group..you're exp is moving slow as shit.
IF you're a solo class and spend 90% of your play time in groups, your exp is moving slow as shit. If you're hunting primarily in kunark zones, your exp is moving slow as shit.


I'm fairly certain that in terms of TOTAL EXPERIENCE, 50% into lvl 54 is technically the halfway mark to 60. So in other words 1-54.5 = 54.5-60 in terms of total experience needed. I love all the newbs hunting in KC/seb in full groups complaining about how slow exp is ;)

[DarkwingDuck]

So.. what would make it better.. stopping at 50, and quitting?.. that sounds A lot less fun, than continuing to game

also. whats with everyones Obsession about leveling to cap as fast as possible. the point of Seb and KC, and old zones.. is the fun, and the camps, and the Decent exp.better yet.. im going to spend all my plat and have someone lvl my character for me.. then i can sit on it, and complain i have nothing to do.. i can see gettin a pl for a lvl here or there.. bored or something.. but come on.. this server has been out for years.. kunarks been live forever, and waiting on velious.. enjoy the game .. EQ classic, was not 60 bards training entire zones. sorry

[Dragonmist]

I grinded plenty of AA's among my many toons years before Headshot,Swarmkiting,and all of that was even valid but now days Ive grinded so many due to those.

Some classes Can have over 20,000 AA's and Level 100 so eh I wouldnt complain too much unless you invested 14 years of your life to EQ and stuck with it as a highend raider.

Most would laugh and call these complaints tiddly winks & bull****!

[Tycko]

If they had kept level max at 50, Everquest would've died in 2000. No new content would cause the game to be boring pretty quick. I don't know what the max level got to in live, I got a Paladin to 85 and though they went a little overboard with expansions, you have to have new content to please people, and that includes raising level caps.

Project 1999 is proof that your assessment is incorrect. People been doing Kunark for 2+ years now. Don't underestimate pixel lust.

[t0lkien]

There are two things that set the entire tone of a game like this - death penalty and leveling curve. Everything else, all the values of what else is in the game (items, classes, "achievements" both personal and corporate) are measured against these; they are the baseline for the entire game.

Be careful what you wish for. You change them, you end up with WoW and its many clones (not saying that's all bad, but they are very different games). You can't have what EQ is and not have the "grind". It's Cause and Effect.

[Tecmos Deception]

Leveling 50-60 is a lot harder than 1-50, I'll give you that. The main problem most people have is that they simply don't know how to level quickly.

For instance, if you're in a full group..you're exp is moving slow as shit.
IF you're a solo class and spend 90% of your play time in groups, your exp is moving slow as shit. If you're hunting primarily in kunark zones, your exp is moving slow as shit.


I'm fairly certain that in terms of TOTAL EXPERIENCE, 50% into lvl 54 is technically the halfway mark to 60. So in other words 1-54.5 = 54.5-60 in terms of total experience needed. I love all the newbs hunting in KC/seb in full groups complaining about how slow exp is ;)

Mmhmm!

But people always yell at me when I try to explain more efficient ways to go about the leveling process, calling me an aspie and going on and on about the journey, as if you can't do everything at level 60 that you can do at any level before then (well except kill vox/naggy I guess) PLUS things that you can't really do before 60, or as if the game ends and you can't log in anymore if you ding 60, or something.

I mean sure, if you really truly only want to play the game in a way that earns you slow-ass experience, then fine. But you damn well better not be whining that the xp is slow.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

it actually is very logical.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/048/932/high-expectations-asian-father-YOU-NOT-READY-NOT-YET.jpg

your brother still lvl 50

[Tycko]

"The grind" does not set EQ apart. Every other game including WoW has this wonderful mechanic.

[flatt]

SO all these comments about the wrong way to get 51-60.. whats is the "right way"? I would like to find the quickest route possible from 51-60 ... idears?

[Cyrano]

Chardok AOE group

[Kevynne]

Chardok AOE group

[planeofdreams]

What about classes without AOE spells, do you just hop in a Chardok group and leech exp as a paladin etc?

[Ponden]

What about classes without AOE spells, do you just hop in a Chardok group and leech exp as a paladin etc?

You re-roll a cleric or wizard and ditch the worthless paladin.

[Sarius]

Would it be viable to have a bard swarm in EJ or BW and you just leech the xp up to 60?

[Kevynne]

Would it be viable to have a bard swarm in EJ or BW and you just leech the xp up to 60?

Yes

[Kevynne]

Enc.clr.wiz.dru.brd.mnk.

Clr/enc/mnk/wiz for sure in ae group.

[webrunner5]

You have to find zones with good ZeM in them and just either solo duo or trio. Full groups are terrible on average for XP. And stay away from Hybrids if you can and get as close to all the same level and it can go fairly fast.

[Kevynne]

You have to find zones with good ZeM in them and just either solo duo or trio. Full groups are terrible on average for XP. And stay away from Hybrids if you can and get as close to all the same level and it can go fairly fast.

Or you can get 3 rogues a cleric an enc and a warrior and rape fest.

[Ponden]

Warriors are garbage.

[planeofdreams]

You re-roll a cleric or wizard and ditch the worthless paladin.

Very helpful, thanks.

[Kevynne]

Very helpful, thanks.

I prefer PALLIES over any other tank, but that's just. E ^-^

[Tecmos Deception]

The issues with larger groups, including Chell's crazy 3-rogue group, are finding a place that can support them + having steady pulls without losing all of the DPS a puller can contribute because he is just pulling constantly.

The majority of the time on p99, a 4-person or smaller group is going to work much better than a full group will.

[Kika Maslyaka]

Personally I don't mind really slow leveling, as long as there is something else to do other than grind - like <gasp> questing. I am not talking wow-style kill 7 wolves type quests, but general idea on being on some semi-important quest where your primary goal is to quest, and all quest objects are level-appropriate, then XP will slowly accumulate without you noticing.

Of course, questing is something EQ never really had...

You either:
1. have this stupid newbie quest where you need to kill a uncommon lev 15-20 named and get a rusty long sword as reward and a few copper
2. You turn in bat wings for xp and faction...
3. few occasional quests that start with - kill this lev 5 mob, and then please kill this lev 40 mob (when you level up a month later)
4. the epic quests (and similar) which are really in short supply and require more grind/poopsucking than anything else.

[myriverse]

Feh. The A in AA stands for Awesome. Both of them.

Apart from the hellishness, 51-60 weren't that bad.

[Tecmos Deception]

4. the epic quests (and similar) which are really in short supply and require more grind/poopsucking than anything else.

What class are you? Have you ever even done an epic quest?

Almost none of them involve ANY grinding (and doing stuff like grinding faction for shaman epic is doable while XPing anyways, so you can hardly complain), and while several of them do require raid-mob kills that you can't get without being in TMO or socking, even those epic quests are mostly NOT grinding or poopsocking.

[Leddy]

1-50 is a glorious ride, doesn't even feel like grinding. Getting to 50 was fun but going from 50-60 is terrible.

I dont know how they could have done things better, I'm not creative just calling it like it is- shit. And its a shame that they turned EQ into such a level grindfest.

I wish there was a vanilla only server. 1-50.


Don't level past 50, or use kunark items. Problem solveddddddddddd.

[timhutton]

I don't understand why they went with such a large level gap right off the bat. They would have done better to cap it at 55 in Kunark and tune content appropriately, and then cap it at 60 during Velious and leave content as it was.

I think that given the fact they switched to a +5 per cap increase down the road it was either not thought out properly, or they were just playing a raw numbers game to try to add as many spells/abilities/levels as they could to help sell Kunark when it came out.

I've never read anything official from Sony about why it was +10 and was later changed to +5 level increases.

[Champion_Standing]

If they had kept level max at 50, Everquest would've died in 2000. No new content would cause the game to be boring pretty quick. I don't know what the max level got to in live, I got a Paladin to 85 and though they went a little overboard with expansions, you have to have new content to please people, and that includes raising level caps.

The level cap doesn't need to be raised to add new content.

[thugcruncher]

I've never read anything official from Sony about why it was +10 and was later changed to +5 level increases.

Well, +10 was a Brad and friends decision, and +5 was a Sony decision, so that's a start.

The grind isn't the important part, the important part is making something hard, so you have this feeling inside after you've done something difficult, that you feel good about. Even if it's just pixels you did something that took time and effort.

Let's use how character's look as an example:

Everquest: look like a fucking chump from levels 1-30, or higher depending on the amount of money and gear you acquire. But eventually look rad, with sweet weapons, shiny armor, and sweet particles. Enjoy a long everquest career of friendship and merriment.

Everquest 2: Look like an awesome archetypal warrior decked out in full plate at level 1, or better yet spend 100 station cash and look like whatever you want to look like, and never change your visual appearance ever again. Quit playing immediately because there's no difficulty curve andof the stupid flashing icon wackamole mechanic.

Everquest Next: See avatar.

Arguably, these features that people "want" like leveling faster, or looking awesomer, or out of combat regen, or more power to do x, ultimately lead to downfall. The only people that remain in the long run are the core who need to be the best and max out all their shit and experience all content. Yes, the same thing is happening to wow.

[Zarash]

I started playing MMO's around 97. I think there were many factors that ruined EQ. There were to many new games comming out for people to choose from. People always want what is new over the old. The biggest factor that ruins games is dual boxing, and is probally the biggest part or why MMO's are not the same any longer.

When you dual box you effectively stop looking for groups. To me MMO's are about looking for other people to play the game with and socialising. The more the merrier.

MMO's are all about me and not about everyone any longer. When EQ first came out people could not dual box because our computers were just to shitty to handle that so we had to form groups to get that good stuff from high end mobs. Thus we grouped hung out together, socialised, and just did funny stuff together. Now mmo's should be called (MMOSPE) Massively Multiplayer Online Single Player Experince.

Also, they do not need to raise levels. They should add the special perks in, and new content with harder mobs to fight. I think the special stuff are the AA's people are talking about? I am not sure I have not played EQ since around 2001. Extra character slots are there for when people are board of playing their main and want to do something different.

I do like EQ, but I also like pvp MMO games and to me the PVP in EQ was not good lol. For most people that played EQ that really was not a factor tho. I started playing Ultima Online in 97, and pvp in UO was great. It was alot of button mashing and knowing what someone else was going to cast. Alot of people did not like UO and then went to EQ from UO.

[webrunner5]

Well, +10 was a Brad and friends decision, and +5 was a Sony decision, so that's a start.

The grind isn't the important part, the important part is making something hard, so you have this feeling inside after you've done something difficult, that you feel good about. Even if it's just pixels you did something that took time and effort.

Let's use how character's look as an example:

Everquest: look like a fucking chump from levels 1-30, or higher depending on the amount of money and gear you acquire. But eventually look rad, with sweet weapons, shiny armor, and sweet particles. Enjoy a long everquest career of friendship and merriment.

Everquest 2: Look like an awesome archetypal warrior decked out in full plate at level 1, or better yet spend 100 station cash and look like whatever you want to look like, and never change your visual appearance ever again. Quit playing immediately because there's no difficulty curve andof the stupid flashing icon wackamole mechanic.

Everquest Next: See avatar.

Arguably, these features that people "want" like leveling faster, or looking awesomer, or out of combat regen, or more power to do x, ultimately lead to downfall. The only people that remain in the long run are the core who need to be the best and max out all their shit and experience all content. Yes, the same thing is happening to wow.

Great post Thug.

[Zuranthium]

There are two things that set the entire tone of a game like this - death penalty and leveling curve. Everything else, all the values of what else is in the game (items, classes, "achievements" both personal and corporate) are measured against these; they are the baseline for the entire game.

Be careful what you wish for. You change them, you end up with WoW and its many clones (not saying that's all bad, but they are very different games). You can't have what EQ is and not have the "grind". It's Cause and Effect.

You don't understand game design. Please stop talking like you do.

Grind is not necessary. If your game is based around how GOOD the player is, then THAT is the progression. You still need to invest time into the game, but that time should be about actively playing the game, rather than doing a bunch of meaningless shit so that you can reach a point which counts as actually playing the game. For example, how many hours do you think the World Champions of Magic: The Gathering put into playing the game? It's a lot, but all of it is ACTIVE.

For example, imagine if Magic: The Gathering cards came coated in a super hard wax and it took hours just to properly scrape the wax off that card so its suitable for tournament regulations. How many people do you think would be playing Magic: The Gathering in that scenario, as compared to how many are actually playing it right now?

The trick with an MMORPG is in figuring out how to make PvE something that requires real skill. The first place you need to start is the combat system. Then after that you need to have dynamic content, rather than static content.

I think traditional "Levels" still have a place in an MMORPG, because it adds a feeling of history to your character and that increases immersiveness, but the game needs to not be about "Leveling". It's possible to reach that golden standard, but thus far no MMORPG has logistically attempted to. Mostly because the people who own the games don't understand how/why; they are too busy chasing the easiest path to money.

[Kika Maslyaka]

Grind is not necessary.

For example, imagine if Magic: The Gathering cards came coated in a super hard wax and it took hours just to properly scrape the wax off that card so its suitable for tournament regulations. How many people do you think would be playing Magic: The Gathering in that scenario, as compared to how many are actually playing it right now?


This is an excellent example! I always felt that "difficulty" of EQ was artificial.
Take CT raid for example - the reason it hard, is because you need to clean entire zone first so you don't swarmed, and because CT DTs every 30 sec, insta killing your char no matter how strong/skilled you are. There is just no strategy around it other than - bring ton of people and kill fast.
Or compare Velious Dragon raids to say Kunark or even Nagy/Vox - its EXACTLY the same fight, only dragons in NTOV have gazillion of hps and hit harder. Nothing really new. Winning strategy remains the same - bring larger raid force.

This is why I more appreciate PoP+ era raids when they started to make scripted encounters - took them long enough to figure that out.

[mtb tripper]

all seems very peculiar

[runlvlzero]

PnP is intelligent and creative gaming.

MMO's are acheivement and goal oriented. But much more superfluous. That doesn't mean their bad, dumb.

But they don't fit every personality type equally well. And "achievers" will always love MMO's because they will creatively seek the most efficient ways to "achieve" whatever there is. Their focus isn't really on the game, its on the metagame. You see this with Diablo II as well even though its a faster paced game. The really nerdy people figured out how to grind out level 80 characters as fast as possible with the least risk involved.

Hence many peoples motivation to max to 60 is not there. Because their not interested in that meta gaming experience. The carrot at the end of the stick is generally not good enough. (I'm speaking from a biased personal perspective).

This is why EQ will always be nostalgia to me and I doubt it could ever be more.

Sorry for the scare quotes...

[Danth]

Grinding is only grinding when you aren't having fun doing it; otherwise it's just playing the game.

There's nothing innately wrong with raising the level cap to 60 or with the rate of experience gain 50-60. The problem was that Kunark tried to be a 1-60 expansion with fewer zones than the original 50-capped game world, with the inevitable result being that 50+ and particularly 55+ didn't have a lot of places to go. Excessive repetition within too short a time causes apathy and boredom.

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

Everquest was not a particularly difficult game. Indeed, it probably achieved its popularity because it was the easiest game of its kind when it came out. Compare it to cutthroat environments available at the time like Ultime Online with its PvP and item looting and Everquest seems positively safe and friendly by comparison. It only seems difficult now because games have continued growing easier over the years as the market continues attempting to appeal to inexperienced players and non-gamers.

Player vs player combat is more of a challenge (and I enjoy it greatly) but other genres are better-suited to it. Shooters provide an obvious example. My own preference is for MMO-flightsims when I want to fight other players. 350 MPH combat through 720 degrees of motion offers far more tactical diversity than anything you'll encounter in a fantasy game.

Danth

[runlvlzero]

Grinding is only grinding when you aren't having fun doing it; otherwise it's just playing the game.

There's nothing innately wrong with raising the level cap to 60 or with the rate of experience gain 50-60. The problem was that Kunark tried to be a 1-60 expansion with fewer zones than the original 50-capped game world, with the inevitable result being that 50+ and particularly 55+ didn't have a lot of places to go. Excessive repetition within too short a time causes apathy and boredom.

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

Everquest was not a particularly difficult game. Indeed, it probably achieved its popularity because it was the easiest game of its kind when it came out. Compare it to cutthroat environments available at the time like Ultime Online with its PvP and item looting and Everquest seems positively safe and friendly by comparison. It only seems difficult now because games have continued growing easier over the years as the market continues attempting to appeal to inexperienced players and non-gamers.

Player vs player combat is more of a challenge (and I enjoy it greatly) but other genres are better-suited to it. Shooters provide an obvious example. My own preference is for MMO-flightsims when I want to fight other players. 350 MPH combat through 720 degrees of motion offers far more tactical diversity than anything you'll encounter in a fantasy game.

Danth

You pretty much pegged it. Though I don't prefer flight sims, but for different reasons. Quake 3 is still my favorite competitive FPS. Something about working against the constraints of the environments, engine, and weapons, is more appealing to me than full freedom of movement.

[t0lkien]

Everquest was not a particularly difficult game. Indeed, it probably achieved its popularity because it was the easiest game of its kind when it came out. Compare it to cutthroat environments available at the time like Ultime Online with its PvP and item looting and Everquest seems positively safe and friendly by comparison. It only seems difficult now because games have continued growing easier over the years as the market continues attempting to appeal to inexperienced players and non-gamers.[Danth

We're going round and round around personal preferences and bias now, however this statement is just not true. EQ was always a "hard" game, especially at the time it was released when there was nothing else to compare to except UO, Merdian 59, and MUDs. p99 is easy in comparison to live back in the day because no-one had the information about how mechanics and spawns work that we do now. It was all a mystery with a CR pricetag on it. EQ always took time and effort. That's not saying it required great skill; the two are separate things.

It's a bit funny for me reading all these posts because you guys put forth ideas you think haven't been thought of or done before. Most of all this has been covered and tried in games systems way before even EQ arrived (P&P), and succeeded/failed for the same reasons that it all succeeds/fails now. However, it's the curse of every generation to proceed as if the ones before it never existed I think. So have it!

[a_desert_madman_01]

Since we're on the broad subject of MMO successes and flops, I do feel like EverQuest had an overall better community than modern day games because there was more accountability. If you were of unsavory character, your actions were held against you. You weren't able to transfer/name change your way out of being a dick. When those options came about, there was a distinct decline in individual character and general trustworthiness. There was no more accountability. The solid close-knit community fractured.

It's 1:30 am and I'm parched. Forgive my ramblings if they're incoherent and/or off-topic.

[runlvlzero]

Personal bias is all that matters. Also tastes and ideals change with time and experience as well. Things that failed in the past may work in the future for unforseen reasons.

EQ is not particularly hard compared to the personal bias mentioned in Danths post. Or other games like...

Roguelikes.

At some point the EQ devs had enough personal bias to create EQ ;p and they made it well. For those of us who have seen the whole game though there is not much to do. CR's increasingly become a case of some external failure or issue rather then our own exploration or fun gameplay. I never die unless its a server issue, pathing, or some bug, or other players (and even then I still manage to avoid most of the known buggy stuff). Abstracting the immersive parts of the game even further. Levels are not relevant in regards to this stuff, except as a measure of time invested dealing with it all.

If EQ were some how procedural, or user content could be easily created by a large community. I would be more interested in it. Even modded EQ etc... the levels would cease to matter again. Like the first few times around. Yeah none of that is a "new idea". Yet it hasn't been tried for a game like this.

And accountability is important. It required teamwork to accomplish great things. Therefore your reputation mattered. Soloing was not the norm. No big studio who needs to bring in a million $ a year can afford to cater to the 1% though.

I would like to bring up that I never played Ultima Online, later on because I played EQ first, and the original Ultima games before that. I also had been playing a lot of MUDs and roguelikes. When I researched Ultima Online it looked cool, but only slightly more deep then Asherons Call 1. There are better roguelikes to play and I do not like "crafting" things as a main focus of gameplay. I did not feel like *levels in an online clone of the Ultima series would be worth it. No matter who they got to play Iolo or Lord British that week. Or what the paper dolls looked like.

[t0lkien]

Since we're on the broad subject of MMO successes and flops, I do feel like EverQuest had an overall better community than modern day games because there was more accountability. If you were of unsavory character, your actions were held against you. You weren't able to transfer/name change your way out of being a dick. When those options came about, there was a distinct decline in individual character and general trustworthiness. There was no more accountability. The solid close-knit community fractured.

It's 1:30 am and I'm parched. Forgive my ramblings if they're incoherent and/or off-topic.

No, I totally agree! The community meta-game of EQ was a huge part of its success and longevity as a game, and I don't think anyone really understood that before it happened - it just grew out of the player base naturally. Designers have since tried to "design" community, and it just doesn't work like that. These things must be held loosely IMO. Build it, let players play.

The depth of EQ's community though revolves around real accountability. I'm a big fan of it.

[Danth]

T0lkien: If you feel the discussion is merely going 'round and 'round, you're right--and that's the very point of it. This sort of discussion cannot have a real resolution. Conversation serves its own end. Difference of opinion is both expected and welcome since internet forums would seem pretty dull if everyone thought the same. Probably my largest outlier on a forum such as this was that I like Everquest but don't love it; it was simply one game of many I played. As such I don't treat it with the sort of reverence understandably displayed by some other folks.

You may disagree with my calling Everquest a fairly easy game, but note that its primary source of difficulty was in the time and effort required whilst requiring no great skill mechanically. I concur with that basic assessment. EQ was probably the most time-intensive game I had ever personally played when I first tried it out (my own gaming history dates back to Pong and Atari VCS...I'm no spring chicken anymore). I never considered EQ a particularly hard game, certainly not in the mechanical sense. Instead EQ demanded large chunks of solid time. From a certain point of view that could be considered difficulty of a different sort.

The wife and I have been together for a long time and treat gaming as a shared hobby. I went to her for an outside opinion. When asked about the matter of difficulty, the wife rates EQ as easier than Counterstrike (a shooter she was fairly good at during that period) and ridiculously easier than any of the mmo-flightsims.* While borderline heresay on a forum of EQ enthusiasts, she considers Warcraft (Burning Crusade era) a tougher game than classic-era EQ due to the newer game's faster pace and tighter tuning but feels it became much easier than EQ in later expansions.

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

I rate EQ's classic community as about normal for an online game of its era, and very much superior to the standard nowdays due to changes in the character of the internet.

Danth

*The wife, to her great credit, bravely tried online flightsimming circa 1998. She rapidly determined that it was a genre unsuited to someone with essentially no sense of direction.

[Borador]

Probably my largest outlier on a forum such as this was that I like Everquest but don't love it; it was simply one game of many I played. As such I don't treat it with the sort of reverence understandably displayed by some other folks.

You may disagree with my calling Everquest a fairly easy game, but note that its primary source of difficulty was in the time and effort required whilst requiring no great skill mechanically. I concur with that basic assessment. EQ was probably the most time-intensive game I had ever personally played when I first tried it out (my own gaming history dates back to Pong and Atari VCS...I'm no spring chicken anymore). I never considered EQ a particularly hard game, certainly not in the mechanical sense. Instead EQ demanded large chunks of solid time. From a certain point of view that could be considered difficulty of a different sort.

The wife and I have been together for a long time and treat gaming as a shared hobby. I went to her for an outside opinion. When asked about the matter of difficulty, the wife rates EQ as easier than Counterstrike (a shooter she was fairly good at during that period) and ridiculously easier than any of the mmo-flightsims.* While borderline heresay on a forum of EQ enthusiasts, she considers Warcraft (Burning Crusade era) a tougher game than classic-era EQ due to the newer game's faster pace and tighter tuning but feels it became much easier than EQ in later expansions.

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

I rate EQ's classic community as about normal for an online game of its era, and very much superior to the standard nowdays due to changes in the character of the internet.

Danth

*The wife, to her great credit, bravely tried online flightsimming circa 1998. She rapidly determined that it was a genre unsuited to someone with essentially no sense of direction.Here is my issue with this... Chess requires zero mechanical skill, while Jenga or let's say Twister, requires a lot. So which is more difficult to play? Its futile to compare an FPS with almost all action to an RPG with very limited action. What makes them difficult are completely different things.

The only truly difficult thing I've found in any MMORPG was getting an entire raid together of non-derpy people. Move away from ae damage, don't pull aggro, don't AFK during a fight, make the simple jump that anyone who can beat stage 1 of Super Mario can make. So immediately when I hear people talk about "difficulty", it makes me think they didn't really understand how to maximize themselves in EQ or any other game. No, this game is not "hard"... But it is very complex. It's Chess not Twister.

It was brought up in this thread, XP in a 6 person group often leads to less gain because they cannot pull enough to utilize all 6 people. A LOT of people don't understand that. Its one of the many nuances of EQ (and other games have them too) that people miss. Then they either complain about how its too hard or how there is no challenge and its a grind. If you are trying to level and someone else is doing it faster you are clearly missing something.

I will say that in regards to the roles available in games, EQ has some easy ones. Stand, CH, sit is easy. But, good luck getting just anyone to split pull.

[runlvlzero]

Hey don't disparage clerics, yeah CH is ez, but they can do other stuff too )

[Bantam 1]

You have to find zones with good ZeM in them and just either solo duo or trio. Full groups are terrible on average for XP. And stay away from Hybrids if you can and get as close to all the same level and it can go fairly fast.

Or just get a hybrid with less xp than you..... wonder why people miss this fact.

[Borador]

Hey don't disparage clerics, yeah CH is ez, but they can do other stuff too )very true. Cleric was my first 50 and I loved to root "mez", pacify, sit aggro kite, tell the group to pull even though I had 5% mana, let the wizard die because I know they shouldn't have been hit in the first place and healing them is a waste.

Personally, I love how you can relax and slowly "grind" out levels in a camp with good item drops. All while having the option of doing something much more difficult with a higher risk/reward.

[Champion_Standing]

EQ is so hard, even keyboard turning housewives can be good at it.

[Champion_Standing]

T0lkien: If you feel the discussion is merely going 'round and 'round, you're right--and that's the very point of it. This sort of discussion cannot have a real resolution. Conversation serves its own end. Difference of opinion is both expected and welcome since internet forums would seem pretty dull if everyone thought the same. Probably my largest outlier on a forum such as this was that I like Everquest but don't love it; it was simply one game of many I played. As such I don't treat it with the sort of reverence understandably displayed by some other folks.

You may disagree with my calling Everquest a fairly easy game, but note that its primary source of difficulty was in the time and effort required whilst requiring no great skill mechanically. I concur with that basic assessment. EQ was probably the most time-intensive game I had ever personally played when I first tried it out (my own gaming history dates back to Pong and Atari VCS...I'm no spring chicken anymore). I never considered EQ a particularly hard game, certainly not in the mechanical sense. Instead EQ demanded large chunks of solid time. From a certain point of view that could be considered difficulty of a different sort.

The wife and I have been together for a long time and treat gaming as a shared hobby. I went to her for an outside opinion. When asked about the matter of difficulty, the wife rates EQ as easier than Counterstrike (a shooter she was fairly good at during that period) and ridiculously easier than any of the mmo-flightsims.* While borderline heresay on a forum of EQ enthusiasts, she considers Warcraft (Burning Crusade era) a tougher game than classic-era EQ due to the newer game's faster pace and tighter tuning but feels it became much easier than EQ in later expansions.

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

I rate EQ's classic community as about normal for an online game of its era, and very much superior to the standard nowdays due to changes in the character of the internet.

Danth

*The wife, to her great credit, bravely tried online flightsimming circa 1998. She rapidly determined that it was a genre unsuited to someone with essentially no sense of direction.

EQ isn't a hard game, it's just a massive timesink.

What I really wanted to touch on though was your comment about the community. I have always felt the same way. People talk a lot about modern MMOs communities being poor compared to EQ, and they tend to blame the games mechanics for that. I really don't think the games themselves have as big of an impact as people tend to believe.

There was sort of a nerd camaraderie that existed online in the late 90's/early 2000's that just doesn't exist anymore today outside of some very small circles. The internet was just different when EQ came out, a lot of gamers had no choice but to be friendly to people online because the hobby was so much less popular than it is now. The chances that you would meet someone at work or school that played MMOs was slim.

No game will ever create the same type of community that we saw on Live. Even here, which is better than most places, isn't all that great. The top end of this server is dominated by people that have the same attitudes as your typical xbox live FPS player or 4chan serial poster.

[apio]

yeah i agree with you, a community like EQ at the start will never happen again. Back then you had Fansy and a few people doing similar stuff, they were mostly doing it for entertainment, and those were 1% of the population. Now the griefers, forum questers, trainers and general assholes take up a much larger part of the community. Its not only true for Online Games, but anything thats online, forums and newsgroups are the perfect examples. At some point people realized they are now anonymous, and they started acting the way they do now, using the game/forum or whatever as an outlet to do the stuff that were unacceptable before that.

It doesn't really matter who started it, the problem is it can't be stopped.

Classic EQ, you can only try to emulate it. If you actually wanted to enjoy it, you had to be there. Its never gonna be the same again, just look at TMO, who do nothing but try to grief people off of the server. This kinda BS started in early Luclin when people started getting greedy and started cockblocking to piss off other guilds, TMO is just a lazy copy/paste of the juvenile assholes who started destroying this game in the first place :)